Performance in 3d 1 vs 2 monitors

[jbo]

it's not a major decrease at all. barely noticable. rotating won't make a difference. since you're rarely if ever going to have 3d that's moving on both monitors at the same time, it's really not a major change for the card.

[Hardrawk]

The reason i asked is that I have a friend that is using dual monitor setup on a firegl x1. His maya runs really sluggish.. But then I don't know how fast maya would be on a single monitor setup for him either.. Are some cards better than others when running dual screens.. ATI Nvidia??

[GregHess]

Has your friend tried running with only one monitor? Generally when something like "it's sluggish on two monitors" occurs, I'd start diagnosing by seeing if the performance was quick and snappy with just one monitor. If it isn't, then its not the dual monitors. If it is, well guess what! :)

[lollygag]

Well for CRT's yes.. it will decrease.. i had the same setup with 2 monitors and a 6800 ULTRA.
with one monitor (GDM FW900) i kept the refresh @ 100 for gaming.. when i added the second both defaulted to 72 max. as far as LCD/TFT's i dunno, the Dell 3007 WFP will my first.. (as soon as it gets here) and i wont be using 2.

[ThunderPoke]

I'm running two monitors on a pretty old system. Athlon xp1900+, GeForce4 4600, 1Gig ram, 1 CRT 1 TFT.
Maya runs pretty well, didn't notice any difference moving to two screens. Playing games is a different story. Have to disable the second monitor to get descent performance. So if you're not gonna use it for games then it should be fine.

[imashination]

Theres absolutely no reason why a second screen would slow it down, crt or not. If it reduces your refresh rate then you have another problem, have you tried turning off the option which limits the max refresh based on what the monitor tells it?

Nvidia users need to enter the advanced options and turn off multimonitor 3d support. This will limit 3d views to the first window, but who wants a 3d view stretched over 2 screens?

[Valkyrien]

Unless for some reason you have Modeler on one and Layout on the other...:)

[jbo]

with nvidia, the only reason it should lower your refresh rate, is if you have one lcd and one crt and you need to run in span mode... span mode requires both monitors to have the same refresh rate, and since most lcds cannot do higher refresh rates, your crt will be flickery. you can just use dual view though, and it shouldn't be an issue.

for games, they will usually default to your primary display, but you may need to disable your secondary, or higher resolutions will not be available in game. i have no idea why that is.

[leif3d]

Having dual monitors will decrease performance about 25% becasue it has to render everything at twice the resolution....more video card stress...so instead of 1600X1200 it calculates windows graphics and all programs at 3200X2400. I've experienced it at home and at work.

[imashination]

Having dual monitors will decrease performance about 25% becasue it has to render everything at twice the resolution....more video card stress...so instead of 1600X1200 it calculates windows graphics and all programs at 3200X2400. I've experienced it at home and at work.

Sorry, thats nowhere near true. Can you tell us what setup yours using and how you measured this?

[leif3d]

My setup at work is the same as in my signature except I have a opteron 280. I do see a difference in performance in Maya compared to my house where I have a single widescreen monitor. Also, when I run Vizrt/Artist at work, the graphic wont go on air smoothly unless I run 1 monitor only, then it gets the FPS it needs, otherwise it becomes very slow with heavy graphics, droping from 65fps to 50fps (VIz/Artist calculates 60fps). I just said what I said based on personal experience. To me it's very near the truth. I'm sure personal experiences will vary.

[jbo]

i see no framerate differences in maya between 1 and 2 screens. i've never seen any framerate difference in any program that's more than 5 fps. the performance drops you're getting are not the norm, and i suspect something is wrong with you system.

it's true that the buffer for the second screen takes up memory, but that's only a small chunk in the grand scheme of things. unless you are actually running 3d on both monitors, and both are moving at the same time, you shouldn't have major differences.

[leif3d]

There is nothing wrong with my systems...specially the one at work, which is a brand new BOXX. I never said I had a major frame drop...it's minor...but it's there. It's just my experience.

[jbo]

25% is a major drop in my opinion. If you're seeing noticable drops whenever you have dual monitors on, then yes, there is something wrong with your system.

[newman]

Having dual monitors will decrease performance about 25% becasue it has to render everything at twice the resolution....more video card stress...so instead of 1600X1200 it calculates windows graphics and all programs at 3200X2400. I've experienced it at home and at work.

Not true, even if it was mathematically correct - and it's not. If your resolution on one monitor is 1600x1200 then on two monitors the total desktop resolution will be 3200x1200. Only way to get 3200x2400 would be to somehow plug in 4 screens and place them in rows of two, one row on top of the other. Not very likely, wouldn't you say? :)

[leif3d]

I haven't been at work in 3 days because of an infection. Once I get to work tomorrow, I'll let you guys know what my exact desktop resolution is. I just calculated 1600 times 2 (3200) and 1200 times 2 (2400) to get my result of dual monitor resolution...so I don't undestand how I can be mathematically incorrect...it's just simple multiplication...If in one screen you have X resolution, with 2 exact monitors you should be handling twice the original resolution. But I think the important thing is that I get a frame drop in dual monitor mode...it's just common sense to me that the more a graphics card has to handle on screen at once the more it slows down...maybe not too significant in a normal scene...but in large scenes I DO see a difference...minor...but it's there...it's just personal experience. I'm just trying to give my personal experience to the person that requested it...I'm really not trying to start a discussion on dual screens, although I appreciate the concern and time spent trying to solve his and my "problem". Thanks guys. :)

[dan1el]

First, dual monitorsonly give you extra width, not height..
1600 x2 = 3200
1200 x 1= 1200
=3200x1200

the secondly, rather general experince.
I don't see how it could actually decrease that much, some perhaps.
A TFT runs lower refresh rate than a CRT, so that must lower the "pressure on the card"
But I don't think that this is even slightly notisable on modern cards.

I see a problem when we speak OpenGL apps, such as Maya.

Where I have seen the decrease in performance under normal conditions is because you have more room you tend to run more apps (twice as many ?)and if youhave one OpenGL app running it can be hard to have the second or third running.
But again depends on the card and it's port (AGP or PCI-E).

I have seen a real decrease in performance when switching to dual monitors ONCE !
it took 2 weeks, then HP announced that the newest certified driver for Maya had some bugs corncerning this exact workstation (XW6200) and then they also had an update.
It helped, so I think if you do have a drop in performance of 25% check drivers, try even some older drivers.
A workstationcard should not have any problems or loosingperformance running 2 (or 4 ?) screens.
(The gamingcards might though)

[parallax]

It sure isn't that much, but at least it MUST cost some performance, or is the 2nd monitor run by black magic? (no pun intended)

[newman]

I just calculated 1600 times 2 (3200) and 1200 times 2 (2400) to get my result of dual monitor resolution...so I don't undestand how I can be mathematically incorrect...it's just simple multiplication...

Ok, let's do that simple multiplication then: multiply 1600 pixels by 1200 pixels and you get the number of pixels on a single screen - 1,920,000. So at two screens the number is 3,840,000 pixels. Now if we follow your logic and check the number of pixels on your res - 3200x2400 - you get a grand total of 7,680,000 pixels. Obviously incorrect. Reason for this is you only gain width, not height when adding another monitor. As I said before, you'd need 4 1600x1200 screens to get 3200x2400. Don't mean to be a pain in the *** but just can't help it :)

[imashination]

I haven't been at work in 3 days because of an infection. Once I get to work tomorrow, I'll let you guys know what my exact desktop resolution is. I just calculated 1600 times 2 (3200) and 1200 times 2 (2400) to get my result of dual monitor resolution...so I don't undestand how I can be mathematically incorrect...it's just simple multiplication...

2 times the width and 2 times the height is 4
2x2=4

The quality of maths knowledge around here, on a 3D forum of all places, can be really shocking sometimes. If you take a second monitor and put it to the side of your original, then it is twice the resolution, thats it, its really that simple.

A second screen, used for email, tool palettes, web browsing, messaging, picture viewing, video playback etc, causes no measurable slowdown on the work you are doing (and yes, I've measured). If for some odd reason you want to stretch the 3D view window across two screens, then you probably will notice some slowdown, but theres really little reason to ever do this.

[hholidayy]

Maya doesn't support dual-monitor...tha't s why a lot of people have problems with it. Ridiculous, yes, but it's like that. Hope they wise up for their next version !

[Ganimed]

I´m using Maya with 2 Samsung Syncmaster 930BF LCD´s , and having no problems at all.
Sure it would be great if Maya could support dual Monitor setup´s like Studiotools or other 3D Packages, but do I really need a perspective view that covers two screen´s? Certainly not.

On the other hand, when working with Photoshop it is very helpful if you deal with high res images.

regards

Ganimed

[imashination]

Maya doesn't support dual-monitor...tha't s why a lot of people have problems with it. Ridiculous, yes, but it's like that. Hope they wise up for their next version !

Define "doesn't support" Maya runs fine on 2 or more screens.

[hholidayy]

Define "doesn't support" Maya runs fine on 2 or more screens.
Yes it does. I've been working with dual setup also with no problem. But I've been reading that a lot of people have had issues with Maya and a dual monitor setup. Alias doesn't officially support a dual monitor setup, they recommend using "span mode" for people with 2 monitors and Nvidia cards. (a little bit like the GeForce cards....not supported but works fine for 90% of people using them). Also, people solved some issue putting there 2nd monitor on the right of their primary. Just do a search "maya dual monitor" you'll see what I mean and probably find some answers. Good luck to you.

[leif3d]

2 times the width and 2 times the height is 4
2x2=4

The quality of maths knowledge around here, on a 3D forum of all places, can be really shocking sometimes. If you take a second monitor and put it to the side of your original, then it is twice the resolution, thats it, its really that simple.

A second screen, used for email, tool palettes, web browsing, messaging, picture viewing, video playback etc, causes no measurable slowdown on the work you are doing (and yes, I've measured). If for some odd reason you want to stretch the 3D view window across two screens, then you probably will notice some slowdown, but theres really little reason to ever do this.

Hi imashination, sorry but, I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not :P...anyway, I still don't understand all the fuzz about my resolution...I'm only saying that 2 monitors is more work to a video card than 1!! even if slight!!...about my resolution at work it doesn't tell me the combined resolution it just gives me the res per monitor, this is because I'm in "dual view" mode not in "Span" mode. Sorry if i confused anyone about performance vs monitor quantity...I just seem to have a different Maya and Viz/Artist experience than some people in here with dual monitors, Maybe it's due to scene complexity...I have really huge scenes that push Maya and Viz/Artist to it's limits and that's where I see a difference in performance...only then. Cheers! :)

[lots]

leif3d: I believe everyone is just saying your math was wrong. And they are all correct in this statment. Simply, you have two monitors. Both with the same vertical resolution (1200 pixels) and horizontal resolution (1600 pixels). Lining your monitors up side by side will make the total viewable resolution twice as wide, but not twice as tall, as you only have two monitors. To be twice as tall you'd need to stack the monitors vertically. Doing so, however, would cause the width to be reduced to 1600. You are only talking about two monitors. If you had 4, then you could have both height and width expanded in the fassion you explain in an earlier post.

Say you had two squares that have a dimension of 1cm by 1cm (thats 1 square cm). Place them on a table top next to each other. Measure the height and width of the two next to each other. It should cover an area of 2cm x 1cm. However if we use your logic from before, the area should be 2cm x 2cm, which is obviously wrong.

I hope that makes sense... I dont know of any more ways of explaining it...

Anyway, as far as performance is concerned, in most things you will not get a performance hit big enough to matter. If you are running many large 3D OGL windows, that is another story. Things will slow slightly, and it may be noticable, but its not terrible. Actually, I've noticed that (on nvidia hardware) using two monitors in spanning mode has yielded better performance over all than having the dual monitors set to dual view. This is probably because its easier to impliment OGL across one huge virtual display.

Edit: typo :) thanks for the heads up ..

[jbo]

Say you had two squares that have a dimension of 1cm by 1cm (thats 1 cubic cm).

actually, it's 1 square cm :)

but yeah, the rest is right.

[lots]

hah you're right :P thanks for the heads up jbo

[leif3d]

I think the confusion is that I'm not in span mode, but in dual view mode. Obviously if I was in span mode I would have the same vertical pixels (I'm not that math-hadicapped), I just thought that because I'm in dual view, the video card would calculate both monitors on their own without multiplying resolutions as it would in span mode, but then again I could be wrong guys. All in all, thanks for the help in the forum. :D

[[nitin design]]

I think the confusion is that I'm not in span mode, but in dual view mode. Obviously if I was in span mode I would have the same vertical pixels (I'm not that math-hadicapped), I just thought that because I'm in dual view, the video card would calculate both monitors on their own without multiplying resolutions as it would in span mode, but then again I could be wrong guys. All in all, thanks for the help in the forum. :D

You are math-handicapped mate :applause:. It does not matter if you run in span or dual mode...the total screen area still remains same :)

[newman]

leif3d, I see you still don't believe us.. you must have not been very popular in geometry class :) Anyway there's a simple test if you don't believe us - make yourself a single desktop image that exactly stretches over two screens. Then check it's resolution...
Or do that multiplication I told you about in my previous post.

[jbo]

I think the confusion is that I'm not in span mode, but in dual view mode. Obviously if I was in span mode I would have the same vertical pixels (I'm not that math-hadicapped), I just thought that because I'm in dual view, the video card would calculate both monitors on their own without multiplying resolutions as it would in span mode, but then again I could be wrong guys. All in all, thanks for the help in the forum. :D

wow.

.......

[Freak!!]

Leif may not be good with Maths, but he's point that DualView does show a noticable drop
in performance in comparison to one monitor is a valid one...

How much and exactly what percentage i don't know, but it can be noticable difference..

Games etc will also usually show a 50% drop in performance, when in Dual display mode.
The share of the drawing of the 2nd monitor is shared by 1 GPU, so it must be taking memory/and mhz away from the 1st monitor....

It does indeed need to render a larger screen space, which will result in lower performance.

[jbo]

Games etc will also usually show a 50% drop in performance, when in Dual display mode.


almost every game i've ever played (in both span and dual view) defaults to the primary display and shows, at most, a 1 or 2 frame per second difference if any. if you actually mean a game that uses both screens, then yes, i suppose you'd be right, but that's weird anyway unless it's a flight sim.

[imashination]

Leif, your maths knowledge is mind buggeringly bad, I'm having trouble comprehending how you can possibly not understand such a basic equasion.
If you take a 2x2 inch piece of paper, and place an identical 2x2 inch piece of paper next to it, the total area is 4 inches wide, but still only 2 inches high. How hard is this? Promise me you'll never enter the building and construction trade; you'll be fired on the first day after you order enough flooring tiles to do buckingham palace twice over.


Games etc will also usually show a 50% drop in performance, when in Dual display mode.
The share of the drawing of the 2nd monitor is shared by 1 GPU, so it must be taking memory/and mhz away from the 1st monitor....

It does indeed need to render a larger screen space, which will result in lower performance.

Total junk, seriously, why are people spouting this rubbish? Ive just done some tests because all this rumor and make believe is starting to nark me off:

WoW game
Single 47fps avg
Dual 48fps avg

Cinebench OpenGL c4d benchmark
Single 2547
Dual 2538

Winamp fullscreen visualisation
Single 24.8fps
Dual 24.4 fps

Unreal 2004
Single 107 fps avg
Dual 110 fps avg

And would you like to know what screens these are? This is running from a Radeon X1600 laptop at 1440x900, with the second screen being a 1920x1600. So by your theory this should be like 75% slower.

[lots]

In working in LW, i've not measured the speed difference, but its noticably slower manipulating geometry on the second display as opposed to the primary in dual view mode. However, this is probably due to the mode I'm using. If I use spanning mode, the performance loss is negligable. This is all probably due in part to how the two modes tell windows about the monitors.

I'm going to take a guess here, but in dual view mode, two instances of the window manager need to be run. This also has the added effect of having less priority on some functionality like OGL or other accelleration provided by the card. In spanning mode, the drivers fool windows into thinking the entire desktop is going to one display, at which point everything gets the same priority on both monitors.

In the end I dont think you will see a slow down in performance, unless you have one HUGE OGL window going across the entire desktop (3200x1200 pixels large for example, the total desktop space on my system). A 3D window like that, I could understand causes some slow down, but in most cases everyone is running small open GL windows, and so there's no real disadvantage.

[leif3d]

I can't believe how insults fly around here...pretty sad. What surprises me is that I haven't insulted anyone, actually I've been very polite, but I seem to get many insults because of a different opinion.

I really can't understand how you guys can't see a simple and logical concept like the one I'm explaining (except 'lots'). In span mode a GPU calculates both monitors as one, therefore geometry applies in a basic way, that's obvious...The GPU sees the monitors as 1. In Dual view mode both monitors are calculated SEPARATELY! geometry doesn't apply (to the GPU) because both monitors are taken as separate entities and the GPU has to calculate the exact same resolution TWICE! the GPU is not multiplying width and height in Dual View and giving you a final result...It's doing TWICE the work....and a GPU doesn't handle this kind of load as easily as a single monitor which is what span mode does.

Look guys...It doesn't really matter what opinion you have of me and my professional capabilities. I happen to be a very successful Animator and problem solver and I have a great paying and fulfilling job...I really don't need anyone's insult...you guys are extremely arrogant...I really would hate to be in a room with you guys talking about religion, philosophy or any controversial theme...you guys would probably end up killing each other over closed minded ideas...you have no respect for others. I have met a lot people like you over many years in my career and I can assure you, you are exactly the kind of people that get fired after 3 months of starting the job, because you can't respect anyone. And just for the record...I passed Geometry, Algebra and Calculus with ease in University...but I'm sure that wont stop the insults :)

BTW...thanks 'LOTS' for being the only one that opens up to understanding my idea and doesn't reply in an arrogant or insulting way.

Best of luck everyone.

[imashination]

Its not about opinion, its about fact. Someone has come here asking for an actual answer to a question. The answer to the question is that no, 3D performance does not get significantly slower with dual screens unless you are spanning the 3D view window across multiple screens, but there is no reason to do that in the first place.

When people come on here and start literally making things up about a subject they nothing about, then proclaim that their opinion (your words) is fact, it annoys people, and it especially annoys me. It becomes even more incredulous when that person makes fundamentally wrong calculations onsomething extremely simple, which most 10 year olds would know... and for that person to then say they took maths at university, as if that somehow makes their asshat maths correct is even more astonishing.

There is no 25% slowdown in 3d apps, there is no magical 50% slowdown in games, it simply doesnt happen. I see what you're saying about the differences between dualview and span mode, but it still istnt correct. 3D ogl and dx calculations are based on the actual pixel size of the 3D window, not the total desktop space which is available. A 640x480 3d view will run at the same speed on a 800x600 screen as it would on a dual screen 2560x1200 system.

I am sorry that I get so worked up about it, but one thing which really gets me going is when someone asks for help and is then given a load of opinion and guesses disguised as fact. This makes it even more confusin for the original poster, because they can't tell who actually knows what they're talking about from those who heard a rumor from their cousin's brother's friend. This is the kind of thing which perpetuates "athlons run hot and arent as compatible"

[leif3d]

Your opinion, or facts as you call your statements, will never take away the fact that many people are experiencing slowdowns on their machines on certain hardware and dual monitor setups...and you need to understand this as a fact, because I don't have enough time in my day (I'm sure we all feel this way) to come here and lie for no reason, or to confuse people, so if people are saying this, it is for a reason. therefore I feel you need to occupy your good knowledge (because you seem like an intelligent person) to help not criticize, and specially avoid calling people liers...because you said I make things up and just come here and talk about things I have no understanding of.

The other thing I don't understand, is your perseverance to convince me that I can't count, specially when my first post was relating to dual view mode not span, and I was clear to point out that I do understand your basic geometry explanation, I just differ in a different point which is how Windows understands monitor information in dual view as oposed to span mode.

I hope you can cool down a bit from now on and be a little more friendly towards other people who are here with the same purpose as you...to help others.

[jbo]

SPANMODE:
2 1600x1200 Displays are treated as one 3200x1200 display. 3200 x 1200 = 3,840,000 pixels

DUALVIEW:
2 1600x1200 Displays are treated as two 1600x1200 displays. 1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000
1,920,000 x 2 = 3,840,000 pixels.

both ways have the same number of pixels. you say that you understand the math, but it's clear from your posts that you do not. i don't know where you got 3200 x 2400 from. that number makes no sense. It's true that in dual view, one display may get priority over the other, and may not be as fast, but that's a seperate issue.

you may have had experiences where you had the slowdowns you describe, but when others tell you that it's not the norm, and that something must be wrong with the way you are running things, perhaps you should consider that they may be right, and you may be wrong. after all, if others are able to run maya without the slowdowns you describe, then what other explanation is there? your system just doesn't work the same despite nothing being wrong with it?

[leif3d]

I believe the issue that you consider unimportant is exactly the issue that I'm trying to get through. My original calculation was only to illustrate that the GPU has to calculate the screen twice as opposed to once in span mode (I'll die if I have to say that again)...it's not about the amount of pixels...that's simple obvious math...it's about the logic which some people around here don't have to understand how a GPU handles things in Windows and in various applications. A couple of other people are experiencing slowdown in different applications and games in this very own thread, take a look around and then say it NEVER happens. Please be a little less of a "square" thinker. The only mistake I've made was to illustrate a problem in a way which wasn't mathematically correct, but that was logical if you think about it long enough...other people got it a bit faster than others.

[jbo]

well, i guess my computer's "GPU handles things in Windows and in various applications" differently than yours... and by differently, i mean correctly.

I've worked with dozens of dual screen systems(some with specs nearly identical to yours), and the only time i've gotten problems like the ones you're describing, is when there was a driver or software issue. ask yourself, if person A's computer works at 100%, and person B's computer, that has the same specs, works at 75%, is it possible that there is something wrong with person B's computer/drivers/software?

and yes, you're right that the GPU has to calculate the screen twice in Dualview as opposed to once in span mode, but since each screen is only half the size of the span screen, it really isn't a big deal at all.

[leif3d]

Look jbo, if you believe your way is the right way...then so be it, I really can't do anything about that. I have spoken with our technical department and after several tests we have decided there is nothing wrong with the computer(s) here at work, since I don't really mind the minor slowdown I don't really care too much. I am happy about one thing though!...you finally understood my point in Dual view vs Span mode performance, and I appreciate that.

By the way, after upgrading from driver 77.56 to 81.67 performance got a lot better, but I can still see a difference between single and dual monitor mode...maybe around 15% this time...which is not as bad.

Oh...and overall in life, when you tell someone: "you clearly don't understand math" (or anything), please be a little more responsible with your statements. The only thing that is clear to me is that you don't know me and you don't have the slightest idea what I know or don't know about anything. When you give an opinion I'm sure it's based on previous experience, study or analysis...and you obviously have non of the 3 with my life or what's in my head. I can assure you I have many things to teach you in my field and in math, I also understand that I can learn from you and almost everyone in this world...so please be a little more modest and less rude. Thanks. :)

[imashination]

Please, tell us again about your university maths

"Having dual monitors will decrease performance about 25% becasue it has to render everything at twice the resolution....more video card stress...so instead of 1600X1200 it calculates windows graphics and all programs at 3200X2400."

and

"I just calculated 1600 times 2 (3200) and 1200 times 2 (2400) to get my result of dual monitor resolution."

[[nitin design]]

Leif3d I did not insult you at all. I placed smileys after my comments and they were meant light heartedly as you put a smile on my face in a nice way.

I did not say you were right or wrong when it came to dual screen performance. I just wanted to say that your original method of calculating total resolution was wrong (which it was).

As far as dual screen performance is concerned I have worked on 5 different dual screen setups (using Maya) and never noticed any real world drop in performance. I am not saying that it's not possible or does not happen but for me it never did (or I did not notice it).
So don't worry I was not attacking you in a nasty way :beer:

[leif3d]

Can you get any ruder and ignorant? I guess you're not so bright after all imashination. I recently explained that what I said was to explain Dual view mode instead of Span mode, because if you get two monitors individually the GPU sees 2 not 1 big monitor...I guess it was a mistake to explain it the way I did, because people like you like to build their ego like this. If you had any logic you would understand what I mean, but your narrow mind will never...and I mean NEVER understand anything remotely close to this...I hope you don't present yourself as an artist...

[leif3d]

']Leif3d I did not insult you at all. I placed smileys after my comments and they were meant light heartedly as you put a smile on my face in a nice way.

I did not say you were right or wrong when it came to dual screen performance. I just wanted to say that your original method of calculating total resolution was wrong (which it was).

As far as dual screen performance is concerned I have worked on 5 different dual screen setups (using Maya) and never noticed any real world drop in performance. I am not saying that it's not possible or does not happen but for me it never did (or I did not notice it).
So don't worry I was not attacking you in a nasty way :beer:

No hard feelings man, I know you're just trying to prove a point, and a totaly valid one at that :)...I did explain myself wrong, but I've been trying to clarify what I meant this whole time....It just seems that people like imashination just come here to cause trouble and try their hardest to build their ego breaking other peoples ideas and opinion...if he would have read my previous posts he woukld have understood, but insetad he comes back with these incredibly rude posts. Very sad.

sorry for double post

[Crayox]

I must say, leif3d, now that I read everything (and everyone just can't wait to hear my opinion) that I'm with you my fellow American (don't know why I said that, I'm a Croat, I guess it just felt right)...anyway, the original math if you look at it as just numbers was wrong, boohoo big deal, but yes, I suppose if you run different things on different screens like in dual view, I guess it should be slower than running the same thing on one big screen. It's like saying two aplications running at the same time won't be slower than one....maybe on single screen they won't, because you have to switch and use one at a time, but if both ARE running...well...

So, I would like to know, since all of you said that you do NOT run your 3D aplications on both screens, so how do you use two screens? I mean I had them once, when I was buying my second computer, I connected both my LCDs, they were different makes from Samsung so they didn't quite match (color, height, etc.) but it was pretty cool. I tried playing a game on a span, and it was fun, though quite anoying since I couldn't see the middle of the screen clearly. I mean, having two screens just so you can work 3D in one, and surf the internet on the other is silly to me. You can't do both so you have to switch, just as if you would on single one, I guess it's "cool" but...

With dual screen, how do you tell it what is on which screen? Anyone care to explain this to me? I mean, if you could give me exact benefits and how to use two screens.


Thanks guys

[imashination]

Im not here to boost egos or belittle people, I'm here to point out BS when I see it. Leif everything you've said here is pure guesswork. Telling people a dual view desktop of the same resolution as a spanned desktop must be slower because its doing twice as much work.. you're guessing, you're pulling stuff out of thin air. Then when people tell you you're wrong, and give reasons, you continue to spout off more junk from your make believe world.

Yes, I'm rude to you because you're sat there arguing the world is flat even when more knowledgable people are telling you its round and showing you satellite imagery to prove it

And Crayox, this is what you do with multiple screens:

http://www.3dfluff.com/files/dualmin.jpg

[Crayox]

That's a span?

[hholidayy]

leif3D lol, you are my hero. You ask a question, make an elementary school math error, try to justify it, then give up and decide to answer your own question with assumptions. You argue and disagree with everyone about there advises, get offended because people have a different opinion (or knowledge) then yours, and finally get personal about every comment in the thread. Why you ask a question if you already know more then everybody else about the subject. You asked the question! The forum didn’t ask you for information. You asked because you wanted to learn something or because you wanted to see if anyone knew more then you ? Now here is my theory, maybe your 2nd screen makes your spywares and viruses work 15% slower but this thread definitely makes you 50% less productive. Thank you for all the great knowledge you shared with this forum you have been very helpful.

[lots]

Ok to make my statements clear :P

I cannot tell you the exact number (%) of performance difference between a dual view setup and a spanning setup. Its not much, and only noticable on highly detailed models. However, this is not due to the strength (or lack of) of the GPU. This is because of the way the dual view mode is handled by Windows. On the primary display, everything runs fine, no lag or slow FPS (other than what is expected). On the secondary display, things are slower. It takes a lower density model to kill the FPS than it would on the primary. In spanning mode, there is no difference like this between screens' FPSs, and as Imash has pointed out, there is no real big dip in performance because of dual monitors, unless you span the entire desktop space with one OGL window. I wrote an OGL app (last year) that can be resized. You can see the effect of enlarging the window has on performance, and how this would be the main reason you would see a slow down.

Also keep in mind my entire point of view is based on Lightwave. Modo was significantly faster on all my models :)

That having been said, Total Annihilation (RTS game) runs wonderfully in spanning mode :) 3200x1200 resolution is great :P

[leif3d]

1). When did I ask a question?!...
2). When was I justifying?...or you meant explain?
3). When did I give up and make assumptions?
4). I never got offended about opinion, I got offended when I got called:
a). a liar...BSer'
b). math-handicapped (even after Explaining why I made that logical number) and
pretty much everything imashination has said...I can't believe after reading all the
posts you don't understand what I'm getting offended about.

I don't understand how everyone keeps on saying I'm making things up, because obviously I'm not...What I said was based on my experience with Dual monitors in Dual view mode...and in MAYA! and I was very specific about it. Imashination is obviously using Cinema4D and two different resolution and size monitors as you can see on his pictures....I don't even understand how he can remotely discuss or relate to something he has never experienced...

Let me ask you something Imashination...have you ever worked in Maya 7.0.1 With dual view (not span mode) on 2 exact same resolutions and size monitors on DVI with the exact video card I'm working on?...because if you haven't, please don't preach to me about making things up and pulling things from thin air...because that would be exactly what your doing to my comments...trashing them based on nothing...you can have a different opinion Imashination and that's perfectly normal, but to call someone else a liar to boost your ego is something else.

I gave my opinion based on EXPERIENCE nothing else...and I was very specific about it. If my EXPERIENCE is different than someone elses then so be it...but I'm not going to try to convince anyone that what they are experiencing is not true!...who the hell am I call anyone a liar...specially if I don't kow the person or I DON'T EVEN USE THE SAME SETUP OR SOFTWARE!!!.

edit*** LOTS keeps on understanding both points of view and making constructive
comments...thanks man. :)

[lots]

Crayox, dual monitors lends its self really well to LW. Since LW is in essence two applications, I'm able to put layout on one monitor, and modeler on the other. This works quite well for me. Similarly, Modo can open new windows to palce litterally any part of the UI in. In my case I open one window full screen on one display with a full perspective view of my model, while the other monitor has the menues and smaller view ports.

Depending on your app of choice, there are a variety of different things that you can place in a secondary screen that will help improve your workflow

[jbo]

i've used maya in dual view with your video card and two displays of the same resolution on dvi, and not gotten the slowdowns you describe. i'm not doubting your experience, just the reasons for it. i've had experiences where i pressed the power button on a computer and nothing happened. That doesn't mean it's supposed to do that. and seriously man, i can't believe you are still calling 3200x2400 a "logical number." It's a number that makes absolutely no sense, and if after all this you can't understand why, then i'm sorry, but you DO NOT understand the math. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth. I know it's your opinion that you understand, but your comments make it totally clear that you do not.

[Crayox]

Oh people come one! Enough about numbers already :-), original calc was wrong, period....hm, unless he has a dual layer screen (now when I raise dust by this statement :p )

One thing that I was worried about, and the reason why I don't have that Dell screen everyone has :cry: is that large native resolution. I remember my friend (who is a CRT freak) preaching me how now I have to use that higher resolution in games and it'll slow them down. Well, it WAS true, maybe because games use shaders and post rendering effects which are resoultion dependent? I mean, can anyone confirm that games will run "normal" on those huge Dells?

Hm lots, I guess, actually I already DO see ways I could arrange my MAX on dual screens :cool:

[imashination]

Ok, one last time then Im calling it a day here..

- The physical size of the monitor makes no difference
- Whether I use 2 different resolutions is irrelevant, its just the machine I'm currently working on, I can go switch to a couple of identical res screens if it makes you happy
- Whether im using c4d, maya, xsi or max makes no difference so long as the main 3D view remains on the primary screen. Different apps handle a 3D view split over multiple screens differently, some will not care, some will slow, some will crash. But again thats irrelevant because you just don't spread a 3d view across multiple screens.


I don't even understand how he can remotely discuss or relate to something he has never experienced...

I build, maintain and do 3D hardware/software consulting for dozens of companies. Some I tell to use maya, some get advised to use a maya-motion builder combo, some will be told c4d is their best option. please tell me again what I have and haven't experienced, its quite entertaining.

math-handicapped (even after Explaining why I made that logical number)

It. Isn't. Logical. It is wrong in every conceivable way there is. Its wrong on such a fundamental level that it beggars believe on just how wrong you can possibly be. One single person has come in to back you up, and he doesn't use multiple screens, No offence to Crayox but he hasn't made any ludicrous statements or tried to tell us all that black is white

Leif, right click your desktop, select properties, select the settings tab, click advanced, click your gfx card tab, click the performance and quality settings section, enable advanced options, scroll to find hardware acceleration, set it to Single Display mode. This will set the 3d performance of your app to full speed and should have been done by any half-way knowledgable tech admin.

Do multiple screens slow down 3d performance? No
Do badly set up multiple screens slow down 3d performance? Yes.

[imashination]

Crayox: there are two main ways of working with multiple screens. A span or a proper dual screen method. The span mode is where the gfx card tells the OS that it is working with a huge single wide screen, but is secretly using 2 different screens. This will give the best compatability but you will have issues with games&video getting split over both screens and just having windows and system requesters in general popping up split across them both. There are tools and so on within the drivers which re-position these but they can be a bit dodgey. Maya in particular can do some odd things. Many video cards will have a maximum area they can display video overlays and 3d views, and this span mode makes it easier to accidentally exceed this value. The size of this area will also depends on the AA and AF settings you use. Higher values will reduce the maximum size.

The other option is to tell windows there are 2 individual screens, the advantage here is that apps will nicely maximise to a single screen, you can assign different gamma and colour profiles to each screen and you can use different resolutions, so you can make use of that old 17" crt you have knocking around in the garage. The other advantage is that you can specifically tell it to only use hardware acceleration on the primary screen where you watch video and do the 3d work. ts also allows other apps such as video editors to specifically redirect video to the second screen, treating it as a video monitor. Also games will only show on the primary screen, so you dont get a thick black screen border down the centre of your crosshair.

With tft screens you should generally run them at their native resolution for the crispest image, they cannot properly run at any other resolution. When you have 1920x1200 pixels, if you run a game at 1024 then the screen will be resampling and smoothing the image, so it really isnt much of a problem. This problem used to be much worse when resolutions were lower. Trying to run a 640x480 game on an 800x600 screen used to be much worse, but when you have screen resolutions lingering around 2000 pixels wide, running a game at 1024 or 1280 is perfectly playable

[hholidayy]

... can anyone confirm that games will run "normal" on those huge Dells?...



Hi Crayox,

Games run with no problem, but you need a good video card of course. I have the Dell 2405FPW (with a nvidia 7800GTX 256), I can run HL2 widescreen at 1600x900 everything at high with no problem (passed the CS:S test at 129fps). For BF2 that doesn't support widescreen, I play it 1600x1200 with 2 dark line on each side. It still gives you 21" of view, which is not bad at all. If your card can't support those high resolutions it is still possible go smaller (1280x1024, 1024x768). Then you can either stretch it or use a smaller area in the middle of the screen. I saw those mode but didn't play on them. Gameplay is incredible on games that supported widescreen (16:9), very good on the ones that have a 4:3 aspect ratio, and the working experience is amazing. If you're going to work and play games on the same machine, they are very good option. Remember, Dell does deals every 2-3 weeks, wait for it to be on promotion, I got mine 25% off the price it is right now !!

[leif3d]

I understand all that you are saying Imashination and I still don't like your irony...it looks like you forgot how you told me I was BSing a while ago, and now you don't like me to tell you the same?...you like to call people liars, but you don't like to doubted...that only shows your arrogance...

I've had it set to 'single-display mode' the whole time, so it's not that...but what strikes me as odd is that you are still talking about the stupid number! I said my calculation was wrong! and I explained I did it not because I can't multiply, but to explain dual view in an understandable way (which I thought I was)...that's why I say 'logical' because it wasn't mathematically correct...which obviously I should have never done, because it caused all this...

it seems all you are trying to do is prove YOUR point instead of understanding others...you obviously wont budge on your opinion, because to you it's fact. So there is really no point in discussing this further, at least not with you...because we are getting nowhere man...

Enough has been said about the subject. I think we should leave it at that and let people make their own conclusions.

[ThirdEye]

Enough has been said about the subject.

thank god!

[leif3d]

thank god!

but what I really think!!... jk :)

[jbo]

crayox, i have the 20" dell, which is 1600x1200, and i run games at lower resolutions pretty often. it looks less crisp, but sometimes that's not a bad thing. running games at 800x600 doesn't look any worse than it does on my CRT of the same size. 1024x768 looks a bit worse, but it's pretty minor. if you're talking about the 24" or 30" dell, you would be limited to running it at widescreen resolutions (unless you wanted the aspect distortion). also the 30" at lower res might look bad just because of how huge it is. anyway, just get a kickass card and you won't have to worry since you'll be able to run games at the native res.

[hholidayy]

...if you're talking about the 24" or 30" dell, you would be limited to running it at widescreen resolutions (unless you wanted the aspect distortion). ...

Sorry jbo, but I must correct you here. Has far has the 24" is concern, it is possible to run the game with a Fixed Aspect Ratio Scaling setup. This will maintain the original aspect ratio of the game with black bars to the sides/above/below the on-screen image. Then there is no aspect distortion. You end up with a view of about 21" at 1600x1200 and 18" at 1280x1024.

[lots]

Indeed, the Dell monitors have the ability to run games at a fixed aspect ratio. Say you run a 4:3 game on the 24" wide screen from Dell at a resolution of 1024x768. It should (if you enabled the option) allow the game to fill up 1024x768 pixels on the screen, starting from the center. This leaves a whole bunch of disabled pixels, but allows the game to run as if you were in native mode. Meaning clean and crisp. Albiet slightly smaller than your total viewing area.

[jbo]

neat, i did not know that.

[lots]

Actually, I should specify that some Dell monitors do that, most of the wide screen variety I believe.

At least this is what I hear :) A Friend has the 2005 FPW *shrug*

[leif3d]

I have a DELL 2005fpw and I use it 4:3 in Winning Eleven (a soccer game)...it kills lots of my screen space. but it looks nice...I don't know about other monitors.

[Crayox]

Ok guys, thanks for those tips. I think I'll consider Dell now. As you can see from my signature, my card should be able to run those resolutions, no problem there. I think my old system would be able to do so too, it had 6800.

I read here recently that Dell is now making some models with 6 bit screens??? It's really hard to find this info about any screen. I guess models that have 6 are hiding that info, and those that don't will probably state it hehe.

[lots]

The 1707 and 1907s have the new 6bit screens. At least I think its the 17.. might be the 20.. eh .. I know for sure the 1907 has the 6bit screen. Anyway, thats fairly annoying and they should be avoided...

[leif3d]

The 1707 and 1907s have the new 6bit screens. At least I think its the 17.. might be the 20.. eh .. I know for sure the 1907 has the 6bit screen. Anyway, thats fairly annoying and they should be avoided...

I feel better about buying my 2005fpw now...i was a little ticked off about my monitor being obsolete so fast...

[hholidayy]

Yes Dell's new 4:3 panels are all 6bit, to bad because the older 1905FP was very nice for the price. But apparently, Dell's "older" and new version of their widescreens flat panel are all 8 bit (2005FPW, 2007WFP, 2405FPW, 2407WFP, 3007WFP). But I'm just reporting what I have read in other threads and forums. I haven't found this info on any official site yet.

[leif3d]

Is this bit change for speed increase and higher contrast?...because if it's not ...it's just dumb and sckrewed up.

[lots]

I cant really think of a good reason to drop the color depth.... Other than its cheaper for them to make ?

Maybe dell wants to sell more at a cheaper price rather than less at a higher price

[leif3d]

Actually their new 6bit 2007fpw is more expensive than the 8bit 2005fpw, that's why I was surprised. :(

[lots]

leif:
Take a look at hholidayy's post
Yes Dell's new 4:3 panels are all 6bit, to bad because the older 1905FP was very nice for the price. But apparently, Dell's "older" and new version of their widescreens flat panel are all 8 bit (2005FPW, 2007WFP, 2405FPW, 2407WFP, 3007WFP). But I'm just reporting what I have read in other threads and forums. I haven't found this info on any official site yet.

I dont think any of the wide screen panels are 6bit. In fact I was referring to the 4:3 ratio panels in my previous post, though I probably should have made that more clear ;P

[leif3d]

Ok Got it :P

[RiKToR]

To answer the original question, I have a 6800 soft modded to quadro 4000, with two 17 CRTs I see little degredation in performance. I run Maya on the left monitor with all the editors
(Attribute Editor, Render Views, Hypershade) of the other. The only time I see a signigant drop in performance is when the Graph editor is up.

Compatibilty: I have noticed with some older drivers and previous versions of Maya that the hotboxes would not work on the second monitor this appears to be fixed either with the new certifed drivers or with Maya 6 and above.

Sorry if this was already answered but the thread is quite large as it stands.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.