Originally posted by Ridelynn

 

---

Originally posted by Wootloops
Explaining my original post for the 4th time: .

---

 

In my experience, if you have to explain something so many times, either:

a) You don't speak the language well, which is excusable. Keep at it, eventually you may get your point across

b) Your trying to do something either:
1) So incredibly ahead of it's time no one can grasp the concept
2) So incredibly dumb that no one can understand why anyone would try it
3) And in either case your wasting your time because no one will ever get your point

So if you can't communicate in English well - then keep at it, your doing very well so far.

If it's (b), then ... only time will tell if your an idiot or a genius, but I know which way I'm placing my bet.

"So if you can't communicate in English well - then keep at it, your doing very well so far."

O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? - Matthew 16:3

Originally posted by jdnewell

I must say you are entertaining if nothing else lol =)

I really dont understand why you even ask advice to be honest. You have shot down every suggestion people have given.

Ah well. This has at least been entertaining for a few minutes today. Time to go to my command center, which is out in the real world =)

I've gone so far as to change the hardware in my computer from suggestion. The only suggestions I've shot down are ones asking me to try things I've already tried (Which is 90% of the suggestions in the thread), even though I've explained that I've already tried them 100 times throughout the thread. They are closed books living in an open world, not absorbing all that it has to give them.

And yes, go enjoy the real world, but don't blame me when one of two inevitabilities happen: A quick death from a bear's claw, or a slow death from skin cancer.

Originally posted by Jmvx1989

.. I read more of this thread then i wanted too.... I don't understand why you would want 6 moniters ...  I could understand 2 or 3 .... But anything past that ... If it's not for a business approach but rather you fapping ...I just don't know what to say. You sir have issues ... Personally i prefer 2 or to 3 and i don't even like Gaming on three montiers at the same time . Atm i use two an asus that i bought back in 2010. and my sony bravia that i boght some time after ...  so 24 inch moniter (120 hertz and 3d capable) and 46 inch 3d hd tv. Havn't been using the 3d lately but  why in the world would you want to be surrounded by moniters. Just to fap... It's pretty funny you spent so much on all this hard ware you have and don't know enough about computers to figure it out your self. Personally i would of gotten two 680's well (670's) Since it's around 370ish  and would probably run about 10 frames less... then the 680 setup. But two 680's would outperform a 690 for the games that actually can make use of two cards. If your playing a game on window mode your only using half of your 690 since for sli a game has to be in full screen to be able to make use out of two nvidia cards. I said sli but its the same for the 690 as well.  Any ways ummm... enjoy your command center ^_^.

SLI works in windowed mode now my young padawan. And you remind me of those who in the past have asked why we would need electricity, computers, printing presses, color movies, movies with sound, etc. You are the primitivist without vision who holds back man from progress and transcendance into a perfect utopia. 6+ monitors is merely another step to that utopia, and I plan to get us there one day.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
7990 6 monitors, similar performance.
Add another card for 6 extra monitors.

The 7990 wasn't availalbe to put in my system when I got it from Alienware, so it's irrelevant as to whether I should have gotten it. And speaking of whether I should get one now and replace the 690, even if I was able to sell my 690 magically for full price, it's still not worth it because of the following: Firstly, it's far too late in the product cycle, and it's foolishness not to wait for new cards (The 7990 was too late in the cycle when it came out, and now it's just ridiculously late). Secondly, it only has 5 ports, not six. And thirdly, it takes up 3 slots on the computer, and since I only have 4, it's no different than if I just had two 7970s in Crossfire, as I can't put another card inside to expand the monitor capacity further, like I can with the 690.

Originally posted by jdnewell

Ok really?!?!

You do understand that there are ways to avoid both right? The main one being AIDS which can be avoided by not picking up a street walker and actually interacting with females with character and morales. Pregnancy can be avoided in a multitude of ways which most people outside of the command center use daily.

Dude if your happy sitting in the command center watching porn while playing video games then more power to you I say. Whatever makes you happy and gets you through the day. But to actually believe that is a superior state is just delusional and sad really.

I wish you luck friend.

Relax brah it was a joke. Good heavens.

Originally posted by jdnewell

So in essence your 4th monitor is basically used to watch porn while playing MMO's. And honestly you really should exit the command center and actually find a real girl. I think you may find the computer makes a very poor substitute. There is a big difference in watching girls and actually being with one my friend.

Good luck to you.

Find a real girl, and risk pregnancy and AIDS? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

No.

The most you can run is 8 with 2 GTX690 but only with SLI off. And has we have seen you can't run 4 monitors from a GTX690 running multi GPU.

So 8 monitors but half performance compared to crossfire with 6 monitors.

Explaining my original post for the 4th time: With SLI active on the 690, I can get 7 monitors currently, 3 from the 690, and 4 from an additional card. That's one more than the 7970 in Crossfire. And as I explained in my post, by the time I wish to exceed 5 monitors which I'm capped at with my 8800 GTX, Nvidia will be out with cards with 6 port cards, increasing my capacity to 9 with the 690 with SLI active versus 6 with the 7970 in Crossfire.

Originally posted by taus01

Originally posted by Wootloops

Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Just curious... what's the point of having so many monitors then if not for surround gaming?

Multitasking. Currently I have it set up as such:

Left monitor: World of Warcraft, Mumble, Sticky Notes, my twitter app, and my chat windows.

Center monitor: Guild Wars 2, my video player (Game of Thrones), and one of my browser windows.

Right monitor: Second browser window.

Above monitor: Assortment of pictures, a looping slideshow, and a looping video of hot girls.

And I always run out of room too. The command center is never complete.

Really? This was on Page 2 of this thread and you continue to take this guy serious? He needs an additional 7800/8800 card to run looping slideshows of hot girls.

I feel sorry for everyone that tried to help this "power user" with his "command center".

I sense jealousy in you my child. Your girlfriend looks the same everyday, and you have to take her out to eat and pretend to like talking her. Meanwhile, with my computer being my girlfriend, she can be multiple girls at once, and I can even play World of Warcraft on her. A superior state of affairs, you would no doubt agree.

Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

For the third time, as I explained in my previous post, the 690 has more monitor potential than the 7970 in Crossfire with 6 monitors, as the 690 allows me to add an addition card into my system, allowing me to exceed the 6 monitor cap the 7970 in Crossfire would give me. The 690 gives me the most power per monitor potential tradeoff, and is thusly the superior option.

2x7970 means the potential to plug 12 screens. You'd have understood that if you bothered reading and understanding what several people have been telling you.

It is not I who isn't bothering to read and understand, but all others. I am an open book who listens to all my fellow beings have to say, but you can go back through the thread if you'd like and count how many times I've said "as I've said before", etc; and just look at the post you're responding to, where I'm explaining something for the third time to someone. And to that point, I mentioned that someone said you could use 12 in Crossfire the first time I explained how the 690 was better, and I said that it's probably not true, especially because most people here seem to be talking out of their feet and have never even used SLI or Crossfire before; they lack the life experience that I have. But if it is true, then yes, I should have gotten those, however if one is to make such grand and fantastical claims about reality, one must provide evidence for its truth.

Originally posted by jdnewell

And as others have told you the tradeoff for having an unconventional setup can be problems with some games and applications. If you want some exotic command center in a strange configuration then dont expect everything to run perfectly.

I run an I5 and a 7870. It runs the shit out of GW2 with zero problems. Something in your command center doesnt jibe with GW2 for whatever reason. Thats the price of having the command center I suppose.

I don't expect everything to run perfect, I agree with your post above this one. 'tis worth the price.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Multi GPU as good as it is, is more complex, so it has a higher chance of problems.

Many people (amongst the crazy that spend crazy amounts of money in GPUs) will pay the same $1000 for a Geforce Titan over a GTX690, even though the GTX690 is 35%+ faster than a Titan, since it allows them to dodge the multi gpu problems.

The high performance increase is worth the chance of problems.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

If what you want is loads of monitors a single 7970 can run 6 independent monitors. And you can run bot2 of them in crossfire for same or higher performance than a GTX690.

http://www.amd.com/uk/products/technologies/amd-eyefinity-technology/for-consumers/Pages/what-is-eyefinity.aspx

Expand your view of gaming, productivity, and entertainment and discover a new realm of panoramic computing with AMD Eyefinity multiple-display technology.^{1, 2}  AMD Eyefinity Technology enables a single GPU to support up to six independent display outputs simultaneously. Boost everyday multitasking with a vastly expanded visual workspace. Intensify gaming with ultra-immersive environments. Expand your entertainment landscape with a breathtaking field-of-view. With easy configuration and flexible upgradeability, the innovative capabilities of AMD Eyefinity technology adds a new "surround-sight" sensation to your PC experience.

For the third time, as I explained in my previous post, the 690 has more monitor potential than the 7970 in Crossfire with 6 monitors, as the 690 allows me to add an addition card into my system, allowing me to exceed the 6 monitor cap the 7970 in Crossfire would give me. The 690 gives me the most power per monitor potential tradeoff, and is thusly the superior option.

Originally posted by Quizzical

If the problems you're having with four monitors constitute "more monitor potential" than 6 monitors independently doing whatever you want, as a 7970 can do, then why did you start this thread?

You can "maximize" a window to fill one monitor, and then have the rest do whatever you want.  I do that all the time with my (two monitor) setup, though I don't use CrossFire or SLI.  Because I actually care about reliability.

I can't understand what you're saying or asking from that wording.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
Does crossfire work on window mode now?
It didn't use to so the best option would be 2 gtx680 in sli - which cost the same and perform the same as a gtx690 and can do 4 independent screens in sli.

Don't know if it works or not, but whether it does or doesn't, the 690 is better than the 7970 Crossfire and 680 SLI, as there's more monitor potential in all cases, as I explained.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
Have you changed the camera turning speed?

Messed with all the camera settings. The speed is maxed.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
I thought you had said In a earlier thread that windows 8 is crap and everyone involved in developing it should be killed or something.

Try sync on and or frame limit. Some people are very sensitive to micro stuttering associated with dual gnu setups.

Windows 8 IS crap and everyone involved in developing it SHOULD be executed, and I'm glad to say that the man behind it, Steven Sinofsky, was executed. And hopefully it was actually because Microsoft realized Windows 8 sucks.

However, it being crap is more to do with what they're attempting to do, and how they failed so horribly at it, and how there is such a lost potential; the criminal is the Metro UI. The desktop is still there (Though only as legacy support, and it wil be phased out soon enough), and it's superior to Windows 7's desktop so long as you use the program Start 8 to disable the hot corner garbage which makes it inferior to Windows 7 in the stock setup.

Everyone in the OS market at the moment, from Microsoft to Apple to Google, etc, should be executed. They're all absolute idiots and I'm sick of it.

And as to GW2, I just tried what you suggested, and it's the same. I don't think it's a micro stuttering issue because it performs the same when I disable the dual-GPU. Turning off shadows seems to help it the most. It runs acceptably with no shadows, it just should run better. With it running acceptably though, it made me notice now horrible the camera is, how it has to catch up to the character if you spin real fast. I thought most of the annoyance of it might have been from the low FPS, but it's just as annoying with good FPS. No option to change it either. It's aweful.

Originally posted by Loke666

Yeah, but OP have a great computer that runs far below what it should because he stuck some old crap in it to run more screens. Adding a really old part like that to a great computer is really a shame.

And blaming the games because of it is just silly, all new games are optimized for the latests drivers, few if any companies bothers of optimizing a game for old drivers, just not worth the work.

OP should just get a really cheap new card for his computer or live with 2 screens instead of complaining.

Once more, I've already played the game without another card inside, and I've already played without additional monitors, and the performance was the same. And now I've not gotten the updated drivers, and it still performs the same.

People continue to complain about the setup when it's been proven not to be the issue.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Wootloops

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
There is also a program called Actual multiple monitors that might interest you.

I tried to use that and others like it in Windows 7 (As it didn't support a taskbar per monitor like Windows 8), but they're all buggy crap like virtual desktop software, as things like them tend to be.

You on windows 8 now?

I am.

Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

I have an old Phenom II X4 940 (@3.4gz) and an AMD HD 6870, 1920x1080 every setting maxed out, and I get better performance than that guy and his super computer... err sorry, his "command center".

Don't you guys see he's trolling you past moon orbit and back now? Dang, you are all veteran posters here... and some 21 years old guy who watched Die Hard 4 a few too many times is leading you by the nose.

Jealousy is a vice, you know.

Originally posted by Kinchyle

 

Does no good to repeat tech info to an argumentative child. I have no problem with performance here though with an older machine. My question (and point of humor) is all this garbage about multiple monitors. Like your issue is normal. Asking about FPS then stating "I'm trying to do the most taxing thing I can do while playing". /shakes head

As I've informed my other padawans, I've tested GW2 with nothing running, with one monitor, etc, and it made no difference.