PDA

View Full Version : Single vs Dual monitor performance



gschrick
07-08-2007, 08:14 AM
I am thinking of upgrading my system. Currently I am using a 2 monitor set up for LW at home and a single widescreen 30" monitor at work. The graphics card at work is superior to my Quartro 500 at home. But, I have had some display issues with the single large display, thinking that it may be too much for the graphics card to run a resolution that large.

Does anyone know if there are any performance issues, benefits etc. with working with 1 or 2 monitors? I'm not talking about work preference. Personally I would rather have one large display, rather than split my screens with a seam between monitors. I'm just wopndering if spliting the output has any effect on system resources.

Bytehawk
07-08-2007, 11:27 AM
believe it or not : I'm in the same situation as you

2 monitors are always better than one except if you have one big helluva monitor
and then 2 big helluva monitors are better then one :)

I haven't seen any problems using 2 monitors on nvidia cards. Ati is a whole other league.

I personally wouldn't touch an ati. But that's because we have a history, me and ati. A bad one !

RedBull
07-08-2007, 04:34 PM
30" Screens often require DualLink DVI to even suppport a picture.
So you would require some hefty cards to get the most out of them.
Performance does take a dive when using Dual DVI or DVI/VGA with seperate frame buffer.

eagleeyed
07-09-2007, 03:26 AM
At the moment I am running a dual boot system with Linux Ubuntu for everyday tasks, XP Pro for using Lightwave. I have a dual screen setup in the Windows, it is a 19" LCD Wide for my Main, 17" CRT for secondary. I have loaded a high poly model in both single and dual modes and have not noticed hardly any difference in speed, the different only being caused by the extra monitor it now needs to feed too.

By the way, I would recommend a Nvidia Card as well, I have had no good experiences with ATI, my current card is a cheapy (a Nvidia 7600GS) but it does the job with no hassle at all.

oDDity
07-16-2007, 11:56 PM
Two screens are not always better than one. That argument could go on indefinitely. 3 screens, 4 screens stacked in a square, etc.
It depends what kind of work you're doing.
For video editing or after effects work, I can see the benefit, but for modeling or arch viz type work, it's pure extravagance.
I can imagine having another 24" here, and if I did, I would actually have to turn my head a significant amount to see from the left edge of the first one to the right edge of the second one.
Once you have to start constantly swivelling your head around like that girl from the exorcist, you've bought too much screen space.
I work full screen in mudbox and phototshop anyway, using hotkeys at all times, and LW likewise (and the interface can't be separated anyway)

tribbles
07-17-2007, 06:51 AM
I have it setup so that my modeler's on the left, with all its subwindows on the right, and layout on the right, and its subwindows on the left.

This means that I don't need to move subwindows if I'm moving a point to a location that is obscured by, say, the numeric panel.

Bytehawk
07-17-2007, 06:56 AM
I have grown to like 2 screens.
Just like Tribbles, I put all the panels on one monitor so the main window stays maximised on the other. Likewise, working with nodes I have the nodal window maximised on one side, surface editor, fprime and viper on the other along with any reference material open in xnview (and this is where a 3rd monitor might be handy : to open reference material).

iconoclasty
07-18-2007, 12:27 PM
Putting submenus and the like on a second monitor speeds up workflow considerably. Both for Modeler and Layout. And yes, if I had another video card and 2 more monitors laying around, I'd hook those up. I know I could use the space and I'm sure my neck could take it.

bluerider
07-18-2007, 12:34 PM
Two screens are not always better than one. That argument could go on indefinitely. 3 screens, 4 screens stacked in a square, etc.
It depends what kind of work you're doing.
For video editing or after effects work, I can see the benefit, but for modeling or arch viz type work, it's pure extravagance.
I can imagine having another 24" here, and if I did, I would actually have to turn my head a significant amount to see from the left edge of the first one to the right edge of the second one.
Once you have to start constantly swivelling your head around like that girl from the exorcist, you've bought too much screen space.
I work full screen in mudbox and phototshop anyway, using hotkeys at all times, and LW likewise (and the interface can't be separated anyway)

Personally i don't think a 24inch will cause much head swivel. Unless Tom Thumb is trying to use that system.

In which case i recommend one of those mini mice for an extravaganza laptop user

Bytehawk
07-18-2007, 01:32 PM
24 inch is ok, but only if it has enough resolution. You aint noting with a 24 inch monitor at less than 1920x1200 Pixels.

Lamont
07-18-2007, 01:38 PM
I'm using LW and Photoshop. I barely touch video, so one screen is fine. Having another 24" on the desk sounds cool, but in reality, I don't need it. I can ALT-Tab pretty fast.

IMI
07-18-2007, 06:12 PM
Two 19" CRT monitors here, screen on the left for Layout or Modeler, screen on the right for menus and panels, using a PCIx GeForce 7950 GT OC, both screens at 1600x1200, no performance issues at all. (except for LW's built-in OGL "issues")
I couldn't ever go back to just one monitor. I get on my single monitor internet and Office computer, and I'm constantly looking around for the "rest" of it. :D