DualHead Setup with 1 card vs. 2 Seperate Cards.

[MrPG]

Heya Gang,


I'm interested in settting up dualhead display and was wondering if there are any pros/cons to using a single card with this feature or using 2 seperate cards.

Right now I have a AGP Geforce3. Either I could get a another low cost PCI Geforce2 Ti or I could get a twinview card. Matrox, ATI or Geforce MX few cards I currently know that support dualhead. My logic would have me believe that 2 seperate cards would yield better performance, then again a single card would probably timing benifits and other misc advantages from sharing the same brain.

SO at this point in time I'm set on adding an additional Gf2 Ti to my system to enable dual monitors.

Anything I should be aware of?

 

[sohcrates]

well, i think it would be a complete waste to get a gf2 ti as a second video card. with dualhead, you can't game on two monitors, so the second monitor would only be used for 2D applications (web browsing, text)

with a single "dualhead" card, such as those from matrox, you get assured driver support and sometimes special features.

with two "single" cards, you occasionally get conflicts that don't allow you to extend your desktop onto the second monitor...but it usually works well. also, with 2 cards, you use up a second IRQ, etc.

i would say keep your sweet agp card and just get a simple 2d card...and older pci one or something, for your second display. assuming it can do the resolution you want at the refresh you want, you'll be fine, and you'll save a lot of money

 

[MrPG]

the purpose is for 3d devoplment, not gaming. Heavey 3ds max, photoshop and lightwave. Model on 1 monitor animate on the other, or use tools and open panels on 1 monitor and canvas on the other.

I figured get a gf2 ti so I get great openGL/d3d whatever.. performance on both monitors.

I would agree with you, getting a gf2 ti for web surfing/2d stuff or even gaming makes no sense, unless u wasting cash, but for me I'd working with 3d I would need something with some umf.

 

[sohcrates]

well, i had no idea this was for intense stuff

i think a gf2 would work well then, but sometimes you have to be careful because not all 3D apps are supported on a non-primary screen (i.e. i've seen people with 2 monitors that can only play videos on the primary screen)

but most likely you'll be allright.

will you be running win2k?

 

[MrPG]

win2k indeed

So interms of 1 agp card and 1 pci card for dual display instead of a single agp card with dual display capabilty. You'd go with the 2 cards?

 

[sohcrates]

well, the only dualhead (single card with 2 outs) that i really trust is the Matrox g400/450/550 line. I've been using dual monitors for years with them.

At one point, i actually added another video card and had 3 monitors on one box...but this kinda led to some stability issues

I know other people that have used 3 separate cards with no problems...there's just no way to know for sure what it's gonna be like if you have multiple cards.

the matrox's guarantee stability and what not...but then again, they're not great for gaming. but whether "gaming" and "3d support" are the same is debatable. i've done plenty of photo /video editing on my matrox and have no complaints.

but if you already have a gf3, that's a sweet setup, and it's probably going to be more cost effective just to get a gf2 pci and add it in rather than buying a matrox dualhead and having to give up that beautiful gf3.

how much does a gf2 TI pci card go for?

 

[Menacer]

It really depends on exactly how you plan on running your system. If you're going to be using that second monitor with programs that use 3d-apps, then by all means, get a good card.

If you're using Windows 2000, I'd recommend against getting a dual-head card. Windows 2000 doesn't really support multiple-monitors on single-card solutions. It was supposed to be fixed in a Service Pack, but it was instead fixed as a "feature" in Windows XP. You can plug dual monitors in, yes, but they have to run at the same resolution, same refresh rates, and are one monitor as far as the computer's concerned. In Windows XP, they're two independent monitors that can be messed with by themselves, and placed in any position you want (either one on the left, right, top, or bottom). This is also true of Windows 2000 when using 2 seperate cards.

Matrox cards, I hear, get around this by tricking Win2k into thinking there's two cards installed in the AGP slot.. one for each monitor. I know ATi doesn't do this, and I'm not sure about nVidia.

I'd go with that GF2Ti or something similar.

 

[sohcrates]

<< It really depends on exactly how you plan on running your system. If you're going to be using that second monitor with programs that use 3d-apps, then by all means, get a good card.

If you're using Windows 2000, I'd recommend against getting a dual-head card. Windows 2000 doesn't really support multiple-monitors on single-card solutions. It was supposed to be fixed in a Service Pack, but it was instead fixed as a "feature" in Windows XP. You can plug dual monitors in, yes, but they have to run at the same resolution, same refresh rates, and are one monitor as far as the computer's concerned. In Windows XP, they're two independent monitors that can be messed with by themselves, and placed in any position you want (either one on the left, right, top, or bottom). This is also true of Windows 2000 when using 2 seperate cards.

Matrox cards, I hear, get around this by tricking Win2k into thinking there's two cards installed in the AGP slot.. one for each monitor. I know ATi doesn't do this, and I'm not sure about nVidia.

I'd go with that GF2Ti or something similar. >>



I believe Nvidia's twinview is trying to (or may have already) done exactly what matrox did

anywho, that's why i always recommend matrox for dualhead cards

 

[MrPG]

I could get a PNY GF2 Ti 64ddr for 90bux shipped. Sounds like a plan.