URGENT question for TripleHead2Go Users...

mbeede · Post by **mbeede** » 02 Jun 2006, 23:31

Greetings - I JUST purchased the TripleHead2Go and 3 Dell 2007FP 20" LCD's to setup surround gaming, however, I just read the full review on Tom's Hardware, and a section of it now has me very concerned...

I have a Nvidia (BFG) 7800GS (overclocked) 256MB Video Card that I want to use to drive this new setup. I want to run all 3 monitors at 1280x1024 for the maximum supported resolution of 3840x1024. My question is will this single card be able to crunch and handle this resolution for the games that I play (Half Life 2, FEAR, Ghost Recon AW, Splinter Cell 2/3) etc. OR do I need to have dual cards to do this (i.e. it's wishful thinking)...

I am OUT of money so if I need another video card I am going to have to cancel everything. If you are experienced this this PLEASE post quickly.

THANKS A LOT!

mbeede · Post by **mbeede** » 02 Jun 2006, 23:33

Oh, I forgot my system spec's:
Dell 8250 P4 2.8Ghz
1GB RAM
500+GB hard drives all running SATA.
Nvidia (BFG) 7800GS Overclocked w/256MB DDR2
PC Power and Cooling 420w PSU
Windows XP Professional w/SP2

Thanks!

hardcoreA100 · Post by **hardcoreA100** » 03 Jun 2006, 01:42

Quick answer,

NO

You will not be able to run that kind of resolution (max) with your video card. It will run like a slideshow.

You can however, run non-native resolutions... i think somwhere like 1900x400.

I would look too horrible, but it will look a lot worse than full resolution.

royal · Post by **royal** » 03 Jun 2006, 01:46

For that kind of res, you'll need a very good CPU to prevent GPU bottlenecking and 2 PCI-E cards in SLI.

hardcoreA100 · Post by **hardcoreA100** » 03 Jun 2006, 01:51

Also like to point out that you bought widescreen monitors. At the time they are not supported and your images will looked stretched.

In the future, they are likely to support widescreen though.

escrotumus · Post by **escrotumus** » 03 Jun 2006, 04:41

What about a dell xps with a HT P4 3.6, 2GB DDR2 memory and a 7900gt? Im heading over to my dads house tomorrow to test his TH2G system out before i buy one of my own and was just curious as to what i could expect at that res (3840x1024). If its choppy then i wont bother buying this. Thanks.

hardcoreA100 · Post by **hardcoreA100** » 03 Jun 2006, 04:45

Pretty sure you will have to use SLI to get a descent frame rate out of it. Just check out Paddy's review on the left taskbar.

That will give you a good idea on what to expect.

mbeede · Post by **mbeede** » 03 Jun 2006, 05:50

Thank you for the responses... The DELL 2007FP 20" LCD is a 4x3, not a widescreen. I am aware that the THTG does not support widescreen res at this time.

So question... I did an experiment tonight. With my video card I ran my current 21" monitor (Samsung 213T) AND a Dell 2405WFP widescreen at the same time. The Samsung is plugged into the VGA port, and the Dell is plugged into the DVI port on my card. I went into dual screen mode, then set my resolution for 3200x1200 @ 60hz (so that's 3,840,000 pixels right)

I ran Half-Life 2, FEAR, Splinter Cell's, and several other games perfectly at this resolution using the game tips in this forum. Even during the heated battles they are all running smooth, no noticable lag at all. I've been playing for several hours already.

So at 3840x1024 (using THTG) I would have 3,932,160 pixels, just 100,000 more than the setup I am playing right now. Is this right?, or am I missing something? Does running a video card in dual mode work differently than using the THTG connection (just from the VGA port)?

I am a little confused, can anyone clarify?

THANKS!

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Jun 2006, 08:24

I'm not sure about your last question but I wouldn't have thought so ...
And ... the games you will be able to play will often depend on the game ...

If you are happy with them at 3200x1200 then you should be happy with them running in triplehead ... but you may have to lower some things ...

HL2 ... runs with high FPS considering all the eye candy it has ... and so I would have thought it would do 3840x1024 on your system.
FEAR ... may struggle a little
Oblivion will struggle.
and so on ...

3840x1024 = 3932160
3200x1200 = 3840000
1920x1200 = 2340400

I think you should be all right but as I say you may have to turn some stuff down for some games ... :(

mbeede · Post by **mbeede** » 03 Jun 2006, 14:16

Paddy - Thanks for your response. I must say you have an AWESOME gaming system indeed! I don't expect to compete with that. You set the bar really high :)

Did some more testing this morning... I am running Half Life 2 at a full 3200x1200 (as I stated before). I can put AA up to 2x before it starts to struggle a bit. I can put Filtering up to 4x before it starts to struggle. Everything else is set to "High"/max settings.

Next I tried Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter... It dogs big time. Had the turn the res down and set my textures to "Medium" then it played ok, but I hear only best gaming rigs play this game really smoothly anyway.

Next I tried Splinter Cell Pandora and Chaos... They both run great at 3200x1200, everything on full/high.

Question: Is FEAR more intensive on your system than Half Life 2 is? I have not played this game yet. Also is Half Life 2 - Episode 1 about the same as HL2 cpu/resource wise? I figure you have played, and probably finished it already.

Thanks again Paddy!

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Jun 2006, 15:48

Hi there ...
Yeah HL2 should be OK ... the game engine is has been optimised well.
HL2 - E1 and Sin E1 is about the same as HL2 for me but it is very difficult to tell as my systems really fly with these games ... any difference is very small.

The Splinter Cell games should be OK too being slightly older.

Fear is a little (as you say) more intensive ... but I would have thought if you can run it OK at 3200x1200 you should be OK with that too.

GRAW will be big problem for you as you really need 512MB of card memory to get the high textures and it is very slow (as you say) for many apart from very high end systems.
BTW ... the difference between high and medium is very slight.
As you know I have SLi and 512MB cards on my TH2G system ... it runs no problem for me ...
At first I thought it was really slow but with SLi you can change rendering methods using coolbits 2 and "Alternate Frame Rendering" nigh-on doubled my frame rates.

Try the demo's for Hitman Contracts and Tomb Raider Legend ... I'm sure your system will end up struggling.

All in all ... there are games that should play OK for you but most new games will probably cause your system to struggle ...
I would be very cautious if I were you ... unless you can upgrade your system in the near future.
I'm sorry this is probably bad news for you ... :(

That said ... this is worth a look at ... before you make your mind up ...
I hope it helps ... :)

My Dell monitors up-scale lower resolutions very well and many games really don't look so bad on them when using 2400x600
GRAW of course looks terrible at that res as it has no AA but I hear that is coming in June.

Here are some photographs (not screenshots) of F.E.A.R. running on my Dell 24" ...
I took them long before I had the TH2G ... but you can see the Dell scales lower resolutions very well ... worth considering in my opinion.

Various 16:10 resolutions but scaled up to fit the panel with all in game details at maximum and 4xAA.
Please forgive the graininess ... taking photos of a screen isn't easy ... :)

The lower resolutions don't look too bad at all ... IMHO.

Close-ups shown below these full screen shots ...

960x600

1280x800

1440x900

1650x1050

1920x1200

These close ups are uncompressed at the actual size the camera took them.

960x600

1280x800

1440x900

1650x1050

1920x1200

(These photos were first posted in this thread ... http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/5945
Just in case you fancy reading it all.)

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 03 Jun 2006, 16:04

chances are no. if you want it to look good. your best bet would be to upgrade to something newer (AGP=no...) :(

JKeefe · Post by **JKeefe** » 03 Jun 2006, 18:17

Paddy, your pics aren't working.

I run my TripleHead2Go with a 2.85 GHz Opteron and a 256MB 6800GT. This is quality video horsepower but no where near today's top-end. Some games I have to turn down settings to run in TripleHead and some I do not. It all depends on the game, but SLI is certainly not a requirement to use a TripleHead2Go.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Jun 2006, 18:36

Paddy, your pics aren't working.

Very strange ... they are working for me ... :?

Is there anyone else not seeing them ?

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 03 Jun 2006, 19:27

I see them :shock:

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Jun 2006, 19:51

Thanks mate ... :D

escrotumus · Post by **escrotumus** » 03 Jun 2006, 22:59

Picked it up today and it flies for me on the dell xps. no need for SLI at all. it runs every game so far at 3840x1024 at glass frame rate. Question though: i cant seem to get nfs most wanted to display correctly using that executable for setting the resolution. everything looks warped like im zoomed in too far. i cant see the cars hood like i should be able to. anyone know how to get this game running correctly so that its not all warped? 3.6p4 with 2gb ddr2 and a single 7900gt runs everything as smoothly as it did at 1280x1024. im happy as can be if i can get nsfmw working though!

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Jun 2006, 23:42

Hey ... glad you are enjoying it ... :D

NFSMW ...
See the second post here ... http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/5928ted

escrotumus · Post by **escrotumus** » 04 Jun 2006, 06:04

tried that and still cant find a suitable FOV that isnt all warped looking. I also cant get fear to run as it keeps telling me there is no config file for the game and wont allow me to create one. Anyone have the config file for fear that maybe i can create manually?

JKeefe · Post by **JKeefe** » 04 Jun 2006, 18:57

Well, If I right click and view Paddy's images they work, but they're not linking properly for me... FireFox 1.5.0.4. Oh well.

Widescreen Gaming Forum