NVIDIA & Multi-display Gaming Editorial @ [H]

[FrgMstr]

NVIDIA 3D Surround Multi-display Gaming Editorial - We give our readers a few of our first thoughts about NVIDIA and its new 3D Surround feature that will help push forward multi-display gaming to the masses. This is a great day for PC gamers, but there are a couple of things that need to be said.

I am scared about one thing though. And let me put this in laymen's terms so HardOCP is clear on its stance. I do not want to mince words here.

EDIT: Apparently I am mistaken and have copied and pasted the name from an incorrect source.


"NVIDIA Surround" is the official name of the multi-display portion of the technology as per the VP of GPU with NVIDIA. I will update the article to reflect. this.

 

[sbuckler]

lol at the rant

I don't think nvidia could "lock out" eye infinity as ati does it currently as basically it's just one big monitor as far as the game is concerned.

What wouldn't surprise me however if "special" nvidia TWIMTBP games got eye infinity done properly (i.e with triple renderers for full bezel support, angle support, hud in centre display only as well as obviously 3D). They then locked Ati out of the upgraded experience i.e. you could still use traditional one-big-screen if you had ati, but if you want all the angle support, etc you'd have to use nvidia despite the ati cards being just as capable of running with that (except for 3D).

 

[FrgMstr]

Is it possible nVidia are running this in SLI due to lack of enough ports on each card?

Yep, that is possible. NVIDIA supplied no images or reasons for SLI on each rig.

 

[Nickbaldwin86]

You just gained a whole new level for me Mr.Bennett.

That last paragraph was to die for, I could read that over and over and still admire each and every word of it. Oh and on a side note, I will be a part of your mob and help light torches

I am still waiting for my 2 other Dell monitors to get here, so I can have my very own Eyefinity setup, I have dreams at night that they came...LOL
I have played on a eyefinity setup but only for a few minutes, after that I had to have my own setup, that and all the reviews here @ [H] .

Thanks

 

[sizzlemeister]

I wouldn't place the bar at multi-display gaming, frankly, but would, and HAVE, set it at physics. I think nvidia is already hurting the PC gaming idiom by demonstrating how easy it is to turn an "open" platform into a proprietary-ridden mess.

It's not like a Playstation or XBox where the platform is controlled by the manufacturer and therefore the "rules" are all there for the third party developers to understand. The only time the "rules" change is when the platform goes through a generational change, which takes years for consoles.

With PC gaming, I think developers are forced to choose sides - nvidia or AMD/ATI. And the flavor of the moment changes with each new generation of video cards, which makes the choice more difficult on several levels.

 

[Shotglass01]

For god’s sake NVIDIA, if you pull this bullshit where 3D Surround "games" will not work on Eyefinity configurations, we are going to beat NVIDIA down repeatedly and publicly for harming the PC gaming industry.

I'd count on it. Nv is as bad as Apple on stuff like this. We wouldn't even have X58 SLI boards if Nv had Nehalem chipsets.

 

[DarthBeavis]

So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it? Are you arguing all technology developments should be open source? That is an interesting argument to say the least. I am not sure how a company will justify the expense of r & d if those efforts cannot be used as a source of differentiation. That's just the business school in me talking though.

 

[Derangel]

I think this could turn out to be a very interesting year for multi-monitor gaming. It interesting that they have 3D Vision working with it, though I really think they need to find a new way to do it besides those glasses.

 

[Derangel]

So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it? Are you arguing all technology developments should be open source? That is an interesting argument to say the least. I am not sure how a company will justify the expense of r & d if those efforts cannot be used as a source of differentiation. That's just the business school in me talking though.

No, what he is saying is that Nvidia shouldn't use its TWIMTBP (dear god that is a long acronym) program to make games be exclusive to nFinity (easier to say) at the expense of making them not work with Eyefinity.

 

[LostInRehab]

So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it? Are you arguing all technology developments should be open source? That is an interesting argument to say the least. I am not sure how a company will justify the expense of r & d if those efforts cannot be used as a source of differentiation. That's just the business school in me talking though.

Kyle doesn't want the 3d vision only the multi monitor support portion to be open source.

 

[figgie]

So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it?

Wait

how the hell does Nvidia patent something that was "prior art" from the early 80's/late 80's?

Give up?? they never where privie to it!

 

[sbuckler]

I wouldn't place the bar at multi-display gaming, frankly, but would, and HAVE, set it at physics. I think nvidia is already hurting the PC gaming idiom by demonstrating how easy it is to turn an "open" platform into a proprietary-ridden mess.

It's not like a Playstation or XBox where the platform is controlled by the manufacturer and therefore the "rules" are all there for the third party developers to understand. The only time the "rules" change is when the platform goes through a generational change, which takes years for consoles.

With PC gaming, I think developers are forced to choose sides - nvidia or AMD/ATI. And the flavor of the moment changes with each new generation of video cards, which makes the choice more difficult on several levels.

PC gaming is capitalism at work.
There's two ways to look at this:
1) The fact that companies are fighting for an edge by producing new technologies is killing PC gaming.
2) The fact that companies are fighting for an edge by producing new technologies is keeping PC gaming cutting edge.

If nvidia and ati didn't have each other then the rate of progress would be much slower - even DX progress is really microsoft directing new technologies those companies create. Without the competition we might well still be on DX9c (e.g. I bet tesselation went into DX11 because ati made microsoft realise it was necessary, not because microsoft thought of it themselves).

For physics nvidia took the lead, eventually a standard will arrive (probably enshrined by microsoft) and it'll be available all round, but if someone hadn't taken the initiative we'd probably still have no hardware physics at all. That's just how capitalism works - it's a pretty cruel system but it's why America got rich and Russia got poor.

 

[Shalafi]

Wow Mr. Bennett, I agree with you fully, if everyone were to think logically and ignore their brand loyalties for a moment. How would YOU honestly feel if you happened to spend over a grand (or 2 or 3 . .) for your Eyeinfinity setup and Nvidia pulled that TWIMTBP crap which rendered your Radeon Eyeinfinity useless?

Supppose you did have a Nvidia card and you used their Eyeinfinity setup and all was good, but down the road from when you purchased that Nvidia card, a better ATI card game out and you bought that, but since you already had paid for multiple displays, and Nvidia pulls that TWIMTBP crap on you rendering your setup useless, would you still be singing that same tune?

If I ever make an Eyeinfinity setup Nvidia had BETTER not try fucking with that huge investment in improving my overall experience, that would deaden me to Nvidia products for good, I play no favorites here, I've owned both and my next card looks like it might be a 5770 or 5850 if I build next month, if not next month, then in March I can see whether or not Fermi is released and then pick my vendor from there.

Guys, TWIMTBP needs to be stopped, no matter how you look at it.

 

[FrgMstr]

So you are saying Nvidia should give up their patent to 3d Stereo and let AMD have at it? Are you arguing all technology developments should be open source? That is an interesting argument to say the least. I am not sure how a company will justify the expense of r & d if those efforts cannot be used as a source of differentiation. That's just the business school in me talking though.

RTFA. No that is not what I am saying, never even came close saying it, never mentioned 3D Vision in the final paragraph.

It would be an interesting argument had I actually made it, but it is clear you did NOT RTFA.

 

[figgie]

Kyle,

One quick thing on mulit-monitor gaming

If anyone has a "right" to beef. it will be Matrox as they have been doing multi-monitor displays for quite a while.

Though hopefully Matrox does not contest IP on this as they still have the market cornered for multi-display on applications (stocks, tradings, NOC etc).

 

[DarthBeavis]

No, what he is saying is that Nvidia shouldn't use its TWIMTBP (dear god that is a long acronym) program to make games be exclusive to nFinity (easier to say) at the expense of making them not work with Eyefinity.

I agree ALL games should have open multi-monitor support then special features like 3d stereo in this case would be exclusive. I don't see how one company or another could lock out multi-monitor support. That should be at the OS level anyways. Imagine having an *Finity multi-touch system wrapped around you.

Games now that have 3d support are not exclusive to Nvidia so I am not sure where Kyle is coming from. Even Avatar with its built for 3d gaming works on Nvidia and Iz3d (again, I have inside contacts at BOTH companies and BOTH are my sponsors). This is the same model that I am sure will follow with the multi-mon issue although as I said the best way is to have native OS support if it not already there (have not messed with it yet so I will defer to those who have).

 

[anthrex]

Kyle and crew are the reasons why I stick around here. Thanks for your insights and your willingness to bring it to these companies

 

[FrgMstr]

Games now that have 3d support are not exclusive to Nvidia so I am not sure where Kyle is coming from.

Now is the time for you to post a picture of yourself standing in front of the AMD and ATI logo like you have been posting the NVIDIA logo. And I don't put anything past NVIDIA when it comes to making it proprietary. So while you may not see my issues, it does not mean they do not exist. And this whole thing you are spewing like you know what is going on behind the scenes because you build case mods for them is sort of funny. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but you are just a marketing guy to them.

And again, I never mentioned any issue with 3D Vision. My concerns here are about 3D Surround and Eyefinity. I can personally imagine more than few scenarios whould NVIDIA could certainly go for IP grabs here and proprietary interfaces and features specific to multi-display gaming.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

I agree ALL games should have open multi-monitor support then special features like 3d stereo in this case would be exclusive. I don't see how one company or another could lock out multi-monitor support. That should be at the OS level anyways. Imagine having an *Finity multi-touch system wrapped around you.

Nvidia "helped" Rocksteady with adding ingame AA on Batman. In return, Nvidia claimed IP on the AA solution and put a vendor-id block on it, resulting in that AA couldn't run on ATI cards unless you faked your vendor-id (where it then worked perfectly, since it was DX based anyway).

If Nvidia were to do the same, with "helping" developers with multi-monitor support or 3d and tieing up the multi-monitor support to their IP, resulting in a vendor-id block, it would work against multi-monitor support instead of being a welcome addition.

Then I would light a torch and join the mob Kyle would be leading against this.

But, for now I am very thrilled myself that Nvidia joins the multi-monitor gaming just as [H]ardOCP is:

HardOCP is tremendously glad to see NVIDIA on board with an Eyefinity-type solution; we are all for it and excited this is happening. I think it will force game developers to better use the technology when building games. This is good for PC gamers and good for PC gaming.

Nice Nvidia!!!!

 

[Shalafi]

Nvidia "helped" Rocksteady with adding ingame AA on Batman. In return, Nvidia claimed IP on the AA solution and put a vendor-id block on it, resulting in that AA couldn't run on ATI cards unless you faked your vendor-id (where it then worked perfectly, since it was DX based anyway).

If Nvidia were to do the same, with "helping" developers with multi-monitor support or 3d and tieing up the multi-monitor support to their IP, resulting in a vendor-id block, it would work against multi-monitor support instead of being a welcome addition.

that's exactly the sum of all fears right there

maybe if Nvidia spent more time working on Fermi and less time trying to figure out IP grabs, then maybe ATI wouldn't be on top with it's 5800 series right now

 

[phide]

Just for clarification here, NVIDIA's 3D Surround still supports Plain Jane, non-3D multi-display gaming, right? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is intensely interested, my interest in multi-display gaming is right around 3, but 3D multi-display gaming pegs right around 0.1.

Also, has NVIDIA commented about any kind of bezel management/correction features?

 

[Shalafi]

last paragraph:


This statement CAN be construed to mean the 3d technology working on Eyefinity configurations Kyle. I read it. I could see your point if there was a history of locking out games with regard to this technology but there is not as I have already shown with the example of Iz3d and Nvidia.

actually your reading comprehension fails, he's not talking about 3D technology, he's talking about MULTIMONITOR technology

like

you have a 3d Surround setup

I have an Eyeinfinity setup

the game will play on your rig, but not mine

can't make it any more simple than that, it's not the 3D surround, it's the multi monitor technology

 

[FrgMstr]

This statement CAN be construed to mean the 3d technology working on Eyefinity configurations Kyle. I read it. I could see your point if there was a history of locking out games with regard to this technology but there is not as I have already shown with the example of Iz3d and Nvidia.

YOU ARE WRONG. As I explained in the article. 3D Vision pertains to the actual 3D part of the technology. 3D Surround pertains to the multi-display part of the technology. Seeing how well you are plugged into NVIDIA's back room, you think you would be able to make the distinction.

The two technologies together are called....

NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround, the world's first consumer, multi-display 3D solution which allows users to span 3D content across 3 high definition monitors or projectors for a truly breathtaking and immersive gaming experience! NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround does for 3D PC gaming just like what IMAX® 3D does for movies.

 

[FrgMstr]

Just for clarification here, NVIDIA's 3D Surround still supports Plain Jane, non-3D multi-display gaming, right? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is intensely interested, my interest in multi-display gaming is right around 3, but 3D multi-display gaming pegs right around 0.1.

Also, has NVIDIA commented about any kind of bezel management/correction features?

Yes, 3D Surround can be used without 3D Vision. NVIDIA is not that dumb.

No comments on specifics yet to me.

 

[MADOGRE]

Thanks Kyle, good read, and thanks for clearing up the whole we love ATI for what they have given us, not because they pay us to say good things, I was starting to thing the later.

I also 100% agree Nvidia should be stoned if they try to take that from the gamers.
I love what Nvidia and ATI have done for PC gaming but we cant forget they are companies wanting to make money above all else.

 

[Anaerin]

As previously mentioned, Neither nVidia, nor AMD/ATI are first with this - Matrox did this a LONG time ago with their Parhalia system, and still manage it on any system with their TH2Go module. So if you really want to be truthful about what this technology is, try calling it "Triplehead" instead.

And, could someone with several monitors try something for me (I'm talking to AMD/ATI and nVidia owners here). Start a game in Windowed mode, then move the window from the primary display to a(ny) secondary display. If this works on your system (Which I believe it will on nVidia cards, though I'm not so sure about AMD/ATI ones), it means you could resize the windowed display and make it "Full Screen" over all displays, giving you (Multi-)head display right now.

As it stands, Windows has proper handling for multiple screens, assigning each an area, so you can maximise a window to a single screen. Eyefinity breaks this capability, because as far as Windows can see, it is a single large screen. When games start supporting reading the proper display dimensions (Not just the screen dimensions), and allowing users to pick just what displays they want their game on, the need for hacks like Triplehead and/or Eyefinity will no longer be required.

And, incidentally (AIUI), nVidia's 3D-Vision doesn't halve the framerates. The reason it only works with a select number of monitors and projectors is that those monitors and projectors can refresh at 120Hz, which 3D-Vision requires for smooth 3D experience (As each eye would be seeing the scene at 60Hz). The days of using shutter glasses that plug into the graphics card, and work with any display, even 60Hz CRTs, are long gone.

 

[Usquabach]

great article. i also can't wait for multi-monitor gaming to really take hold - and it certainly looks like it's happening

and of course a company must recoup r&d costs, however there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. the right way is a proactive marketing campaign, special pricing and deals and better accessibility/features for the technology. nvidia seems to be doing this by allowing older hardware to support 3d surround.

the wrong way is to lock out the technology, forcing consumers to make the choice between the two options and miss out on the other side of the coin. i would hope this would generate some major resentment by the consumer towards any company that tries to pull that bs.

ps. in the second last sentence there seems to be an r missing in through

 

[Gorankar]

Well thanks to this, the ability to use triple monitors just became the standard. Good deal.

They have earned a lot of ill will over the years with the "block everything with a driver update" mentality since SLI launched. But, I don't think Nv will try to block Eyefinity from working in TWIMTBP games. I don't think they are that stupid. They already have people pissed over their behaviour regarding PhysX and "proprietary" AA in Batman.

 

[Gorankar]

That would have been a perfect name, now they are stuck with a generic '3D Vision Surround' or whatever. The cost of not being first to market!

The worry is legit though. I can easily see games being branded "Eyefinity" or "3D VISION", and only work on their respective solutions. Dont know if AMD has commited to supporting NVDA's solution either and not locking them out. Even if they dont literally block things out, game programmers can make things difficult by having HUD elements display correctly on one set of screens, not on another, etc. It definitely needs to be an open standard.

Ati and Nv don't need to support each others respective multimonitor setups for this to all work out. They need only not get in each others way with any shenanigans.

 

[Anaerin]

Nvidia "helped" Rocksteady with adding ingame AA on Batman. In return, Nvidia claimed IP on the AA solution and put a vendor-id block on it, resulting in that AA couldn't run on ATI cards unless you faked your vendor-id (where it then worked perfectly, since it was DX based anyway).

From all that I read, nVidia never claimed the IP on the code. nVidia provided code that worked fine for their cards, and used a vendor-id block to ensure it was only enabled on systems they had QA'd the code on, namely their own. Rocksteady merely said "We don't want to touch their code, please provide us with some that you have QA'd to work".

If Nvidia were to do the same, with "helping" developers with multi-monitor support or 3d and tieing up the multi-monitor support to their IP, resulting in a vendor-id block, it would work against multi-monitor support instead of being a welcome addition.

There are 3 things that will happen for this to become an issue:

1. The Engine doesn't have coded support.
2. The Developer is not willing/not able to put the time in to implement the code necessary.
3. AMD/ATI is not willing/not able to provide similar code that can enable the feature.

Then only nVidia users would have the ability to use this, because someone (namely nVidia) took the time to code, QA, and enable it for them.

Then I would light a torch and join the mob Kyle would be leading against this.

It's not as if nVidia said "You can only use our code in here", it was Rocksteady saying "That particular piece of code was provided to us by nVidia, and we're not willing to change it. But if you provide us with some code that does the same thing, we'll gladly add it in for you".

Let's try another example.

AMD provide DivX with some code to enable accelerated encoding with the use of 3DNow!.
Intel notice that DivX runs faster on AMD than it does on Intel, and ask why.
DivX informs Intel that they got some code that enables them to use 3DNow.
Intel says "Well, why don't you change the code that AMD provided you, so that it works on MMX and 3DNow? They're practically the same anyway."
DivX says "We can't, and won't, because that code was provided to us by AMD, who are supporting it and have QA'd it for us, and we're not willing to enter into the potential IP lawsuit that may come from changing it. If you give us some code that enables MMX, we'll add it in too."
Intel goes moaning to the press that AMD is locking them out of DivX.

It's (exactly) the same situation.

 

[Druneau]

more 120hz lcd's?

That's all I could think while reading

 

[SixtyWattMan]

DarthBeavis I have to agree with Kyle, you completely misinterpreted the final paragraph but I think it was mostly due to nvidia's crappy naming scheme. (Why name the non-3D component 3D-Surround?!?! )

Any comments on the performance or connectors in the back of the GF100? Will it just be the standard 2 DVI and S-Video and require SLI or will we finally be seeing the death of S-Video and possibly a card with 3 DVI ports?

 

[Gorankar]

From all that I read, nVidia never claimed the IP on the code. nVidia provided code that worked fine for their cards, and used a vendor-id block to ensure it was only enabled on systems they had QA'd the code on, namely their own. Rocksteady merely said "We don't want to touch their code, please provide us with some that you have QA'd to work".

There are 3 things that will happen for this to become an issue:

1. The Engine doesn't have coded support.
2. The Developer is not willing/not able to put the time in to implement the code necessary.
3. AMD/ATI is not willing/not able to provide similar code that can enable the feature.

Then only nVidia users would have the ability to use this, because someone (namely nVidia) took the time to code, QA, and enable it for them.

It's not as if nVidia said "You can only use our code in here", it was Rocksteady saying "That particular piece of code was provided to us by nVidia, and we're not willing to change it. But if you provide us with some code that does the same thing, we'll gladly add it in for you".

Let's try another example.

AMD provide DivX with some code to enable accelerated encoding with the use of 3DNow!.
Intel notice that DivX runs faster on AMD than it does on Intel, and ask why.
DivX informs Intel that they got some code that enables them to use 3DNow.
Intel says "Well, why don't you change the code that AMD provided you, so that it works on MMX and 3DNow? They're practically the same anyway."
DivX says "We can't, and won't, because that code was provided to us by AMD, who are supporting it and have QA'd it for us, and we're not willing to enter into the potential IP lawsuit that may come from changing it. If you give us some code that enables MMX, we'll add it in too."
Intel goes moaning to the press that AMD is locking them out of DivX.

It's (exactly) the same situation.

Like it matters, AA has been hacked in, improved CPU PhysX has been hacked in as well. That we had to go that route makes both the devs and Nv look bad no matter how you look at it. Claiming Ati should have done the same is silly. Ati writes drivers and creates hardware, they don't code games. Why people expect them to reproduce the generic copy and paste code Nv used for AA in Batman still perplexes me.

 

[GabooN]

Can I get some clarification please,
GTX285 will be able to do multi-display gaming, looking over different OEMS some have a single HDMi with two DVis. And others have just two DVis, so are they going to be selling a dual DVi connection at some point? How far back in the product line is multi-display gaming being supported? And will you need an SLi setup in order for multi-display gaming to work?
I wonder if they will supply the glasses with a Fermi purchase or is that a separate expanse?

 

[Mike89]

It's clear as a bell that Hardocp thinks this triple monitor gaming stuff is the greatest gaming thing since sliced bread and will change the world.

I just don't see it. This is not going to be for the mainstream and never will. The average gaming joe just isn't going to go for this. Too expensive, to much upkeep, too much fiddling, too much space it takes up, etc.

I don't see this catching on any more than SLI did. It's going to basically be for the rich and/or people who don't have anything better to spend their money on.

I'm a gamer and game on PC just as much as anyone and more than most self proclaimed gamers. I knew I would never go for more than one video card in my computer and know that I will never go for more than one monitor. I just don't need it to enchance my gaming experience more than it already is (which is pretty damn good). And Fck them 3D glasses!

Just my two cents about that and it's worth nothing to anyone but me.

As far as Nvidia goes, I would not be a bit surprised if they come up with some proprietary crap like they did with PhysX, in fact I expect it.

 

[FrgMstr]

Any comments on the performance or connectors in the back of the GF100? Will it just be the standard 2 DVI and S-Video and require SLI or will we finally be seeing the death of S-Video and possibly a card with 3 DVI ports?

I have a camera team on the ground now to go over and check out the NV booth and see if we can get anything more specific on the hardware.

 

[J Macker]

I find it interesting that nVidia announces this out of nowhere. They don't have Fermi yet, but they want people to keep waiting for it. What better way to help gamers wait (and not buy Radeon 5xxx) than to announce nFinity with 3D?

Surely, a tactic used to try and damper Radeon sales, when their nFinity performance is probably sorely lacking (required SLI).

 

[FrgMstr]

I don't see this catching on any more than SLI did.

Too bad that SLI thing did not catch on. What a shame.

 

[FrgMstr]

Surely, a tactic used to try and damper Radeon sales, when their nFinity performance is probably sorely lacking (required SLI).

Yes, you are 100% correct. Remember NVIDIA does not comment on yet-to-be released products....except when they are losing ground rapidly and have nothing to sell in the high end.

 

[panhead]

Bit Cauldron has standard 3D Glasses

nVidia's 3D sucks

the Nvidia 3D vision parts. They were the wrong technology, using the wrong signaling, tied to the wrong monitors, going against the grain of the entire CE industry, all wrapped in a proprietary hardware setup at an abusive price...
a really big complaint about the Nvidia glasses is the absolutely moronic choice of IR signaling to trigger the shutters. This is cheap and easy to do, strobe on, one side is dark, strobe off, the other side is dark. Then again, if you have an IR remote, fluorescent light, or other IR source, you have problems. If you have two of them in the same room, well, game over. LAN parties are right out, and Nvidia demos are hilarious to watch. The contortions they have to go through to prevent interference are downright laughable.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/01/05/bit-cauldron-has-standard-3d-glasses/