Widescreen Gaming Forum

I am looking to build a new system for pure gaming in a month or two, and i like the idea of the surround gaming multi screen concept.

I have a few questions for those who have experimented with this. one at a time.

It says maximum resolution 3840x1024 @ 60 Hz (triple 1280x1024). for the digital TH2G.

1280x1024 is a 19" monitor's standard resolution.
so is there no way to play full screen on 3 decent 22" or 24" monitors?

Thanks.

If you have monitors with a resolution greater than 1280x1024 each, then the 1280x1024 image on each monitor will be scaled to the screen. This can result in blurring of the image due to pixel interpolation, whcih is why 17" or 19" monitors are recommended. It will be a full-screen image, though.

If you are using widescreen monitors, there are a few widescreen resolutions supported by the TripleHead2Go. You can see a full list of all the supported modes here.

If you use SoftTH, larger resolutions are possible (e.g. 4800x1600, 5040x1050, 5760x1200, 7680x1600), although SoftTH results in lower framerates than the TripleHead2Go and those larger resolutions might not be feasible.

Jkeefe.... With softTH.... is there a way to increase the fps? I was thinking about getting a x48 board with 3 pci-e2 slots.... and doing a uber center card and 2 higher end cars for the outside(maybe gtx or so) ... Then go with a oc'd quad core or even go with the skulltrail board with dual quad cores on there... Do you think that would be enough hp to run softTH at a high resolution?

The secondary cards aren't limited by their speed, they're limited by the pci-e bus, so a 8800gtx+6200 is same as 2 8800 gtx, for softth anyways.

SoftTH doesn't support SLI properly, so it uses the secondary card only to transmit the image to the third screen. So having a having 2x8800 or 8800 + 6200 makes no difference at all.

SoftTH doesn't support SLI properly, so it uses the secondary card only to transmit the image to the third screen. So having a having 2x8800 or 8800 + 6200 makes no difference at all.

But in fact it would be interesting if it makes any difference when the vgas are linked with 16 lanes each (NF5 U SLI) in comparisen to 8 lanes ( NF4 SLI).

But in fact it would be interesting if it makes any difference when the vgas are linked with 16 lanes each (NF5 U SLI) in comparisen to 8 lanes ( NF4 SLI).

It shouldn't make a difference. A 8x PCIe can transfer data at 4GB/s and for example 2560x1600@60Hz needs only about 1GB/s of bandwidth (Correct me if my calculation is wrong).

EDIT: Fixed my calculations.

Can we assume that the PCI-E x8 lane can actually reach its theoretical maximum bandwidth?

Can we assume that the PCI-E x8 lane can actually reach its theoretical maximum bandwidth?

I think the bandwidth of the PCI-E is the smallest of problems here. With resolutions as high as 3x 2560x1600 (7680x1600) the power of the computer will become a problem a lot sooner, considering that you can't even use SLI. Not to mention that there aren't many people that even have 3x 30" monitors :P

PS. I did some recalculating, the actual bandwidth needed for 2560x1600@60Hz should only be about 1GB/s.

Clearly 7680x1600 is the mother of triplehead resolutions and right now is just a theoretically possible resolution for testing purposes. But as GPU power increases, the available bandwidth that can be used to stuff 1/3rd of that image down the PCI-E pipe and into another GPU will remain fixed (unless someone develops a 32x PCI-E interface). So maybe in a few years 7680x1600 would be useable in an older game based purely on GPU processing capability, and I'm wondering if the PCI-E bus would ever become a limiting factor.