AMD says: “To enable support for more than 2 monitors, ‘active’ DisplayPort adapters/dongles are required (or monitors with direct DisplayPort connectivity must be used).”
ATI Eyefinity Validated Dongles
http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-dongles.aspx
Here is what I do with my 3 1600x1200 displays. I’m a Unix sysadmin for a company that manages thousands of systems for a few dozen customers. I have my web browser (documentation) on one, monitoring program, ticket managment program, and as many as 12 terminals (and when I RDP to a windows box, I usually put it here) on the second, and chat, email, and notepad++ for notes and such on the third display. I really could use a 4th display so that I could leave the monitoring app visible all the time.
So yes, 6MP, and I know how I could use 8.
I have long been a fan of dual monitors for software development. Recently though I started working with a single 30" monitor and I like it much more than the dual monitor configuration.
I really like being able to have two things open side by side, an IDE window and a browser window, Xcode and the iPhone Simulator, etc. You just can’t do this on a single monitor smaller than 30" but at this size and resolution I find it’s easy to fit two windows side by side. For me it has the same benefits as dual monitors but also allows for a simpler hardware setup. I also end up spending some days using my laptop and some using my desktop and it’s very convenient to be able to use the same display setup with both. This was something that was not workable with the dual monitors as the laptop doesn’t have a great way to support two external displays.
Going to three monitors is very simple and cheap using the following USB solution: http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=100-U2-UV16-A1&family=USB
It works well although I strongly suggest connecting digitally. Currently I am using this device to drive my “primary” desktop monitor and it keeps up with everything … including very intensive graphics.
The different ports are very annoying there is currently no out and out best between displayport and HDMI.
Display port has the most bandwidth and therefor supports higher resolutions at higher framerates this may be important in 3D TV (120hz). It is also usable internally for things like laptops, has an ethernet channel but doesn’t have an audio return channel (for tv to av receiver or similar), xvYCC colour space or Consumer Electronics Control signals. Things that HDMI has. HDMI being more expensive on royalties and manufacture however and not usable internally.
The latest generation of DisplayLink USB-to-DVI adapters, which came out in November 2009, handles multiple monitors up to 1900x1200 with 32-bit color and no stutter whatsoever (that I can tell). They’re plug-and-play and work with laptops and macs. I have these Kensington adapters http://us.kensington.com/html/17534.html driving two big monitors, with a third on DVI. I’m not a gamer, but I can’t tell the difference performance-wise between the screen that’s on DVI and the two that are on USB.
I have a 5x1 grid of 1920x1200 24" Samsung monitors pivoted vertically, which makes a 6000x1920 11.5 megapixels workspace, running off very cheap and silent video cards: 2x Asus EAH3650 PCI-E, 1x Asus EAH4350 PCI (five DVI’s all up).
Five of these monitors cost less (in Australia) than one 30" Dell which only has 4.1 megapixels. The only problem with portrait monitors is ClearType doesn’t work properly. Tuning does improve it, but it’s not as good as a landscape setup.
Visual Studio is so much better at 2400x1920, and having dedicated locations for Firefox, Windows Explorer, SQL Management Studio, AutoCAD, Skype and Messenger with room to spare definitely saves me time every day.
HDMI is NOT the same as DVI, as it does not support all the resolutions, eg 1920x1200. With the ATI cards I believe you have to use the DisplayPort if you want to enable a third screen; if you use the HDMI port, you lose one of the DVI ports.
@Felonhead - “How is one video card plus an ugly external powersucking dongle more “simple” than two video cards?” Same thing I was thinking, and not much price or power consumption difference with the active adapter.
@Masterplansoftware - I’m thinking the same you are, 0.0125 ohms to 0.025 is not enough to make very much difference in USB current between front and rear ports, unless the PC case is over 5 meters long. 
That new card is very cool though.
I’m an nvidia user and I’ve owned pretty much every series up to my 9600 GSO. They’ve all been 2 (or 1) output. But every GeForce 210 I’ve seen has 3 outputs. My first 3-output card was an ATI HD4350 for my HTPC and “Detect Displays” in Win7 actually showed 3 boxes. So 3 monitors with 1 card on a cheap budget is doable nowadays. I wouldn’t pay more than $30 for a workstation card (or HTPC card) but that’s just cheap me.
I am working on a 4-VGA workstation with Ubuntu and nvidia cards at the moment. 3 PCI 8400GS @ $40/ea and 1 PCI-E 8400GS @ $15, each with 1 DVI + 1 VGA. So there’s room for more DVI/VGA monitors. Link: http://rwong.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/i-caved-in-to/
I’ve been using three monitors at work for a while now. The NVIDIA Quadro NVS 450 (http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_quadro_nvs_450_us.html) is a neat card – no fan, four DisplayPort outputs. I can’t quite justify a fourth monitor, other than that my desk would look even more geeky.
I use multiple screens, but on multiple systems at once.
On the MacBook Pro I always have a second screen attached. Then I sometimes use ScreenRecycler http://retep.net/aT0qA9 to add a third screen - it works via vnc and works pretty well.
Then most of the time I also use synergy http://retep.net/aqJ2RP to connect multiple linux boxes/laptops from the mac.
All this really means is that I’ve always got at least 4 screens accessible at any one time.
I have 2 wide screen monitors at work and it is nice. I don’t know how essential it is though.
At home I have a single monitor and use the compiz cube to switch between workspaces and that works pretty darn good. The cube adds a wow factor too.
Definitely, wide screen is better than square.
I ran into the multiple monitor conundrum with my MacBook Pro. I was incredibly hesitant to use the USB -> DVI solutions, but I found one in particular that works pretty well. I’m able to watch Netflix (not quite full screen), Code with XCode, and display my IRC chats and Adium contact list without running into noticeable frame drop issues.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer%20Technology/VIDU2DVIA/
It is my recommendation for those of you who don’t want to/can’t buy a new-fangled video card.
Just don’t expect to play any 3D games on that monitor.
@Eric Beard:
If you get sick reading long lines on Wikipedia: there is no law that says that you always have to maximize your browser window. In fact, one advantage of having a big monitor (or two or three) is that you can actually see more than one window at a time!
This is absurd. I only need 1 physical monitor and 8 to 10 virtual desktops. I can’t read 3 or even 2 monitors simultaneously, so hitting ctl-f1, ctl-f2, etc. to switch between different “screens” is perfect. I don’t even have to turn my head.
I’ll also argue that you are less productive because you’re trying to focus on more than one thing at a time.
Michael: HDMI interfaces can support resolutions well beyond 1920x1200. (Not all of them do, of course, just as some sources still only output 720p… but that’s not in the HDMI spec itself, it’s a limitation of the source.)
Some monitors and video cards and driver combinations don’t auto-negotiate resolutions like that properly (requiring futzing and manual setup), but there’s nothing about the HMDI interface, signaling, or cabling that makes it incompatible or not supported.
The HMDI spec (and the fact that a cable adapter alone will work) assures us that the video signal from an HDMI port is identical to that from a DVI-D port.
The HDMI spec, in fact, requires full compatibility with DVI 1.0 (HDMI spec v1.3, Appendix C).
So I think it really is fair to say that “HDMI is the same as DVI” in this context… with the single caveat that some drivers for video cards aren’t very good at detecting resolution capabilities of some HDMI sinks. But it’s not a limitation of HDMI itself.
You actually CAN be too thin, it’s called anorexia.
Apart from that, I agree: you can’t have too much screen real estate.
My workplace sports two 30-inch Dells and the only things that are keeping me from getting a third one is a) the heat another 30-inch would produce, b) the cost and c) the fact that I would lose desk real estate that is currently occupied by a phone, a MacBook and some audio hardware.
Jeff: Here is what to do.
Plug your Stuffs like this.
DVI-1: DVI Cable in LCD1
DVI-2: DVI Cable in LCD2
or
Use an HDMI to DVI cable or adaptor they are dirt cheap. they range from From 0$ to 20$. check your LCD-DVI cable-end, to choose the proper adaptor.
HDMI is mainly to allow easy plug-in with HDTV so that your HDTV setup is not using 2 cables to connect Digital Sound and Digital video.
A few useful videos how-to :
1.The cables:
HDMI acts as a Dvi Cable and a SPDIF cable into one.
DVI is a mute digital signal without sound of a certain resolution and refresh rate.
While VGA is an Analogue Signal of a certain resolution and refresh. RCA, S-video and Composite are the same Analogue Signal NTSC/PAL but over different cable.
Your LCD normally receives a muted digital signal of a certain resolution from the DVI port
The Resolutions you choose on an HDMI port depend on the Receiving Hardware compatibility. I mean that if you select an output resolution for your HDMI port compatible with your LCD monitor, it will work.
6.Some projectors only have an HDMI ports but dont use HDTV compatible resolutions. Some HDTV accepts 1024 by 768, others only understand HD resolutions, etc… so your videocard should be versatile.
Hope It help
There is a lot of video blur going-on.
This story reminds me of the words of a New York City investment banking vice-president (quoted on page 16 in the ICP Interface Administrative & Accounting August 1983 issue) as he explains how using a Compaq portable, an IBM PC, and an Apple III all at once provides him with truly multiple windows and literally split screens: “It’s like Lisa, only separate machines are better”.
Sigivald: That’s a good explanation, thanks.
David Durham: Don’t knock it till you try it. The point with multiple screens is that you don’t need to hit Ctrl-F1 or Alt-Tab. I often have two instances of API help open, two or three source files, some sample code on a website, and several other programs all at once to solve one problem. Clearly, your eyes don’t focus on everything all at once, but it’s like driving. In a car you have a windscreen, two side windows and three mirrors all providing different but very important information. You might even have to turn your head, which I don’t see a problem with, it’s good for you. But, you’re still really only focussed on one task: driving.