One Console Triple Display Compatible
- Thread starter Richhard1
- 24 comments
- 3,249 views
- 593
- Lohmar, Germany
- jabofu
- DAG JaboFu
- 7,711
- Indiana-USA
- OwensRacing
SimonK
1080 is the vertical lines and p is progressive. Which describes how those 1080 lines are displayed.
So size and display type are not locked.
- 268
- Melbourne, Australia
- evilserpentman
That's all I'm asking. One Console, 3 x HDMI ports, 1080p resolution running at 60fps.
Oh and shadows, bloom, day/night cycle, reflection, 30 cars+ and lagless multiplayer.
Stick to your PC. I seriously doubt that consoles will have enough power to properly do this within a reasonable price range.
1080 is the vertical lines and p is progressive. Which describes how those 1080 lines are displayed.
So size and display type are not locked.
Yes but when you refer specifically to modern video standards you assume an aspect ratio of 16:9 with square pixels, which would be 1920 wide. I know technically 1080p refers only to the height but it's generally accepted to mean 1920x1080, otherwise it would be a redundant and confusing statement if it could openly refer to any aspect ratio or pixel shape.
Hence why I was confused when he said it but referred to three screens.
- 7,711
- Indiana-USA
- OwensRacing
SimonK
I'd agree however the thread title clearly throws conventional aspect ratios out.
Triples is that 48x9 ratio lol
Speaking of aspect ratio. I see more and more films clips and trailers being made in something wider then 16x9. Which leads me to think there is more to the iPhone 5,s long or landscaped wider screen.
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
What has this got to do with GT6?
- 7,765
- Yorkshire
- ScapeGoat4U
- WhippingBoy
Maybe he wants PS4 to have 3 HDMI outputs to connect 3 TV's to it, & presumes that GT6 will be released on that platform to take advantage of it
- 7,711
- Indiana-USA
- OwensRacing
Even a triple monitor adapter would be a better option then buying three PS4's. Make the adapter cost less then a PS4.
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
- 2,012
Nothing wrong with that request. Decent processor + one video card gets you that on a PC these days, so personally I fully expect this kind of functionality in PS4. Three mini display ports don't take that much space.
Now, I'd be impressed if it comes with support of 5760 x 1080p in 3D
While it can be done (with 3 hdmis) the thing is it is absolutely impossible to run the game at 5760x1080p at the exact same quality as in 1920x1080p (gt5 isn't but anyway) on a console that's running the game on a single screen at its max.
Quality will decrease so much you wouldn't want that feature to be in first place, therefore ridiculous request. Nowadays the necessary compromise goes into making the game look as good as possible in one screen, no matter the fps (gt5 is great on this regard and it isn't steady 60fps anyway, not to say 120 or more) or lack of triple screen support.
The whole point of buying consoles at their release date (or close enough, which is the best moment to do so) is they run games much better than a PC that costs the same. Reasons are consoles are mostly dedicated to run games, games are optimized for each console, mass production and at release date companies lose money on each sale (except nintendo).
Last edited:
- 33
- Kalamazoo, MI
- GTP_BadgerPoker / BadgerPoker24
If multimonitor feature is coming back and it can't be done on a single console (which would be awesome, but I consider unlikely), they should at least have a free client app to run on the other consoles so you don't have to buy 3 copies of the game. But then, if you can afford 3 consoles, what's 3 copies of the game? I started doing triple monitor on PC and don't really want to go back to a single screen.
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
All sounds reasonable, but I fail to see the specific reason why you think 3-screen is not viable.
One can assemble a PC _NOW_ that would run 3x1920x1080 @60hz on full detail. If done properly, it would cost under a grand. If you factor in the PS4 volume and efficiencies of scale, even now the total cost of hardware to Sony to make this possible is gonna be under $6-700. Given that consoles are sold at a loss anyway, $500 price point seems totally feasible to me. And that's today. When PS4 comes out - it will be even cheaper to achieve. Personally, I'm not buying it w/o tripple screen support.
- 2,012
Re-read the post. In short, right now a single PS3 could run games on triple screens at 5760x1080p, with the necessary hardware (hdmis), firmware (configuring the graphics card to being capable to run such a high resolution) and software (games) changes, but the games will look and feel completely awful, horrid, unbelievably bad. That issue cannot be technically avoided with one non-upgradeable console.
All consoles have a limit, just like a PC that is not going to be upgraded. With that said try running .....crysis2 at 1080p max quality max filters. Lets say you get 120steady fps, now try running it at 5760x1080p: it won't be more than 60fps, and since you have a decent pc you know that with image quality (etc.) the sky is the limit.
That "console compromise" will always be there as long as consoles cannot be upgraded, no matter if they cost $500 or $2000.
Now if there's a compromise, what aspect do you want to prioritize? Right now most games run at 30fps instead of 60: developers prefer the game looking the best they can (in one screen) even though that necessarily means less fps. Why? Because image quality in one screen is what sales in most cases, not a niche market of 3 screens players or 120fps on consoles.
edit: To be more concrete, lets say GT6 comes out for the PS4. What PD will want is making it run at (most probably) 1080p at 60fps, with the best image quality they can squeeze out of the PS4 though the PC developers version obviously runs better (more things on screen, better effects, resolution, higher quality models and textures, filters and whatnot). If the console is already maxed out how come can you expect it to run the same but now on 3 different screens, which is a lot higher resolution, at the same quality and without upgrading the hardware: it's impossible without drastically lowering image quality and all the rest (think of gt6 to gt5 quality), and that's something no one wants on consoles.
How do you get rid of that core issue? With 3 consoles, which is essentially upgrading the hardware, or the game not running at max quality if it is on a single screen, which is silly.
And as a bit of offtopic, tbh I wouldn't be confident on that the triple screen version (with 3 ps3s) runs at the same resolution as regular GT5 x3 with the same quality and with the same fps. Actually it is impossible with even the 2012 hardware as "linked" graphics cards = fps stutters, always.
In doubt, read again.
Last edited:
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
Bleh, wall of text. Learn to express your thoughts concisely.
You seem to be assuming that PS4 will still be optimizing single-screen picture for 1080p resolution. I doubt that as well. If it comes out with support of 4X (or however it's called), then there's plenty it could deliver on 3x screens @1080p.
You seem to be assuming that PS4 will still be optimizing single-screen picture for 1080p resolution. I doubt that as well. If it comes out with support of 4X (or however it's called), then there's plenty it could deliver on 3x screens @1080p.
- 4,848
- Netherlands
- PaMu1337
He explained it in a short version, you didn't understand, so he creates a longer version to explain, and you complain it's too long...
Your point only holds if the PS4 will support gaming with quad HD (unlikely, this is about 9x the number of pixels used in most games now (most are run at 720p))
- 40,842
Oh god. Not this again.
Is that concise enough for you?Ok let's clear this up.
This is an AMD HD7970 GPU, close to the top of the range on todays GPU market. It retails for £320+ alone, depending on the version.
Now here are some benchmarks for Battlefield 3 running at 5760x1080 resolution with ultra settings and also compared to the comparative priced GTX 680.
Note that the top two results are SLI and Crossfire, TWO of those cards running together. Total cost = £600+. They don't even manage 60fps with AA turned on, the single cards barely manage 30fps.
That is at 5760x1080 resolution. Number of pixels total - 6,220,800.
Now 4k, if you take the 3840 x 2160 UHDTV spec and what PD are sampling GT5 at, number of pixels total = 8,294,400. That's a 33% increase in pixel density.
So in conclusion if a £330 GPU cannot manage 30fps with that resolution how on earth is a GPU much less powerful and cheaper going to manage that + a 33% increase in pixel density?
Last edited:
dsgerbc
Premium
- 2,577
- dsgerbc
Don't get to hang-up on me saying 4X. I just don't see 1080p being the top resolution PS4 will optimize games for, that is all.Oh god. Not this again.
Is that concise enough for you?
And even if it's 1080p but at, say, 180HZ/240hz then there's still plenty of juice to give us 3x1080p x60hz.
- 2,012
learn to read, and what pamu and toronado said.
You have lots of concepts mixed up and not a decent base to begin with. With that said there's no point in explaining it to you, even more so if you don't even bother on trying to learn. You simply shouldn't post about things you have no clue about.
Similar threads
