Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hi there everyone,

Since nvidia will not give SLI multi monitor support, I can not use the program SOFTTH for ultra high rez surround gaming because it would be pointless as today's games will suffer and be almost unplayable.

I was wondering if anyone heard any news about if or when matrox will update their hardware or give us a firmware update so that it would allow us to play games at 5040 x 1050 resolution or higher with SLI enabled (Since DX9 is capped)?

If a free program can allow games to be played at such a high resolution, I can't understand why Matrox will not cater those who have high-end graphics card setups (I will go out and buy another 9800 gx2 for quad sli) that can handle that kind of resolution.

I just want to be able to use my 20" wide screen monitor's native resolutions with surround gaming....I am sick of looking at my blurry desktop, but I can't ever go back to gaming on a single 20" monitor - sigh :(

TH2G is a hardware solution to triplehead gaming, SoftTH is a software solution. Software solutions are always more general than hardware solutions but you pay the price in performance.

It seems foolish to assume that Matrox doesn't want to support widescreen monitor formats, there has to be something more to it than simply updating the unit. My guess is that there is some hardware limitation in TH2G preventing it from being used at native widescreen resolutions.

Taken from a review :

"An unfortunate omission from the list of supported widescreen resolutions is 5040x1050 (triple 1680x1050). Although DX8 and DX9 GPUs are not capable of outputting an image greater than 4096 pixels wide, new DX10 GPUs such as the NVIDIA 8800 series have increased this limit to 8192 pixels, even in DX8 and DX9 applications. Matrox states “the maximum pixel clock supported by the dual-link DVI output could, in theory, enable the triple 1680x1050 resolutionâ€

[quote]Taken from a review :

"An unfortunate omission from the list of supported widescreen resolutions is 5040x1050 (triple 1680x1050). Although DX8 and DX9 GPUs are not capable of outputting an image greater than 4096 pixels wide, new DX10 GPUs such as the NVIDIA 8800 series have increased this limit to 8192 pixels, even in DX8 and DX9 applications. Matrox states “the maximum pixel clock supported by the dual-link DVI output could, in theory, enable the triple 1680x1050 resolutionâ€

People keep on quoting this review. It's not a DX9-DX10 issue. It's a max pixel width video card issue going over 4096. You can do over 4096 in DX9 just fine with current gen hardware. People are confused...

Now for TH2G and over 4096...that's another hardware problem altogether...

Your topic title isn't correct, because TH2G works just fine in DX10. DX10 does not magicly mean any specific resolution.

Higher resolutions would be possible.

It would most likely require a new Triple head to go Unit however.

Matrox just has to think they'll make lots of money from it, and it will happen. haha

The quotation is mine, and the quotes are from emails sent by Matrox employees. I wanted to put Matrox's language in the review because I feel their choice of words is very significant.

Ghimpi, I don't believe there's anything wrong with what I wrote. I said "new DX10 GPUs such as the NVIDIA 8800 series have increased [the pixel] limit to 8192 pixels, even in DX8 and DX9 applications." As always, people have to read carefully.

My e-mail to matrox and the reponse :

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:39 AM
To: Matrox Graphics Sales
Subject: Re: Matrox Inquiry-481



Hi, thanks for the response



I think there was a misunderstanding of what I meant. I know that because of windows limitations, the device supports up to triple 1280x1024, but my question was if one day the resolution limitation of windows changes, will the device support triple 1680x1050 or will I need a new device (or will there be some sort of firmware update) to support the new resolutions?



Thanks

______________________________________________________________

Hi Leo,



There is no announcement as of yet whether or not this resolution limitation of 1680 x 1050 will one day be supported with our device with a firmware update or whether or not you will need a new device in order to support this resolution in the future. This is essentially still undetermined. However, as I mentioned before, I would highly suggest that you visit our website periodically for any updates regarding this issue.



Regards,



Anna Maria Kounougeris
Sales and Marketing Representative
Matrox Graphics Inc.

Toll-free 1-800-361-1408
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.matrox.com/graphics


So, I guess we gotta start bitching at Microsoft now?

I know that because of windows limitations

Windows has a limitation in the resolution it can display? Please clarify it

I don't really get it either.

I'm running Windows in 5040x1050. But is that only because I have multiple graphics cards? Are they saying that a single GPU can't output 5040x1050?

I have two 8800GTX cards in SLI (connected to center monitor) and a 8400GS (connected to side monitors).

The quotation is mine, and the quotes are from emails sent by Matrox employees. I wanted to put Matrox's language in the review because I feel their choice of words is very significant.

Ghimpi, I don't believe there's anything wrong with what I wrote. I said "new DX10 GPUs such as the NVIDIA 8800 series have increased [the pixel] limit to 8192 pixels, even in DX8 and DX9 applications." As always, people have to read carefully.

I don't see anything wrong with that quote, but people are misquoting your article. ;)

Erm, there's one thing I'd like to be certain of : are we discussing max res in 3D games, or on the desktop and in 2D apps ? Because I remember reading stuff about DirectX, and I'm pretty sure there were limitations (shattered by DX10, but not abolished) to the size in pixels a 3D game could be displayed at - in fullscreen.

In UT3, you can take gigantic screenies using the tiledshot command, basically multiplying your res by 2 (3840x2400 for a 1920x1200 monitor for instance), but you can raise the bar on your entire system and multiply by 8 (30720x19200 !!!) :shock: So it's hard to talk about limitations (and this trick is not even limited to DX10, I used it myself in DX9 mode). Of course, you have to do that in a window though :wink:

Erm, there's one thing I'd like to be certain of : are we discussing max res in 3D games, or on the desktop and in 2D apps ? Because I remember reading stuff about DirectX, and I'm pretty sure there were limitations (shattered by DX10, but not abolished) to the size in pixels a 3D game could be displayed at - in fullscreen.

In UT3, you can take gigantic screenies using the tiledshot command, basically multiplying your res by 2 (3840x2400 for a 1920x1200 monitor for instance), but you can raise the bar on your entire system and multiply by 8 (30720x19200 !!!) :shock: So it's hard to talk about limitations (and this trick is not even limited to DX10, I used it myself in DX9 mode). Of course, you have to do that in a window though :wink:

I've achieved 6400x1024 (SoftTH + TH2G Analog) full screen 3D in DirectX9.0c so there is definitely not a software 4096 limit on DirectX 9.0c.

Erm, there's one thing I'd like to be certain of : are we discussing max res in 3D games, or on the desktop and in 2D apps ? Because I remember reading stuff about DirectX, and I'm pretty sure there were limitations (shattered by DX10, but not abolished) to the size in pixels a 3D game could be displayed at - in fullscreen.

We are discussing max res in 3D games. We know that games can be run at 5040x1050; it's a proven fact using SofTH. Matrox's argument for not providing 5040x1050 support through the Digital TripleHead[/i]2Go[/i] is that this is not a supported resolution on the Windows desktop. One would imagine that this is a limitation of a single "monitor" (if it is really a limitation at all), because we know that this resolution can be achieved on the Windows desktop using multiple monitors.

Ghimpi makes the valid point that DX10 really has nothing to do with this. It just so happens that GPUs switched from DX9 compliancy to DX10 compliancy at the same time they moved from a 4096-pixel limitation to a 8192-pixel limitation. So everyone says (myself included from time to time) that "DX10 GPUs" can render 5040x1050 or larger resolutions, but that really is not the accurate way of describing things.

I call BS on Matrox's part; I think they are using a Windows desktop resolution limitation as a cop-out. There is no reason to assume that users, especially the typical TripleHead2Go users, need to run their desktops at the same resolution as their games. If widescreen triplehead users run 3840x800 on their desktops and 5040x1050 in games, so be it. If their is an actual hardware limitation preventing 5040x1050 in the Digital TripleHead2Go, then Matrox should tell us that.

Anyway, it is unfortunate that Matrox does not seem to ultimately know what will happen here. At the same time, at least they haven't told us it will never happen.

Very interesting thread...and a bit confusing. :?

So, I just fired up a game at 4500x1200 and it ran fine. Only one section of the game window fits on my display at any one time (screen is 1440x900), but this should indicate that my GPU (8800GTS) and DirectX version (9.0c) are clearly capable of running this resolution, right? If I had the means to connect multiple monitors or 1 ginormous panel, I should be able to play this game at that resolution without any problem, yes?

edit
I didn't use SoftTH or any special utility. I just manually edited the game's config file for this resolution.

edit 2
Removed annoying word repetition.

GeneralAdmission,

That depends. First, you would need monitor (or "monitor") capable of handling this resolution. The TripleHead2Go is this "monitor", splitting an image and displaying it on three actual monitors.

Second, you have to be able to put this resolution through a dual-link DVI cable.
2560x1600, which we know works on dual-link DVI, is 4,096,000 pixels.
5040x1050, which we think works on dual-link DVI, is 5,292,000 pixels.
5400x1200, which may exceed the bandwidth of dual-link DVI, is 5,400,000 pixels.

So it could or could not work, depending on the above.

JKeefe,

Thanks for the data. Based on this information, it appears the restricting factor for ultra-high resolutions is not DirectX or the GPU, but the limitations of the DVI display connection, correct? Is there a different display connector that can supplant DVI and offer greater resolutions?

Also, the fact that I ran a game at 4500x1200 kinda proves that DX 9.0c is not limited to 4096 horizontal pixels, which surprises me because that number gets spouted off everywhere as gospel truth.

One question about your numers. Shouldn't the last entry of 5400x1200 be 6,480,000 pixels?

Does anyone know the highest successful resolution output by SoftTH?

Interesting stuff.

--off-topic--
I just noticed that you run TH on 3 21" CRTs. You must have a monster of a desk to hold that weight! :shock:

Interesting stuff.

Indeed !

I'm all for higher resolutions in the next TH2Go.. the last 2 generations of video cards (nvidia 8xxx, 9xxx or ati 3xxx/4xxx) can easily support these high resolutions, so why are we still stuck with obsolete 1280x1024 monitors?

I'm all for higher resolutions in the next TH2Go.. the last 2 generations of video cards (nvidia 8xxx, 9xxx or ati 3xxx/4xxx) can easily support these high resolutions, so why are we still stuck with obsolete 1280x1024 monitors?

Unless someone more knowledgeable can correct my findings, it appears the culprit is the DVI connector. Until that gets a significant replacement/upgrade, we're stuck. :(