Hardware Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/07/06/matrox_triplehead2go_digital_edition/1

Matrox has entered the digital era with the TripleHead2Go, as it now comes complete with DVI ports and more. We find out if three-way is the way to go.

 

I'd have a hard time staying focused on one panel

 

Its a good idea, but its quite pricey and you need a pretty good GPU.

Oblivion does look very very good, and I'm glad you're using 3 Viewsonic screens!

 

Wish i could trade in my analogue version

 

I noticed you didn't make a comparison on frame rates between 1280x1024 and 3840x1024. I assume it's because the 8800GTX has enough umph that FPS are over the top. Do you think an 8800GTS 320MB version would be able to handle 3840x1024 respectably?

 

Frame rates were generally comfortable, but we occasionally had to tweak settings a little bit. For example, in Oblivion, we had to disable anti-aliasing or reduce grass detail to get an acceptable frame rate. A product like this is more about the experience than the benchmarks and that was what I was trying to put across.

To answer your question, it's probably going to be a stretch unless you start reducing in-game quality settings and anti-aliasing.

 

I think to be able to get an honest FOV like that, I can handle AA being off and maybe only going upto High details instead of Ultra. How immersive is it?

 

In FPS and simulator games, I think it's more immersive than a 30" screen, but in RTS games, you're better off with a single large screen.

 

Interesting, your comments regarding the FOV. I thought that the fish-eye wouldn't have put you off too much, but I guess it depends on the angle of your screens. I would have suggested the effect was because you would mainly use the left + right as your periphery (thus the fish-eye compensates, rather than just being flat like centre).

Also - *rubs hands together* - now that you've been in with the manufacturers, hopefully you've got some willing contacts...

ATI cards only run a paltry 2400x600 off one card, and my understanding is that Crossfire is completely...utterly...neutered.

Matrox (all tenth-hand information from other forums' members speaking support) have suggested that this is a driver issue that ATI are yet to resolve. Can you get any confirmation, and whether or not ATI have suggested to Matrox they are in the process of developing Catalyst to support the GXM?

Also, in your review you've mentioned that firmware upgrades to the EDID are possible. Matrox mention anything further about that? *sighs at 3x 2007FP longingly*

 

but how could it really help in a game like CS ? I mean you have to concentrate looking at where your crosshair is to make sure you can react fast enough when the ennemy will peak.

The only time I can see it help is when you camp and expect people to come fron different way. With this you could check the long, the double doors AND the B at the same time from the Mid in d2

 

... ok, now I don't quite see the point running it under *nix anyway ... but why would I need extra drivers?? Isn't it just a big monitor to the OS??

-btb-

 

How come you didn't let the bezels overlap?
That way you would only have lost half the amount of picture..

 

Well, you can game under *nix (as proven by Glider's guide) and the extra drivers are for the additional configuration options like bezel management and so on.

 

can you run two of these using duel monitors to have 6 screens in a huge 3*2 config?

 

When I get my laptop (Sager 2090, Asus F3Sv, iBuyPower Battalion 101 C-90S, or HP Pavilion dv9500t) I plan to get this and 3 19" monitors for when I'm gaming at home. Between the ~$1500-1800-USD for the computer and the ~$900 for the monitors, I can have a high-end immersive (sp?) gaming for only $2700. When I compare that to most desktop rigs from boutique-style stores, who's base cost is almost the same price, and add in the fact that I can still pick up my machine and go down to Starbucks or Panara Bread and be online while having a mocha, well that makes this whole set up even more appealing.

Now if I was remotely mechanically inclined, or had the money to waste on botched experiments, I'd work on taking the frames off of the monitors so that the LCD screens could be flush with each other. (The frames are the one reason I didn't go with a Dual-Head/22x22 set up, because the frame would be right where my cross-hairs sit and just be annoying.)

I'm glad to see they finally have DVI support, I've been waiting for that development since I saw the original VGA versions.

(PS - 3*2 using dual monitor set-up and two of these devices sounds pretty cool. I see no purpose unless you're a day trader or just want to impress the hell out of someone, and I can't see it being practical, but still: Cool. (Would be like a damn Gundam cockpit. )

Anyrate, great review.

 

Same here! I'd not long bought the original, when I heard about the Digital version being released around the end of July

 

The fisheye problem is subject to some fundamental limitations which will require code changes to games which wish to be aware of this sort of thing, and also requires some slightly out of the box thinking.

The computer is rendering the scene on the assumption that the 2D image onto which it's projecting the geometry is planar - it's one big flat screen. Therefore, as you rotate your head, you're looking at the display at increasingly acute angles, and perspective has the effect of distorting the image (the rectangular display appears trapezoidal). The geometric projection that's going on is probably entirely accurate with regard to the angle of view, but most computer games seem to assume that the perspective effect of increasingly distant displays is negligible and ignorable. You are discovering circumstances here where it isn't. The "fisheye" effect is probably not inaccurate if you sit at the right distance from the centre monitor; you just know it's actually a planar surface, and your brain flags it as wrong.

Because of this, images used on theme park ride films are often "squinched" to account for the angle of view as the ride car approaches a display - with stereoscopic images, this can give a powerful impression that you're looking out of a window towards a real scene. This could be done here, but a better solution would certainly be to start to toe-in the monitors and give the game knowledge of the fact that its render surface is no longer planar. This would require a lot of cooperation all the way from the display hardware (and the physical layout) to the core 3D code, but I suspect it could be handled at the directX level.

At the moment, the situation limits how much you can get out of adding more monitors on the side. If you double the physical width of the display, you don't double the field of view, and you get diminishing returns. You can start to angle the displays around, but then the geometric projection will no longer be accurate.

Needless to say this is all old news to the people who build flight simulators and theme park rides; there are solutions. It's not something Matrox can easily fix in their box, though.

Phil

 

Remember that most online RTS games won't let you play with the resolution too much in this kind of way, as it yields too much of a competitive advantage.

 

image this:



lol

 

SimHQ have an upcoming review of this too .