Acer Nitro 5 AN515-45-R49W Model. How many monitors can I connect?

RegalEagle
RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

Tinkerer
edited December 2021 in Nitro Gaming
Hi there. I have the Acer Nitro 5 AN515-45-R49W Model and currently run the HDMI slot into a 34” ultra wide monitor but I want to buy two additional smaller (multi function display) screens for my flight sim. 

Would I be able to buy any splitter/adapter etc to add those two as my machine is running a 3080 laptop GPU. 

Thanks in advance. 

Ps. Below is what I’m hoping to achieve and I’ve already ordered the screens so if it’s a no go then I’ll be having to sell the new(ish) laptop and buying a tower. 


Best Answers

  • Leostat
    Leostat ACE Posts: 3,043 Pathfinder
    Answer ✓
    Oops missed that sorry 

    Doubling the ram wouldn't help my really unless the game is able to use ram well , most can't! If the total size is only 800x600 that wouldn't be too bad, I was assuming they would be high Res 

    I have one display link display (an old one at that so less efficient at that) running at 1920x1080 and I lose ~5% frame rate when playing games which doesn't bother me , you would be pushing less pixels as well so it may not even be noticeable , frame rate would be capped though. 

    Let me have a play spanning some games onto the display link screen to get some proper stats on the effect on frame rate / CPU usage
  • Leostat
    Leostat ACE Posts: 3,043 Pathfinder
    edited December 2021 Answer ✓
    Balmo Data: *(After i play with formatting, bare with me )

    So as a baseline 0720p MSAA X0 - 9609 points, 160 FPS avg, 158 Min. This was ran without anything in the background and no display link display. 

    The rest were ran with prime 95 hitting the CPU at the same time to get between 80 and 100% CPU use

    - 0720p 0X MSAA 0720p 8X MSAA 1080p 0X MSAA 1080p 8X MSAA
    Laptop Display Only 7416 Frames, 123FPS Avg, 101 Min 2184 Frames, 37 FPS avg, 37 Min 4780 Frame, 80 FPS Avg, 75 FPS Min 1017 Frames, 017 FPS avg, 017 FPS Min
    Display Link no content 7378 Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 31 FPS Min 2164 Frames,36 FPS Avg, 31 FPS Min 4713 Frames, 79 FPS Avg, 64 FPS Min 1011 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    Display Link spanned 6227 Frames, 104 FPS Avg, 95 FPS Min 2128 Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 30 FPS Min 3378 Frames, 56 FPS Avg, 55 FPS Min 998 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    Display Link only 6332 Frames, 106FPS Avg, 96 FPS Min 2137Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 36 FPS Min 3419Frames, 57 FPS Avg, 54 FPS Min 999 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    And then to try and force the "Max" differnce in frame rates:
    Max FPS possible 400x300 MSAAX0
    Laptop Display
     SCORE:19987 Frames 333 FPS Avg, 322 FPS Min, 344 FPS Max

    Spanned
    SCORE:19655 Frames 327 FPS Avg, 270 FPS Min, 337 FPS Max

    DL only
     SCORE:19481 Frames 325 FPS Avg, 308 FPS Min,333 FPS Max


    So looking at it you can see the decrease in frame rates when even a display link is connected but nothing running over it, in theory your results would be somewhere between the display link connected with no content and the display link spanned

    It looks like there is a max 10% with one display running at 1080p, the spanned was running with approx half the screen taken up, wich results in 1036800 pixels being pushed at 60 FPS. With 2X smaller displays, you are looking at 960000 pixels being pushed at 60FPS (so pretty darn close :) )

    There isnt a hueg differnce at the lower frame rates though, and im going to guess that the frame rate will be between 30 and 60 so you may not even notice the frame rate hit!

Answers

  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    I was wondering if this docking station would work (one mini screen using an HDMI and one using a VGA)? But I’m not sure if my laptop would support it. 


  • Leostat
    Leostat ACE Posts: 3,043 Pathfinder
    only one display can be connected to the gpu, as for that dock we would need more info on it! 

    if it was a display link dock then you can run displays over just any usb3 port, however as its for running a game i wouldnt recomend it, the screens are limited to use cpu rendering which would eat into your frame rate for every one you added. (although depending on the res / refresh rate it may not be too bad)

    if it was display port over usbc it wouldnt work
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    Leostat said:
    only one display can be connected to the gpu, as for that dock we would need more info on it! 

    if it was a display link dock then you can run displays over just any usb3 port, however as its for running a game i wouldnt recomend it, the screens are limited to use cpu rendering which would eat into your frame rate for every one you added. (although depending on the res / refresh rate it may not be too bad)

    if it was display port over usbc it wouldnt work
    Thanks for the reply. So do you think I’m better just selling the gaming laptop and buying a gaming pc instead?
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    edited December 2021
    Oh and the screens are only low res, they’re 800x600. They are basically radar in two tone (black and green). 

    When you say they reply on the cpu, would doubling my ram to 32GB help or would that make no difference?
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    Small bump. 
  • Leostat
    Leostat ACE Posts: 3,043 Pathfinder
    Answer ✓
    Oops missed that sorry 

    Doubling the ram wouldn't help my really unless the game is able to use ram well , most can't! If the total size is only 800x600 that wouldn't be too bad, I was assuming they would be high Res 

    I have one display link display (an old one at that so less efficient at that) running at 1920x1080 and I lose ~5% frame rate when playing games which doesn't bother me , you would be pushing less pixels as well so it may not even be noticeable , frame rate would be capped though. 

    Let me have a play spanning some games onto the display link screen to get some proper stats on the effect on frame rate / CPU usage
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    Leostat said:
    Oops missed that sorry 

    Doubling the ram wouldn't help my really unless the game is able to use ram well , most can't! If the total size is only 800x600 that wouldn't be too bad, I was assuming they would be high Res 

    I have one display link display (an old one at that so less efficient at that) running at 1920x1080 and I lose ~5% frame rate when playing games which doesn't bother me , you would be pushing less pixels as well so it may not even be noticeable , frame rate would be capped though. 

    Let me have a play spanning some games onto the display link screen to get some proper stats on the effect on frame rate / CPU usage
    That would be great, thanks matey. 
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    Just to confirm, the main screen is 3560x1440, the two extra screens are 800x600 and just for radars. 
  • Leostat
    Leostat ACE Posts: 3,043 Pathfinder
    edited December 2021 Answer ✓
    Balmo Data: *(After i play with formatting, bare with me )

    So as a baseline 0720p MSAA X0 - 9609 points, 160 FPS avg, 158 Min. This was ran without anything in the background and no display link display. 

    The rest were ran with prime 95 hitting the CPU at the same time to get between 80 and 100% CPU use

    - 0720p 0X MSAA 0720p 8X MSAA 1080p 0X MSAA 1080p 8X MSAA
    Laptop Display Only 7416 Frames, 123FPS Avg, 101 Min 2184 Frames, 37 FPS avg, 37 Min 4780 Frame, 80 FPS Avg, 75 FPS Min 1017 Frames, 017 FPS avg, 017 FPS Min
    Display Link no content 7378 Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 31 FPS Min 2164 Frames,36 FPS Avg, 31 FPS Min 4713 Frames, 79 FPS Avg, 64 FPS Min 1011 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    Display Link spanned 6227 Frames, 104 FPS Avg, 95 FPS Min 2128 Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 30 FPS Min 3378 Frames, 56 FPS Avg, 55 FPS Min 998 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    Display Link only 6332 Frames, 106FPS Avg, 96 FPS Min 2137Frames, 36 FPS Avg, 36 FPS Min 3419Frames, 57 FPS Avg, 54 FPS Min 999 Frames, 17 FPS Avg, 17 FPS Min
    And then to try and force the "Max" differnce in frame rates:
    Max FPS possible 400x300 MSAAX0
    Laptop Display
     SCORE:19987 Frames 333 FPS Avg, 322 FPS Min, 344 FPS Max

    Spanned
    SCORE:19655 Frames 327 FPS Avg, 270 FPS Min, 337 FPS Max

    DL only
     SCORE:19481 Frames 325 FPS Avg, 308 FPS Min,333 FPS Max


    So looking at it you can see the decrease in frame rates when even a display link is connected but nothing running over it, in theory your results would be somewhere between the display link connected with no content and the display link spanned

    It looks like there is a max 10% with one display running at 1080p, the spanned was running with approx half the screen taken up, wich results in 1036800 pixels being pushed at 60 FPS. With 2X smaller displays, you are looking at 960000 pixels being pushed at 60FPS (so pretty darn close :) )

    There isnt a hueg differnce at the lower frame rates though, and im going to guess that the frame rate will be between 30 and 60 so you may not even notice the frame rate hit!
  • RegalEagle
    RegalEagle Member Posts: 10

    Tinkerer
    Awesome thank you. 

Categories