AMD Eyefinity 3.0 to Introduce Mixed Resolution Support

[Bansaku]

FANTASTIC!! It is about freak's time!!!

 

[Prima.Vera]

I plan to buy an 19" with 768x1366 (in portrait mode) toghether with a 27" 1080p and they have the same PPI and same vertical size.
This mean I can finally have smooth desktop expansion, and also in games?
Something like 2688x1080? Not sure how this will be rendered on the small monitor, since it has 286 more vertical pixels than the 1080p one....

Btw, is this working on nVidia cards also?

 

[The Von Matrices]

I plan to buy an 19" with 768x1366 (in portrait mode) toghether with a 27" 1080p and they have the same PPI and same vertical size.
This mean I can finally have smooth desktop expansion, and also in games?
Something like 2688x1080? Not sure how this will be rendered on the small monitor, since it has 286 more vertical pixels than the 1080p one....

Btw, is this working on nVidia cards also?

Your idea won't work. All Eyefinity monitors must be in the same orientation (either all portrait or all landscape). This is what people are referring to when they say they want PLP support.

 

[Breit]

I plan to buy an 19" with 768x1366 (in portrait mode) toghether with a 27" 1080p and they have the same PPI and same vertical size.

How can that be? If they have the same PPI and the same vertical size, they must have the same (vertical) resolution! 1366 doesn't sound like it equals 1080?!

You'd better get a 30" 2560x1600 display along with two 20" 1600x1200 in portrait and wait for AMD to support PLP in Eyefinity.

And nope, also won't work on nVidia as of now!

 

[Prima.Vera]

How can that be? If they have the same PPI and the same vertical size, they must have the same (vertical) resolution! 1366 doesn't sound like it equals 1080?!

LOL. The 19" in portrait mode has exactly the same vertical size as the 27" in landscape mode, and almost the same PPI. Therefore the proportions are exactly the same.

1366x768@19" =82.48PPI
1920x1080@27"=81.59PPI

 

[Breit]

1366x768@19" =82.48PPI
1920x1080@27"=81.59PPI

What I meant was, that 1366 pixels at 82.48 PPI is about 16.56" and 1080 pixels at 81.59 PPI is about 13.24", which is not "almost the same size", it differs by "almost" 3 inches (or ~25%)!

But what do I know, maybe when calculating in the US customary system 1366 pixels "almost" equals 1080 pixels...

Also having panels arranged in PLP where the flanking panels are taller than the central panel does look kind of stupid I guess, but that's a topic for another debate.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Breit, you're confused man.
Is not 1366p, is 768p@19" which is almost the same PPI as 1080p@27".
And no, I already have the monitor on the desk in portrait mode and is exactly the same vertical size as the 27" one. The monitor is branded as 18.5" thow....

 

[Breit]

All right, all right, maybe I misunderstand you, but doesn't a 1366x786 panel in portrait actually has 1366 pixels in the vertical direction?

 

[Koan]

LOL. The 19" in portrait mode has exactly the same vertical size as the 27" in landscape mode, and almost the same PPI. Therefore the proportions are exactly the same.

1366x768@19" =82.48PPI
1920x1080@27"=81.59PPI

Breit is correct, your math doesn't make sense. The pixel density and height cannot be the same if the number of pixels is different (1366 != 1080). For 16:9 screens (which both of these are), an 18.5" screen is 16.12" tall in portrait mode and a 27" screen is 13.24" tall in landscape mode. This is far from "exactly the same." If the 18.5" screen is actually 18.5", and the other one is the same height as the 18.5" is long, then the larger one would actually have to be a 33" screen, and likewise they would have very different pixel densities at those resolutions.