TechSpot: Triple Monitor Gaming - GeForce GTX 590 vs. Radeon HD 6990

With the release of the dual-GPU AMD Radeon HD 6990, closely followed by the competing Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 we saw graphics card performance reach new heights. With bandwidth throughput in excess of 300GB/s, these cards can consume more power than entire computer systems. Moreover, the two GPUs on board of either product are so complex that combined make up for 11,000 million transistors.

By utilizing three monitors games can become roughly 3x more demanding as the graphics card is required to render an overwhelmingly higher number of pixels. Whereas we commonly test graphics cards at single monitor resolutions of 1680x1050 (22”), 1920x1200 (24”) and 2560x1600 (30”), today we are taking these and adding two more LCD monitors for effective resolutions of 5040x1050, 5760x1200 and 7680x1600.

In this article we will explore the kind of performance you can expect from the GeForce GTX 590 and Radeon HD 6990 graphics cards when playing several popular games using triple 22”, 24” or 30” monitor configurations.

Read: Triple Monitor Gaming: GeForce GTX 590 vs. Radeon HD 6990

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Resistance 3 demo to be included in Battle Los Angeles Blu-Ray June 14

Next Story

Apple Store is down, new iMacs coming?

12 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm waiting for a company to come out with a 3 monitor package, with a left center and right monitor where it has the bezels on the sides that aren't a part of the screen; only on the edges. Once this is out then I think Eyefinity and Surround will become more practical.

Even though the Radeon card may perform better, the Nvidia card works with more games and has less crashes due to incompatability.
My experience is with the mid stream versions of these two products. When I built my last computer, I choose the Radeon version of video card. 6 months and a dozen games later I got so feed up with the random crashes and the "in my mind" sub par graphics. I changed over to the Nvidia version (about the same level) and haven't had any crashes since. The graphics look amazing and I couldn't be happier.

Huffdady said,
Even though the Radeon card may perform better, the Nvidia card works with more games and has less crashes due to incompatability.
My experience is with the mid stream versions of these two products. When I built my last computer, I choose the Radeon version of video card. 6 months and a dozen games later I got so feed up with the random crashes and the "in my mind" sub par graphics. I changed over to the Nvidia version (about the same level) and haven't had any crashes since. The graphics look amazing and I couldn't be happier.

Great...one card and you say ATI is crap...i had also a nVidia 7950GT and it was working horrible...my old gForce 2 was also a peace of ****...the only great nVidia graphics card i have is my GTX460-GLH-GS which is my current graphics card (it was a price decision against the ATI HD6850). How ever i was happy with my HD3870 and HD4870...never had any problem with those cards...ATIs current set of cards is faster then nVidia at the same price and nVidia has nothing that really matters if you choose a new card.

Never really liked the idea of doing this for FPS or other games except ones like driving games where the monitor case edges could be dismissed as parts of the car.

The few three monitor setups I have seen with a nearly invisible seam are ok though

Teebor said,
Never really liked the idea of doing this for FPS or other games except ones like driving games where the monitor case edges could be dismissed as parts of the car.

The few three monitor setups I have seen with a nearly invisible seam are ok though

Exactly what I think about setups like the one pictures in the article. There is no way I'm investing in three monitors if I have to "see" the bezels effectively divide my field of vision. I would rather have one 40" or more TV to game on than three 24" monitors like that.

fantastic review, as I was looking for something like this for ages

I have 2x24" on a 6950 (so adding another 24" would make it boil water and an egg) ... I have enabled eyefinity and played a bit of NFS and was a dual screen orgasm in front of my eyes ....

the one problem (that these guys mention too) is cost as you have to really get 2 cards instead of 1 and 3 monitors (though you could get them on sale) but, as time goes by I will get my 3rd monitor and will get an SLI/Crossfire (so the $5000 pricetag does not have to be all at once)

I'd like to know why they tested Crysis warhead with DX10 and then Crysis 2 in DX9. And others. Seems far too inconsistant.

mileshale said,
I'd like to know why they tested Crysis warhead with DX10 and then Crysis 2 in DX9. And others. Seems far too inconsistant.

As nub says Crysis 2 is DX9 only so there isn't any other way to run it. Crysis Warhead on the other hand is much more demanding on hardware in DX10 mode so it makes sense to test it in that mode.