Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum and, as a result of visiting this fantastic site, became really excited about setting up a surround gaming system!

I know that Matrox TH2G (Digital) can now support 5040 x 1050 (3 x 1680 x 1050) only at 57hz.

I currently have a 22" Acer x223w and planning to buy two more of these. Here is my issue:

I went to the display properties to check to see if I can change the refresh rate to 57hz, however, it appears that the monitor is 'locked' at 60hz. Nevertheless, I was able to go into NVidia Control Panel and select 'Manage Custom Resolution' and created a profile of 1680 x 1050 @ 57hz and saved it. Now, when I go back into display properties I am able to select between 60hz and 57hz. When at 57hz, the LCD looks a bit like a CRT and the desktop is slightly larger than the actual screen (it will scroll about .5" horizontally). BTW, I went ahead and check my manual which states that the vertical frequency is 56 ~ 75hz.

My questions:

1) Given the above scenario, is it safe to assume that my monitor can do 57hz? Should I go ahead and get another 2 of these (Acer x223w) for a 5040 x 1050 set up? Here's the link to the monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009145

2) Can this 'forced' reduction in refresh rate cause any kind of damage to the LCD(s)?

Here's my current setup:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHz)
Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe
2x 2GB G-Skill PC800 DDR2
XFX 8600GT 256MB XXX (I know, I know....I will be upgrading to a better card for this project :wink: )

Please let me your thoughts.....greatly appreciate!

Excited,

Alan

5040x1050 is a money-pit with no guarantees I'm afraid. Matrox's support is sketchy and all us users know about which monitors work is in this thread.

i CAN'T SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE WORTH IT?

5040x1050 vs. 3840x1024

However, try it, you can always revert back to the lader.

Let us know?

i CAN'T SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE WORTH IT?

OT, but think about it : more to see between bezels, widescreen gaming instead of 5:4 for those games not compatible with TripleHead... Worth it or not ? You decide.

5040x1050 is a money-pit with no guarantees I'm afraid.

Hold on a sec. Some of us may still have problems under Vista, but it works great with older drivers or under XP. The biggest issue now imho is the Bezel Management being broken on the left side screen... and some games that can't do 57Hz.

Now, when I go back into display properties I am able to select between 60hz and 57hz
>> :?: You shouldn't have to do this. If the custom resolution 1680x1050@57Hz works, then you're all set. What you need is not a monitor that can do 57Hz all the time, but just display 1680x1050@57Hz correctly.

2) Can this 'forced' reduction in refresh rate cause any kind of damage to the LCD(s)?
>>No (afaik). Actually refreshing the image less times every second means less stress on the electronics right ? :lol:

Here's my current setup:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHz)
Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe
2x 2GB G-Skill PC800 DDR2
XFX 8600GT 256MB XXX (I know, I know....I will be upgrading to a better card for this project :wink: )
>>Don't forget the CPU. I mean your current CPU is ok, but gaming at 5040x1050 requires a real gaming-oriented PC, not just a beefy graphics card. Just something to keep in mind, but I'm not saying you should go i7 right away...

[quote]5040x1050 is a money-pit with no guarantees I'm afraid.

Hold on a sec. Some of us may still have problems under Vista, but it works great with older drivers or under XP. The biggest issue now imho is the Bezel Management being broken on the left side screen... and some games that can't do 57Hz.


This isn't acceptable really...older drivers are significantly less efficient than the recent 180s and I can't go back to XP (I think Vista is a significant improvement and I like my 64-bit apps). As you say bezel management is broken, and additionally desktop divider is also broken (continually requires resetting). I can accept some games not supporting 57Hz, but when dX10 doesn't appear to support 57Hz this is increasingly limiting. I've also personally found Matrox's support to be poor.

All this is far from perfect, I concur. I even forgot the DX10 part - a shame indeed (especially since you need a DX10-compatible card to begin with !) :doh

Still, whether it's a "money pit with no guarantees" or not depends on each user's config, needs and no-go's. So many people would use these very words to describe "classic" TripleHead already... :roll: :lol:

[quote]i CAN'T SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE WORTH IT?

OT, but think about it : more to see between bezels, widescreen gaming instead of 5:4 for those games not compatible with TripleHead... Worth it or not ? You decide.

Maybe it's my lack of understanding. However, I'm pretty much 99% a race junkie and can already see mirror to mirror. I would like to run the resolution, but sometimes I can see a flicker at 60Hz when not gaming of course.

Interesting!

All this is far from perfect, I concur. I even forgot the DX10 part - a shame indeed (especially since you need a DX10-compatible card to begin with !) :doh

Still, whether it's a "money pit with no guarantees" or not depends on each user's config, needs and no-go's. So many people would use these very words to describe "classic" TripleHead already... :roll: :lol:

Agreed, I think the distinction is the classic 3840x1024 was a money pit with guarantees...it worked and worked well. The irony is whilst Matrox have added features and not made any additional money off existing users such as myself, they have inadvertantly added impetus for us to spend more and become more dissatisfied with Matrox.

This is why I got rid of my triplehead 2go (its paperweight for now).

I need higher resolutions to work with (1900x1200 per monitor) and I could not get anything other than 3840x1024 using vista 64bit.

Matrox has some of the worst product support I have seen to date.

This is why I got rid of my triplehead 2go (its paperweight for now).

I need higher resolutions to work with (1900x1200 per monitor) and I could not get anything other than 3840x1024 using vista 64bit.

Matrox has some of the worst product support I have seen to date.