Can someone give me hope?

[TonyD]

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...

Sorry Odlschool, but neuro is correct. Your calculation of 3 x (800 x 600), which totals 1 440 000, is correct, but is not equal to (3 x 800) x (3 x 600) which totals 4 320 000 pixels, which equals 9 x (800 x 600).

This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels).

Hope this helps

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by TonyD

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...



This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels).

Hope this helps

Uh thats what I said... its actual 1600x900 pixels equivalents which =1.44 million pixels which isnt near the same as 800x600 performance wise. everyone keeps misunderstanding the values

3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned,

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

...

3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned,

True, but most modern graphics cards can handle that quite easily, can't they? I'm running 1080p on medium settings with shadows enabled at a playable frame rate, which may or may not be considered a 'high' resolution, depending on your point of view. Most test sites (eg, Tom's) refer to high resolution as 2560 x 1600, which is nearly 3 1600 x 900.

But anyway, I get your point.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by TonyD

True, but most modern graphics cards can handle that quite easily, can't they? I'm running 1080p on medium settings with shadows enabled at a playable frame rate, which may or may not be considered a 'high' resolution, depending on your point of view. Most test sites (eg, Tom's) refer to high resolution as 2560 x 1600, which is nearly 3 1600 x 900.

But anyway, I get your point.

True, and you also probably have patches which make the game more playable which wasn't the case when this whole discussion started.