Neowin

4K monitors are the new hot thing for PC owners to get, even if they are still highly expensive. Earlier this month we reported that the new PQ321Q 31.4 inch monitor from Asus could run 207 instances of Minesweeper inside its top resolution of 3840x2160. This week, Microsoft decided to have some fun in creating a PC rig designed to run three 4K monitors linked to form one large display via AMD's Eyefinity technology.

As described on the Extreme Windows blog, Microsoft got to play with three Sharp PN-K321 32-inch 4K monitors (on loan, unfortunately), each with a resolution of 3840x2160. They also cost close to $5,000 each. AMD brought in an ASUS HD 7970 DirectCU II graphics card to put in the PC rig that has six monitor ports (four DisplayPorts and two DVI ports).

After playing the recent Codemasters racing game Dirt 3 on Windows 8 on all three screens at 30 Hz and one screen at 60 Hz with some success, Microsoft decided to go all out and run the game at 60 Hz on all three monitors running as one display. AMD actually created a custom driver package for the rig and added two more graphics cards and a custom power system (needless to say, the blog insists that people reading the article not try this at home).

The final result was that they were able to run Dirt 3 on this $17,000 custom PC at around 62 to 67 FPS on all three Sharp 4K monitors at 60 Hz with all settings on “High” except for shadow detail and particles. That's a total display resolution of 11520x2160 with a whopping 1,492,992,000 pixels running. The catch? The PC rig was only able to run for a few minutes before it reset because the PSU was getting too much power.

I agree.

I never saw it that way.

(Dammit. I should've quoted you.)

Thats insane. I wonder when 4K gaming will become a standard.

11520x2160? I'm officially jealous! Makes my 7680x1440 seem paltry in comparison! (I want 3x 4k panels!)

Still, if my current resolution is anything to go by then, no 3x Radeon 7970's aren't enough to run the latest Crysis with everything maxed. :P

Also from the Article: "The PC rig was only able to run for a few minutes before it reset because the PSU was getting too much power."
PSU's aren't forced to accept power from the mains, which likely means that the system was drawing to much power from the PSU, that tidbit should really be re-worded.
And it should only shut down when running a game/program that will use Crossfire, AMD's idle power consumption is actually really good. (Especially with crossfire as the extra cards shut off.)

1.5 billion pixels PER SECOND, not frame.

Just using a big number to get hits.

10 years.  That's my prediction.  10 years for it to be pretty standard on PC and 15-20 years for consoles.  

Who am I kidding I'm probably way off.  I don't know crap about tech.

I've always wanted a set up like that! not so much the 4k but the 3 monitors lol

Do it. Gaming immersion with Eyefinity/Surround Vision can't be matched. (Except by real life!)

When you first set a triple-monitor display up, it does taking some getting used to because of the massive real-estate area, but now after a couple of years, I actually find it frustrating to use a PC with only a single screen now.

However, the big caveat is the sheer amount of hardware you need to push framerates at such a resolution, Dirt is fine it's a fairly low-demanding game as are most console ports.
But games that push the hardware like Battlefield, Crysis, Metro require a beefy system even at 1080P, so you will find you need to upgrade more often or tone down the settings.

I'm think about having 3 screens at some point, but I'm confused by how many graphics cards I would need or whatever.  I know 1 wouldn't be enough but would 2 suffice or do I have to have a graphics card for every screen?  I currently have 1 gtx 680.  I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to tech too.