Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Games Hardware

Budget Triple-Screen Gaming 133

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the waiting-for-eleven dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A system-builder, Dario D., built a triple screen gaming PC in early 2010 that can still run all of the top games. For under $1,000. See link, and he points out you can do even better with a 2011 build."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Budget Triple-Screen Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    check out the comments in the thread [hardforum.com]

  • ...but i couldn't stop reading it
  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:12AM (#35387668) Homepage Journal

    news at 11 right here.

    • by amazeofdeath (1102843) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:22AM (#35387702)

      Actually, it's "Man buys a three cheap monitors and a crappy Compaq, adds a midrange graphics card to it, makes a forum post calling it a gaming beast". The thread on [H]ardForum is actually fun to read for the bashing he gets.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @05:59AM (#35387830)

        Ya I like how he quotes his amazing system is quoted for running games single monitor. Ummm if you have to run them single monitor to keep them playable (and you do with that mid-low range card) then how is it a 3 monitor gaming machine? Having 3 monitors doesn't make it so. That just means it is a machine with 3 monitors. It isn't a triple monitor gaming machine unless you use those three for games.

        Even then he's clearly lying about some things. He says it runs Bad Company 2 well. Ummmm.... No. BC2 hits a system hard. It runs well on my quad core desktop with a 5870. It runs ok on my dual core laptop with a 5850M, which is about the same as a 5750-5770 desktop card. So here you have a system with a graphics card with half the shaders as my laptop and a lower clock speed, as well as a much slower CPU, and you say it going to do well in BC2? Not so much. It is just a very hungry game.

        My only guess is he feels the need to try and validate his cheap PC as being "Awesome". No, sorry dude, it isn't. It's a cheap PC. That's fine, not everyone wants an expensive PC, but don't play make believe.

        • by Dunbal (464142) * on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:09AM (#35387868)
          It's like those tricked out Hyundais you see here in Latin America. Dude, for all the neon lights, alloy wheels and fancy stereo and upholstery, it's still a fucking Hyundai!
          • by unity100 (970058)
            those fucking hyundais have a reputation for refusing to break down, requiring minimum maintenance, sniffing out gas, and going on and on for decades.

            where i live, even a decade old models of those hyundais still go for prices close to first hand prices in the market. despite we practically have all the car brands that are produced in europe, and some of the ones from usa. (actually some of the european/japanese/korean brands are produced here and exported).

            dont look down a hyundai. people here sellin
            • I don't think he was paying out the engineering quality of the Hyundais, mechanically they are good cars. I think he was saying "you can't polish a turd".

              • by unity100 (970058)
                i fail to see the 'turd' in that idiom, in the image of hyundai. if, what differentiates a car from 'turd' is differently shaped outer steel chassis, and a bigger volume engine, that would speak about not the qualities of the car, but qualities of the person who held those views.
                • by drinkypoo (153816)

                  i fail to see the 'turd' in that idiom, in the image of hyundai.

                  Because these jokers are trying to turn the Hyundai into a sports car, when a REAL sports car has the handling to run rings around them, and to still be controllable at levels of power at which the Hyundai would be unmanageable.

                  • by unity100 (970058)
                    so then looks make a sports car ? or the engine ? or, tires ? what if i replace the engine, and tires ? in the end, they are a fucking engine, and 4 tires.
                    • The engine power, the handling. A hyundai is an appliance car. Good for getting you between point A and B and not bitching along the way. Kind of like a camry. A sports car is one that has traded durability for pure speed, power, and looks. Not to mention they are a lot more expensive. If you buy all these obnoxious exhausts, fancy wheels, etc to make it _look_ like a car that is way more powerful and way more expensive then you are a tool.
                    • by drinkypoo (153816)

                      so then looks make a sports car ? or the engine ? or, tires ? what if i replace the engine, and tires ? in the end, they are a fucking engine, and 4 tires.

                      Congratulations for proving you know jack diddly shit about cars.

                      It's not about the looks, or the engine, or the tires. It's about everything else which is less than trivial to change. It's about having a chassis+suspension design that produces power oversteer, not power understeer. It's about not including bullshit features that reduce the value as a driving machine and increase the value as a rolling sofa.

                      A muscle car was an ordinary car with more engine, but a sports car is designed for sport. For exampl

                    • by unity100 (970058)
                      ok so i changed the engine. handling remains. only that is going to differentiate a modified car and a sports car ? and, arent there sports cars with a lot of handling characteristics ? doesnt most of the handling come from the gravity of the vehicle, the tires, and gearbox ? what if i modify all of these ?
                    • by unity100 (970058)
                      come back when you got yourself a userid.
                    • by iamhassi (659463)
                      "what if i modify all of these ?"

                      Do that and let us know ;) Hey maybe you'll be on /.! "Budget Hyundai to Porsche"
                    • by Onuma (947856)
                      If you're referring to the Genesis Coupe, it's not bad. It certainly going to win a GT race right off the lot, but for your average consumer it is sportier than many of its competitor's per-price. I've heard more complaints about its manual gearbox than its handling -- the automatic is actually pretty nice, and somehow ~50 lbs lighter?

                      Its main competition would be cars like the 350/370Z, Camaro, RX-8, Mustang, etc. It is less expensive than most any of those mentioned, but has comparable speed, power,
                  • by mixy1plik (113553)
                    Chrome accents, decals, wheels, and other kinds of superficial cosmetic crap don't necessarily imply "sports car" just as hanging paintings in your house doesn't mean you're trying to make it the Louvre.
                • I know it's been mentioned below but I figured I might as well repeat. There is nothing wrong with a base model Hyundai for what it is designed for which is basically a commuter car. If you took a tricked out Hyundai and your standard sports car around a race track you would know the difference. The Hyundai would feel like it was made of rubber bands because its chassis, suspension, tyres & centre of gravity etc is not designed to handle those kind of forces.

                  Anyway coming back to your reply, when som

        • by moriya (195881)

          I didn't read the whole thread. But since you said that he brought up BC2, yes, the game hits the system hard. I run a 5850 and my setup is a Core2 Q9450 clocked at 3.2GHz w/ 8GB of RAM. On single-screen, it runs the game butter smooth with all the settings max'd, sans for HBAO (additional lighting effects). But turn it up to 3 monitors, and it works the card very hard. Previously, before having to tweak the game down for stability reason, I can get around 40-45fps in 5040x1050 resolution (that's 3x168

          • by MogNuts (97512)

            In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in your way of seeing your opponent.

          • a 5670? Damn that's what I've got and I can tell you it don't play BC2 at all. Totally unusable because the card only has 512 megs. Yes there are a few with 1GB but that doesn't help since the simple doesn't have enough bandwidt - it's a 128connection. If it was a 256bit connection, then it might, might be usable but I don't know of anyone who makes one with a 256 bus.

        • Hilarious (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          a gamer saying someone else shouldn't "play make believe"

        • by MogNuts (97512)

          I'm glad someone brought this up. In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in

          • Q9550 and a 5870 is what I've got and I've turned up the graphics detail (HBAO is on though FSAA is not) and it runs real well in all situations. I'm not supre FPS sensitive, but for FPSes it has to be pretty good and it keeps me happy.

        • by iamhassi (659463)
          "Even then he's clearly lying about some things. He says it runs Bad Company 2 well. Ummmm.... No. BC2 hits a system hard. It runs well on my quad core desktop with a 5870. "

          It does run Bad Company 2, game looks great at 640x480 ;)

          Here's someone that's proud of his 20" 1600x900 monitors. He's going online and bragging about something that most people toss out to replace. He's like a child that says "LOOK MOMMY I FOUND A BUG!" I pity the kid, I really do. His friends probably all laughed at him whe
      • by Mitsoid (837831)

        Yeah, hate to say it but i'm with you on this

        just because it has 3 monitors doesn't mean it's a gaming beast

        I don't think it'll get 40 fps+ on some of the newer games, Heck I don't think it could handle (world of) Warcraft or Starcraft II on max settings over 40 FPS without some massive, massive tweaks to the OS

        And no AA? Only on one screen? ....

      • by Dunbal (464142) *
        If his rig is a "beast", I wonder what my 5 monitor 3 graphic card 8 core water cooled 4GHz system would be called... Yeah ok I paid more than $1000, but not much more - maybe double.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          looks like the common current here is nobody fucking cares about how much you overpaid on your video game machine either

        • I wonder what my 5 monitor 3 graphic card 8 core water cooled 4GHz system would be called...

          It's clearly called "You have too much money and need to donate GayGirlie some of it!"

          Some would also argue that it's the "Porsche-syndrome"; trying to make up for lack of... err.."hardware" with another kind of hardware..

        • by Seumas (6865)

          I used to think the dream was having 3+ monitors connected to a single system. I even bought three 30" Apple cinema displays and stuck with them for a year. The conclusion I reached was that I'd rather have a single monitor and use multiple hot-keyed desktops, instead. I can swing two monitors, if I'm using one for a set of information and the other for another set (or one for primary work and the other for watching video, perhaps). Anything more than that and I begin to feel the expense would have been bet

  • Anyone can connect three monitors to a PC. I was expecting three projectors or something else like that. I remember that even with Windows 98 i could run game on second display and still have my Windows desktop running on the other.
  • Seriously, I'd pay twice that just to get rid of the fingerprint magnets.

    The responses in his thread pretty much hit my point of view: If I had $1000 to blow on a gaming setup in 2010, I sure as hell wouldn't have brought 3 cheap-ass POS monitors, an off-the-rack Compaq and what look like the crappiest speakers money can buy...

    If I was planning on spending just a grand on a gaming PC, it'd be a single $200 monitor setup with a $300 video card, $200 processor and $300 for the rest (Mobo, RAM, maybe a system

    • But it turns out triple monitor gaming hits the video card pretty damn hard. All those extra pixels and polygons seriously strain the GPU. So whatever a given GPU can do on a single monitor of a size, it is doing a good bit less on 3 monitors. What that means is you are going to lower your visual quality settings or lower your FPS.

      A 5670? No thanks, that is not at all what you want for 3 monitors. You discover a fairly heavy hitting card is called for, maybe more than one card. A 6970 isn't too much for tha

      • Re:Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie@hotma i l . c om> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @06:28AM (#35387908) Homepage

        As for the speakers, don't even get me started. I cannot believe the junk most people use. They'll spend $1500 on monitors (3 Dell U2410s are popular for triple gaming setups) and another $600 on video cards all in the name of a "more immersive" gaming experience and then buy $30 crap speakers to play on. I don't know what it is. Same thing as people who drop $3000 on a premium high end bigscreen LED/LCD-TV, $400 on a high class Blu-ray player, $100 on useless Monster HDMI cables, then listen on the cheap included speakers.

        Some people simply cannot hear the difference or they can only hear some of it and as such it doesn't sound to them different enough to warrant better speakers. Then there are also those who simply are more visual and don't care that much about audio clues.

        I personally would seriously hate such little crapboxes, but it's not my place to start complaining about other people's preferences in such things. I'll keep on enjoying my eight 4-way 200W RMS speakers+sub-woofer setup with surround system in the meantime ;) My neighbours don't really love me, but oh well.

        • I've never met or heard of anyone who could hear with a hearing condition such that they can't hear the difference between cheap, extremely frequency limited speakers and better ones, or who can't localize audio behind them and so on.. They can hear the difference, they just get caught up in the screen for some reason.

          I'm not saying everyone needs high end audio gear, or that everyone can hear subtle differences. However there are dramatic changes from really cheap speakers to normal consumer speakers.

          Plus

          • by wardred (602136)
            1 - People don't know how. It's not unusual to run into somebody who once had a decent speaker system, couldn't set it up properly so it sounded like crap, so just went with the crap speakers the next time around. 2 - While you can have as big and expensive a screen as you want, you often can't DRIVE a nice set of speakers without ticking off roomies, or neighbors - assuming you live with roommies or in an apartment complex. 3 - You HAVE to spend the money on a decent system to run the game anyway. Y
        • by DarkXale (1771414)
          Which is a shame considering how rarely you actually need to replace (good) speakers. Buy a good set now, and you can easily keep them for a decade and they'll still be just as good compared to the competition at that point. Sound cards are no different, though integrated solutions typically do outperform ~12 year old solutions nowadays... when electrical interference isn't in someway present on the integrated (common on Line-In / Microphone ports).
      • As for the speakers, don't even get me started. I cannot believe the junk most people use. They'll spend $1500 on monitors (3 Dell U2410s are popular for triple gaming setups) and another $600 on video cards all in the name of a "more immersive" gaming experience and then buy $30 crap speakers to play on. I don't know what it is. Same thing as people who drop $3000 on a premium high end bigscreen LED/LCD-TV, $400 on a high class Blu-ray player, $100 on useless Monster HDMI cables, then listen on the cheap included speakers.

        I won't try to claim that they're the best but as far as I know I have the loudest computer speakers in my town. [photobucket.com]

      • But speakers are a pretty mature technology. You don't really get much for jumping to the higher priced models. If you keep the volume down, you can get pretty high fidelity from pretty inexpensive speakers, and it gets worse: higher priced models tend to be optimized for volume rather than fidelity.

        For instance, a sibling post has described a speaker set up which would rapidly degrade ear performance if it was deployed for computer gaming and actually used at anything more than a small fraction of its qu

  • Multi-monitor gaming is pointless, and will remain pointless, until video cards can render separate views, or a single view with cylindrical or spherical projection. When people use three monitors, they arc them, in the hopes of increasing immersion. The actual, correct positioning with current technology is a straight line... and it still looks like garbage. Each additional monitor yields diminishing returns of increaswd viewing angle, when people naturally expect a linear increase in viewing angle.

    Peop,e
    • Peop,e really need to stop pushong multi-monitor gaming until it stops being complete crap.

      Unless...you're a multi-monitor gamer playing multiple games. I'm sure there's some savant out there with a dual-everything--monitor, keyboard, mouse, the works--setup that he ambidextrously pwns noobs with on an hourly basis.

    • by julesh (229690)

      Multi-monitor gaming is pointless, and will remain pointless, until video cards can render separate views, or a single view with cylindrical or spherical projection

      The cards are perfectly capable of rendering this, iff the game tells them to do so. That most game developers have not seen fit to include such options is hardly the card manufacturers' faults...

      OTOH the fact that DirectX can only render to a single device at a time and my two monitors present as separate devices with no option to switch them to being a single device on the fly does appear to be partially NVidia's fault.

    • by dow (7718)

      I attacked the problem from another angle. My single screen cost was around £1300 (~$2k) when I bought it a few years ago... probably cost around half that to buy one similar now. I have this 40 inch 1080p LCD on a desk I built myself so the screen is a better height. I turn the FOV up a little above standard in first person shooters, not terribly high but just what feels right to me. I am happy... I would like a few small screens to go around my main screen now though I think.

    • How is multi-monitor gaming "complete crap" if it prints money [videogamesblogger.com]?
  • and apparently he enjoys trolling us.
  • Compaq? Really? It'd be cheaper to just get a simple case, a half-decent MB with OC abilities, etc. and build it yourself. Seriously, add a front case fan to a microtower and the 240 will pull 3.5 GHz (tested with mprime for 48h) without problems.
    Of course, I scale the OC back to 3.35 when it's in server mode.

    Also, gaming and cheap are contradictory. Unless your definition of gaming involves modded controllers and flashed Xbox 360s.
    Guess which one has more FPS/$ ?

  • well i'm off to fry's to build a "gaming beast" from a clearance compaq and some debadged hp refurb monitors

    hey though don't doubt my building skillz i'll need to break the "warranty void if removed" sticker from my compaq to pop that bad boy open to install my mid range graphics card ...

  • The post states that it runs the newest games at the highest settings. I find that seriously hard to believe. Fire up, say, RIFT. Throw a quad core i7 at it with 12gb ram and a $600 ATI and on a 30" screen in native resolution (2560x1600) you will get 20-40fps. And that's not even at max settings. That's at very high, but not "max" settings.

    So I find it hard to believe that this system which came in at less than double the price of a current card but includes an entire system and three monitors could possib

    • Fire up, say, RIFT.

      RIFT is a bad example. It's very poorly optimized. There are plenty of games that look a whole lot better yet don't slow down even with lots of stuff on screen happening, but RIFT actually can start to stutter even with only 5 people on the screen. RIFT with everything at max settings can bring even the toughest beast to a grinding halt without looking any bit better than games from 2-3 years back.

      Other than that I agree; the rig in question is absolutely not capable of running 2010's games satisfactorily a

      • by Seumas (6865)

        As much as I despise MMOs that aren't EVE, I've been giving Rift a go and have to wonder if you've played with the launch client as I haven't experienced any such stutter at all. Even with plenty of NPCs and a couple dozen players or more on the screen with the highest presets (plus a little). In fact, I found myself impressed with its performance after a few hours and a few big public quest experiences.

        I didn't participate in the beta, so I wouldn't be surprised if the performance was fairly atrocious then

    • by grumbel (592662)

      He is using 1600x900 monitors and his numbers are for running games on only a single monitor, not all three. The HD5670 that he is using can do that, but only when it comes to games with low system requirements (i.e. console ports), with Crysis and other demanding games you of course don't stand much of a chance with that card on max settings.

      • by Seumas (6865)

        Oh, I had missed the "only running on one monitor" part. Well, then that's even more ridiculous. Those are mid-range laptop monitor resolutions.

  • What a waste of good internet space. Is this the awesome new low /. has to stoop to in order to find new material to publish?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    >A system-builder, Dario D., built a triple screen gaming PC

    "A man went into a shop and spent £1000 on a computer"

    I'm glad I don't pay a subscription to slashdot.

    • Although if you had we would also have to put up with such gems as:

      "Man bought a subscription to slashdot."

  • I'm really surprised that in a discussion about triple-screen budget PC gaming no one mentions AMD Crossfire (multiple graphics card support) or AMD Eyefinity (the feature that treats three separate displays as one combined display and which allows games that support it to properly run on all three screens).
    • by TeknoHog (164938)
      Actually, the article does mention Eyefinity.

      If you want to use ATI's Eyefinity mode (which I don't use), you just add a $25 adapter, so that you can plug the third screen into the ATI card... however, doing this removes the ability to maximize windows on any given screen (because all 3 of them are literally considered one), and I use that 10x more than I would triple-screen gaming. (also, both ATI's/nVidia's triple-screen gaming modes give you stretched images on the side screens, unless you position the monitors in a perfectly straight line... which, most of the time, I think nobody is actually willing to do)

  • by Kvasio (127200) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @07:29AM (#35388056)

    Already tried this in 1994 or 1995.

    As 486's would suffice, I guess cone could do this at the cost of 2nd hand displays.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      3 Xbox 360s do the same for Forza 2, but that doesn't mean that a triple-screen rig isn't cool.

      I'm on the lookout myself for a 20" 1680x1050 since I have two of them. Their color temp is different but life ain't perfect. I'm not going to win any speed contests with a GT 240 and a Phenom II X3 720 but it does what I need, it was cheap ($700 into the whole system with 8GB RAM and 320GB disk, and a nice sparkly case) and it's all relatively low-power.

    • by antdude (79039)

      are there any photographs/photos. and/or video clips of this in action? I have never seen one in action. I'd try it myself, but I only have one monitor. :P

  • The guy bought a COMPAQ! How can you call someone a system builder for upgrading a graphics card and adding 2 monitors to a pre-built low-end Compaq?
    Also, how can you post on Slashdot as "news" a forum post that gets so much bashing on that same forum thread? Oh, right, sorry CmdrTaco, didn't notice you there...

    Since I had read about it when HardOCP had the also unfortunate idea to post it on their front page, I will give a quick overview of the things that were seriously wrong:
    -The title was something abou

    • by dbIII (701233)

      How can you call someone a system builder

      A lot of people REALLY do think this way - they tick a few options, get a box delivered, then think "I built this!".
      Quite depressing considering how incredibly easy it is to put together a typical desktop PC these days.
      And yes, in 2005 a triple screen desktop machine was a normal desktop machine plus a $400 Matrox graphics card. Not far past that I did it with two or three nvidia cards (AGP+PCI+PCI). These days dual PCIe makes it very easy to have quad desktops.

      • I think you'd be better off instead of quad, using 2 cards with 4 outputs to drive 3 monitors, maybe some massive 32" beast in the middle and the L&R would be like 19"s turned vertical. so the height was the same. That would be more interesting than having 4 screens and a bezel in the middle
  • Most people who are commenting negatively here and on the HardOCP forum are completely missing the point. This is a BUDGET gaming rig, built for running the latest games. Yes, he was a bit "overzealous" in his descriptions, I'll give you that, but considering some of the true "hardcore" gaming geeks would spend that much on the damn graphics cards alone, I think there is some value here. Not everyone can afford the "top, top, top of the line" $3,000 gaming rig, nor do many see the point in such an "inves

    • Everything other than calling it "budget" is a flat out lie. Maybe if he had talked about it 9 months ago, hadn't posted on a forum that is basically about the bleeding edge, and didn't pretend to be the first person in the world to accomplish such a feat, he wouldn't be getting shit on in every corner of the intertubes where this flaming pile of an article got posted.

      Too bad he can't claim in real life that he is the one responsible for so much hate, lest he get bitchslapped.
    • by MogNuts (97512)

      Oh man don't start another flamewar lol. I do want to address what you said about consoles however. And I have a perfect example for you of why PC gaming can be superior, won't die, and frankly, we can't let die:

      Online multiplayer.

      I don't own a PS3. I have a 360. So I can't speak for the PS3 ecosystem. But the problem is that there is no one to play on-line multiplayer. The whole draw of XBL is the online component. And something like BF:BC2, MoH, or CoD:BO are all about the multplayer. Except there is no o

      • With the PC, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Forget even that, with PC, you can at least buy a game and play it online *at all*.

        With the consoles, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Case in point: People still hold tournaments for the 1999 and 2001 editions of Super Smash Bros. Forget even that, with a console, you can at least buy a game and play it shared-screen *at all*, as opposed to the PC market where game modes designed for home theater PCs, allowing two to four gamepads on an HDTV monitor, are an afterthought if even that.

        • by MogNuts (97512)

          You again. Okay, this is like the 3rd or 4th time where you've given that single lame reponse, in 4 different stories, over the course of 2 or 3 months.

          Get over it. That one insignificant strawman didn't cut it the first time, nevermind the 4th. Do you sit online waiting to troll for that one thing in *every* gaming story?

          And a split screen tournament is your answer to online MP? Please.

          • by tepples (727027)

            Super Smash Bros.

            split screen

            Where did I mention any games that are split screen?

  • Holy crap those responses in his thread are cuntish. The guy comes along, builds a reasonable rig for under a grand that looks nice and has 3 screens and they shit all over him with retarded comments like "nnnthis won't runn Rage onn super max duper settinnngs-hai". Half of the responses even openly admit to not reading his entire post. Never mind that most new games don't even take full advantage of new PC hardware anyway, being as they are built for the console lowest common denominator. As someone who re
    • by lyinhart (1352173)

      Holy crap those responses in his thread are cuntish. The guy comes along, builds a reasonable rig for under a grand that looks nice and has 3 screens and they shit all over him with retarded comments like "nnnthis won't runn Rage onn super max duper settinnngs-hai". Half of the responses even openly admit to not reading his entire post. Never mind that most new games don't even take full advantage of new PC hardware anyway, being as they are built for the console lowest common denominator. As someone who recently (about 8 months ago) built his own 'gaming' rig for under a grand I certainly sympathise with his efforts.

      Yeah, everybody took the original post out of context. The guy's point was that you could build a good gaming PC for much less than a cost of an iMac. And the only reason the games wouldn't run on the three screens was because he didn't buy the $100 adapter (which still would have kept the price less than the price of most iMacs).

  • Looking at the spec, I'm sure this PC isn't able to run all the current top games (unless you run at minimum resolution/settings at which point most games will look better on a 300$ PS3). The PC uses an ATI 5670 which was never, even at release date, considered a gaming card; even in XFire this thing would probably not deliver. Had the build included a 5770 and then added a 2nd one later on, the claim could hold some ground, but not this one.

    Still it's a nice triple display setup.
  • So everything thats being ported to PC is now six year old graphics tech. It is no wonder that a modern PC that most of the budget is monitors can run all the 'top' games today, because the 'top' games today are no more graphically intensive then they were six years ago. I am a PC gamer only, and I haven't had trouble running a game in a long time.
  • I built a custom hutch for my 3 23.6" ASUS 1080p LED Monitors (10,000,000:1 contrast) that's 70.8" diagonal screen real estate. 5760x1080 resolution. as you can see it's not a gaming rig, gaming is not very practical for multiple monitors. Multitasking is the real venture here and it's a great help with that. http://i1081.photobucket.com/albums/j353/rpretzel87/2010-10-18_16-22-56_579.jpg [photobucket.com] http://i1081.photobucket.com/albums/j353/rpretzel87/2010-10-07_09-10-58_10.jpg [photobucket.com] hard to see how thin they are but it loo
  • So here's the major problem with multi-screen gaming. Well, a couple problems actually. Prior to my build of a 3x 30" 2560x1600 gaming rig, I knew going in that one of the problems would be the same problem top gamers have had since the days of Robotron - too much screen real estate. Playing fast paced games, such as FPSs, multi-monitor set ups are actually a hindrance. I first experienced this with Robotron, in so far as the fact that the larger the screen, the more your eyes have to move. The more yo

  • I have a 5-monitor setup at home, mostly for the e-penis. The only games I know which can support multiple displays is Burnout Paradise and MS Flight Sim. Burnout can use three monitors, but it doesn't do it very well. It places the HUD on the sidescreens with no option to move it. Actually Doom1 also support three monitors, but you have to use VMWare and connect three computers in a virtual network. Does anyone know of any relatively new game that has real support for multiple screens? It would be nice to
  • It's amazing all that relates to tools such as software or can tell the robot makes perfect and satisfying than pleasure. Sotware [softwarepulsaori.com]

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...