Xtreme Gaming Network
Simulation Racing Leagues => Assetto Corsa => Topic started by: Freezer on December 28, 2014, 06:07:05 PM
-
I have been toying with the idea of three screens for some time but desk top real estate is a bit restricted. Then there is is the cost of two extra screens and ensuring the GPU will run them. I have ordered a GTX 970 4G gaming as an upgrade.
But, I am now looking at Samsung LU28D590DS/XY 28" Ultra HD LED Monitor 3840*2160 for $550 (well reviewed). This will be bigger than my current 23inch and far greater image quality, but will also require a decent GPU.
Anyone already using a big 4K screen?
Pro's & Con's against triple setup?
-
Well, the actual pixel count is a bit off from each other (1920x1024x3 vs 3840x2160) with the UHD losing. ~6mp vs ~8mp. A good 30% extra grunt is needed to drive the UHD monitor.
For racing, the triple screen is better IMO (you get peripheral vision). The height on the 28" monitor is all wasted. Eg I'd swap my triple setup to a single one, but it has to be over 30" and the aspect ratio needs to be much wider. Altho I'm running 16:10 aspect ratio monitors, that's 1920x1200, and I prefer it to the 1080. You need *some* height :)
You also need a special cable for the UHD resolution IIRC. Not sure how to connect 3 up - or indeed if one 970 is sufficient to drive it. (I run my setup off 2x970s)
I really don't think the image quality will be much better on it, unless you consider the pixel size being smaller equalling better quality.
All in all I think it's more marketing hype than real value. But it's your choice :)
-
I think too that the extra peripheral vision you get from triples would be more worthwhile, if you had the space. In motion, you can't really see the pixels, right? Triples gives you visibility through the windscreen and half the side windows, which gives much more immersion and realism.
Marty has 4K screens - it would be interesting to hear his point of view.
-
I also like the peripheral vision of triple screens, and the emersion factor. I'm running 3x23" Asus monitors @ 5760x1080 through
a single MSI GTX970 4G i53570k cpu 600w power supply, and have no problems running AC & PCars. Cheers Dave O.
-
I have a single 4k screen and 2 2560x1440 all 28 inches. 4K is great but I race in triples for the extra vision, 4K triples not possible on my system due to needing display port for 4k60 and my cards only have 1 each so Id need a 3rd Titan. :o That would also mean a new power supply, motherboard etc so I didnt bother. I tried running 3x 4k res and its fine with my cards but that was the main stumbling block.
If I could get a 4k screen equal to the width of my triple setup, with a curve and low input lag with 4k60 or better input I would have got that. Not around and so I am quite happy to play as at 8000x1440 res wide enough I need to turn my head a long way to see beyond the screens. I was looking for 4k gysnc triple setup but when I got my 4k there was no good large 4k g-sync screens, also at that time g-sync wasnt working in surround or SLI. It does now so if going triples and you have nvidia get the highest res you think you can play on your gfx setup with s-sync or get a very large low lag 4k60 screen.
For racing a wide view is better then higher res, though 4k looks so much better I havent raced in single 4k since getting my 3rd screen. I think VR may be the other option and for current high end cards even a 4k rift or non FB alternative for me should be doable and next gen gfx cards are looking pretty promising. These may not be out til 2016 and so the 780 to 980 cards are still a great option and not likely to be beat next year by enough to warrant an upgrade from such cards.
-
oh, on the VR front: I've raced with 3D glasses & trackIR in the past. (which is pretty much a full VR setup)
The immersion is awesome - due to the 3D. The lack of fov (it was on one 20" crt monitor) combined with head tracking just makes hitting the apexes so much harder. I'm no fan of head tracking since. But I'd love a working 3D setup on super-widescreen. :)
-
The 3D glasses I had (Nvidia) were fantastic. The only let down was the ghosting between the two stereo images, which was pretty offputting.
-
The 3D glasses I had (Nvidia) were fantastic. The only let down was the ghosting between the two stereo images, which was pretty offputting.
Yeah. I think we might have had the same sort of glasses. In fact I still have them somewhere - but they only work with a CRT monitor (if at all, after all these years)
-
Well thanks for the feedback.
I'm kind of leaning toward the single large 4K as it would be cheaper than purchasing 3 standard screens and no risk of set up issues.
I also do graphic/web site work in in general use the big 4k would be pretty nice. I would like the peripheral vision 3 screens give but it would probably only apply to racing. There is also the option of adding a Occulus Rift down the track once they get up to speed to get that peripheral view in racing.
Still weighing it up before commiting . . . :-\
-
True, for other games the 4k screen is probably better. For work, though, I find the 3 screens really good. You wouldn't believe how much can fit on 3 24" screens...I've one browser window full-screen, one code in the middle, and on the left a document + skype + file manager semi-overlapping.
I could not go back to one screen for work :)
Edit: but if you do need a larger res screen to do high-res gfx work, then you might lean strongly towards the 4k solution :)
-
I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift and will upgrade my PC once it comes out. But who knows when that will be.
For what it's worth I'd go with the triple screens.
-
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.
-
Not sure it will be to high. Current Dev Kit 2 is as follows:
Minimum Requirements
A computer running a Windows 7 or Windows 8, Mac OS 10.8 or higher, or Ubuntu 12.04 LTS operating system, 2 USB ports (at least one powered), and a DVI-D or HDMI graphics output.
Recommended Specifications
A desktop computer running a dedicated graphics card with DVI-D or HDMI graphics output, with capability of running current generation 3D games at 1080p resolution at 75fps or higher.
-
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.
I don't reckon they'll go any higher than 1440p for the first generation or most people won't be able to run one.
-
You see too much of the pixels on the dk2 and that's 1080. It's like looking through a screen door. I reckon 1440 won't be much better.
My dk2 needs all the graphics card I use for my triple setup. So unless they optimise the Rift drivers you will definitely need a better graphics card for the next version. They might shift some of the processing onboard. That would be more efficient?
-
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.
That's an understatement. Can you imagine powering 2x4k screens at any decent frame rate? :) You need two 980s as a minimum for that
-
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.
Thats kind of one reason I dont think they will make a 4k rift as the hardware needed to run it properly would be pretty extreme. With my 2x titans in SLI I can get AC running at well over 200fps but with a full field of cars it was dropping between 100-80, at this point the game was stuttering quite a bit. So I ended up capping the fps at 61 which gives me least tear and smoothest images. V-sync gives the nicest smoothest motion but at the expense of extra input lag that is very noticeable when right on the limits of the car. This is why I think G-sync or similar tech is almost more important then res. I have driven on a friends setup with a g-sync screen and its pretty awesom. Min lag no tearing and smooth motion.
In terms of 4k gaming the other issue is vram and where I am not sure how good even 980's would be at this. I regularly have 4.5+ GB used of vram when at 4k or my triples setup and in a 980 this would need reduced settings or it would grind to a hault. This is where Titans still are the better option for very high res and on water running at speeds that can outdo 980's still better for that option for me. Next gen NV cards are going to have way more vram then current and I think they will be starting at 6GB maybe going higher. Running higher res just eats up vram, if you have a nv card and I think even AMD does it now you can run DSR or whatever amd call it.
This will upres the game for you and you can run at up to 4x your res. I tried 8K and maxed settings it crashes but turn a couple settings down it runs around 30-40 fps so for 8k we need a pretty big gfx jump. If your running a 1080 screen atm you can use dsr x4 and see what sort of performance you would get at 4k, you can also change the video.ini in AC to another res and do the same. It may crash on some monitors though but I think the drivers should down sample before the monitor and so still output at native res.
-
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?
I'd imagine OR would work the same way. But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.
-
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?
I'd imagine OR would work the same way. But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.
I think they would have to render both frames, from both eyes' viewpoints. Without the glasses, you can see that nearer objects are rendered further apart than more distant objects, so it's not just a duplicated frame. It halves your frame rate.
-
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?
I'd imagine OR would work the same way. But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.
The OR may be a 4k or 1440 screen but each eye is only half the screen, say the current build uses a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 this is only 960x1080 and 1280x1440. With a traditional 3d setup such as with LCD shutter glasses you view the entire screen with each eye but each refresh flashes to the other eye so yes it does need to render the scene twice but only from 2 perspectives its not quite the same as 2x the res. But the way the rift and other such devices work the screen is split in half and so each frame is fully rendered from 2 perspectives but only for half of the screen.
Also it seems the rift doesnt even render to all the pixels only rendering to the pixels in view of the lens so the actual pixels being pushed will be slightly lower then the full screen res maybe 20% or so with just static black pixels. Im not sure if this is how its actually rendered or if its a pic inside the glasses but it looks to me like a screen grab. This shows how much of the full res is being rendered, but still rendering the scene from 2 perspectives will always take a bit of a hit over just a single view point.
(http://timloram.me.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oculus-rift-hl2-01.jpg)
Regular nvidia 3D when I used it a while back was getting about a 30% performance hit over rendering a regular image. The rift would be somewhere close to this but then not using 100% of the pixels on screen should claw some of this back and may get it closer to rendering the same as a single screen the same res with some optimization.
-
Anyone in Adelaide (Wally?) there is a brand new one for sale here
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1152456
-
Anyone in Adelaide (Wally?) there is a brand new one for sale here
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1152456 (http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1152456)
It's not on my purchasing radar for a while yet.
-
Don't 3D screens just duplicate each rendered frame, rather than rendering 2 screens simultaneously and separately?
I'd imagine OR would work the same way. But even that being the case, I doubt 4K capable computers would be accessible enough for the OR to warrant a 4K screen.
Yes it would just render the scene for the 2 point of views but only half res to each eye so it doesnt need to render the full res twice, In a device like rift each eye will only see its half of the screen and this is a limitation of such a device in terms of completely filling your vision. They can use some lenses to make your eyes both see the image by looking straight ahead but focus the light away from your nose a bit but unless using 2 separate lenses even closer to your eyes the system the rift uses of basicly a mobile display with lenses splitting the screen in 2 still has some limitations in terms of fov. Its still much better then earlier HMD devices.
In terms of 4k here are a couple screens I took the other day. I think a rift type device would need to be 4k before Id consider getting it myseld and preferably not with a facebook logo.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a37f/2a67m2r4todrthd6g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2a67m2r4todrthd)
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/5056/2ufu6dfserrt07u6g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2ufu6dfserrt07u)
-
Went from 3x24" to the Rift.
I didn't like the resolution if puts out... 1080p doesn't work for me... had the worst time seeing the corners, brake points etc.. :'(
Will need to have an "UltraRetina" type dpi for it to work for me.
Went back to the 3x24" but then got a new desk and the 24"s couldn't be mounted so I got 3x27" and am now in love with it the setup... ;D
VR will be the future, but not just yet...
-
Went from 3x24" to the Rift.
I didn't like the resolution if puts out... 1080p doesn't work for me... had the worst time seeing the corners, brake points etc.. :'(
Will need to have an "UltraRetina" type dpi for it to work for me.
Went back to the 3x24" but then got a new desk and the 24"s couldn't be mounted so I got 3x27" and am now in love with it the setup... ;D
VR will be the future, but not just yet...
Ultra Retina, I love the apple marketing terms being used what's wrong with using the standard term for resolution. HD, UHD, 4k, 8k etc even better just give the actual res in numbers. Retina was just some clever marketing for Apple to try and make their technology sound better when its just another high res display, they call everything retina when they have a different resolution and most times hide the actual resolution as well as possible so its hard to actually compare devices until you really dig through the hidden specs.
3x27 or 28 is pretty awesome to race in and I cant imagine running a 1080 screen in a rift type device, 4k in that or nothing for me and 4k wont sell many as current hardware to run such a device properly is still pretty expensive.
-
Apple's secret is selling overpriced crap with fancy design to unsuspecting non-technical people, so don't be surprised. :)
Even a little while ago they kept charging something like 5x price for a larger HDD.
-
Ultra Retina, I love the apple marketing terms being used what's wrong with using the standard term for resolution. HD, UHD, 4k, 8k etc even better just give the actual res in numbers. Retina was just some clever marketing for Apple to try and make their technology sound better when its just another high res display, they call everything retina when they have a different resolution and most times hide the actual resolution as well as possible so its hard to actually compare devices until you really dig through the hidden specs.
3x27 or 28 is pretty awesome to race in and I cant imagine running a 1080 screen in a rift type device, 4k in that or nothing for me and 4k wont sell many as current hardware to run such a device properly is still pretty expensive.
I just use the UltraRetina so non-tech (and I wasn't assuming anyone here wasn't) people have a more of an idea on what I'm on about... Yeah Apple references suck, but when trying to get a point in layman's terms without watching eyes glaze over I bring it down to low level. :P
Apologies if I'd offended anyone :)
-
Not sure how we got onto Apple :D - lucky you didn't mention AMD ;)
For me Retina screens now only need to be the equivalent of a VGA screen for me to totally miss all the pixels LOL