Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Budget Triple-Screen Gaming

Posted by CmdrTaco on 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."

12 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. what a lame forum thread by igorsalad · · Score: 2

    ...but i couldn't stop reading it

  2. Man buys PC from Compaq on sale by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 4, Informative

    news at 11 right here.

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:Man buys PC from Compaq on sale by amazeofdeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      U+F8FF
    2. Re:Man buys PC from Compaq on sale by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Man buys PC from Compaq on sale by Mitsoid · · Score: 2

      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? ....

    4. Re:Man buys PC from Compaq on sale by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      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!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Not only that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    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 that kind of setup.

    A mid-range card works pretty nice for a single, not-too-high rez monitor. It does not work nearly so well for 3 of them. Consider that a 1600x900 display is 1.44million pixels. That means 3 of them is 4.32million pixels. That is more than a 2560x1600 screen (4.1million). You really think a low-mid range card is good for gaming on a 2560x1600 screen? No? Then why would it be good for something even larger?

    Also notice all his quoted frame rates are "one monitor only." What that says to me is "This thing blows when all three are used for gaming." So it really isn't a triple monitor gaming setup, it is "A computer that has three monitors that can play games on one."

    You can get a good computer for $1000. Lenovo just spec'd us a lab full of Core i5 3.2GHz systems with vPro 500GB drives and 22" monitors for about $900 a shot. However you are not getting a good system for driving 3 monitors in 3D games for that price.

    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.

    1. Re:Not only that by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. just awful by djdevon3 · · Score: 2

    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?

  5. Re:First Triple-Screen Trout! by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

    Klaus, you're getting the keyboard wet, get back in your bowl!

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  6. 3 PCs on lan do the same trick for Doom 1 by Kvasio · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:Really /.? by toddestan · · Score: 2

    Actually, it's the current 20" monitors that are trash. 20" used to mean 1680x1050. Before that it meant 1600x1200. Now it means 1600x900. Why does monitor technology keep moving backwards?