Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hello all!!!

It's been a while since I've been able to produce content for the WSGF - but i'm back!!! I recently decided to upgrade my DellU2311H panels to Acer XB270HU. These are 1440p 120/144Hz IPS panels, which feature NVIDIA G-SYNC. Not long after upgrading, I realized that I had put myself in a pickle.

My previous GTX 780 SLI cards only had one DP connection each. To run at full 2560x1440 resolution AND use the 120/144Hz refresh rate - each panel needs its own DisplayPort connection (Dual-Link DVI doesn't have enough bandwidth). So, I needed new cards that totaled more than three DP connections. Luckily the fine folks over at EVGA were nice enough to provide a second GTX 980 for this rig.

NVIDIA Surround vs. Ultra-Wide

First, let's look at some of the key points (pros and cons) I settled on in my decision making process, when deciding between a triple-wide and an ultra-wide setup. (Note: I have not extensively tested an Ultra-wide setup beyond 20-30mins of personal use. I do have knowledge based on other video reviews and WSGF members opinions).

Triple wide (3 x XB270HU)

Positives
+ Better 2D Productivity (more screen "real estate" and more pixels)
+ Extended Resolution of 7860x1440
+ Toggle between single and ultra-wide resolutions (for games that don't support multi-mon)
+ GSYNC, 144/120hz, IPS

Negatives
- More expensive
- Requires more graphical "horsepower" to run at reasonable framerate

Ultra wide (LG34UC97 or equivalent)

Positives
+ Less expensive compared to three monitors
+ Easier setup and support vs Eyefinity/Surround
+ Less demanding on resources

Negatives
- Arguably worse 2D productivity (without 3rd party apps to manage program windows)
- No solution that covers GSYNC, 144/120Hz, IPS all together
- Less pixels / smaller viewing range



As you can see there are pros and cons to both setups. I expect there to be a 34" or higher Ultra-wide panel that is capable of running GSYNC, 120/144hz, and IPS at some point so some of the cons listed are only temporary. Acer and Acer have announced curved ultra-wide IPS models with FreeSync and/or G-SYNC, which will be released in the second half of 2015, but these only go to 75Hz. That being said I still prefer the triple wide setup to the ultra wide for a variety of reasons.

I stated this in the video review and I'll say it here: It's near impossible to run any current game at a triple wide resolution at 7860x1440 at anything past 30fps. You could snag an extra card for triple SLI, or bump up to 980TI's for extra performance - but I'd still fully expect that pushing 60fps would be a difficult task. This indicates that getting a 1440p 120hz/144hz capable monitor for multi-monitor gaming won't pay any dividends today. So what's the good news? You're future-proofing yourself. Monitors are an investment, and not often upgraded or replaced. There's no reason to not get 120/144Hz capable monitor today, when you'll be able to use those features soon enough.

Also, I'm greedy and want all the best options right now. But unfortunately as I've learned you can't always get everything you want (at least not right now). But you can get the next best thing, choice. I remember playing DOTA2 on a single screen (it doesn't support Surround/Eyefinity) and thinking, "Gosh I wish I had a bigger, more powerful center screen". I then realized that having a 120hz center monitor would be very useful for games that only support 16:9.

Sadly, running Surround/Eyefinity with different monitors at different refresh rates is still in it's infancy. This is where the triple XB270HU really shines! Have a game that runs only on 1 screen? Make it 1440p @ 120hz. Want to feel immersed? Go up to 7860x1440 @ 30+ fps. Both setups have their own individual merits and experiences. In addition to how each setup makes me "feel", let's look at some benchmarks:

Conclusions

Now is a great time to upgrade monitors, or explore new options. There are tons of different configurations you can choose from, with new technology emerging that will help future-proof you for years to come. The perfect setup is often a mix of available options today, features for future use, and budget. And, in all cases YMMV on which features are most import to each user. But, I'm glad I took the plunge into: 3x 1440p IPS 120/140Hz G-SYNC (man that's a lot of features packed in there). It gives me the best of both worlds - fast response single screen, and immersive gaming (at 1080p or 1440p) for games that don't need a super-fast refresh.

I'm looking forward to putting more time in on this rig, and sharing more benchmarks and performance info in the future.

The XB270HU is an ACER not an ASUS monitor.

_________________
Intel i7-5930k @ 4.4Ghz ~ ASUS X99-Deluxe ~ Corsair H105 CPU Cooler ~ 16GB G.Skill DDR4 2400
EVGA 1080Ti FTW3 ~ EVGA SuperNova 1000 P2 ~ CaseLabs S8S Case
256GB OS SSD, 960GB SSD, 3.5 TB of total HDD space
1x ACER z35p 3440x1440p 120Hz G-Sync - 1x ACER XB270HU 144Hz 2560x1440 G-Sync ~ 1x BenQ GW2765 60Hz 2560x1440 ~ 1x Sanyo 1080p LCD TV
Corsair K95 RGB Cherry MX Brown ~ Corsair Scimitar RGB Pro ~ Sennheiser PC350 SE Headset
Uplift 900 2 Leg Sit/Stand Desk Frame with Custom Wood Desktop ~ Freedom WSGF Edition Ultimate Desk Stand v1

In this test two 980s in SLI were able to drive three 4K monitors at 30 fps, even with demanding games such as Metro: Last Light and Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. 4K is more than twice the pixel count of WQHD. How would you reconcile these results with yours? Are Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight really twice as demanding as the games TweakTown tested?

I'm in the process of building my first rig and I'm waiting for Asus to release the super-slim bezeled PG279Q that was revealed at Computex this year. It has the same features (even the same panel) as the Acer. I plan to have five of these beauties in Surround.

UPDATE: NOT the same panel. An even better panel!

There's a problem right now relating to SLI+Surround in The Witcher 3. If one does not have all three monitors connected to the first GPU, or use certain SLI bits (that cause immense light flickering which makes it unplayable), the frame rate is cut down significantly. nVidia has yet to provide a fix to their drivers. They could just as easily use the SLI bits that give good frame rate, but make a work around for the light flickering so the game is playable.

Eeek. Embarrassing. I will have to fix this asap.

I dont think Metro and Middle Earth as actually as demanding as Witcher 3 and Batman, firstly - these games are from 2014/2013 time frame. Secondly, Amon is correct. Witcher 3 is not correctly optimized for surround even still, and the Batman performance issues are well known. Also at higher resolutions like these you may be hitting a CPU limit before a GPU one. One minor thing to consider that I did not mention in my video that I'm currently running 16x/8x PCIe speeds, which may hinder some GPU performance as well. Once future patches are done for Witcher 3 and my PCIe configuration is updated, I plan on revisiting these numbers,

"medium Preset"
It always depends on what specific graphics settings you've chosen.
For most games i'd prefer high texture and models at 40fps over medium on 60fps.
Especially with Gsync.

_________________
We gonna send it to outa space!

I heard the port of Arkham Knight has been a mess but fortunately Nvidia has stepped in to help clean it up. Didn't know about the Witcher's issues though. I play older games, which is why 7200*2560 is feasible for me.

From my understanding 8x PCIe speed does not bottleneck the 980 in SLI.

One other thing to note is that Tweaktown had its panels in Portrait mode. While they had a huge pixel density, the 3x1-Landscape configuration most people use requires the game to render far more objects in a much wider FOV. Would be interesting if peanut could test this configuration for comparison.

Also, they had Metro running on Medium settings, while peanut ran both games on High.