Qnix QX2710 and SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7950

[DPoon]

Been looking to upgrade my 2 monitors for a while now (currently have 2 Dell 2005FPWs, yes I know VERY old) to 2 Qnix QX2710's, however before I bite the bullet and make the purchase I wanted to know if my video card would be able to handle 2 of these monitors. Below are the current ports on the video card.

1 x HDMI
1 x DisplayPort 1.2
1 x Single-Link DVI-D
1 x Dual-Link DVI-I

I am currently running one DVI port to the monitor and am using an HDMI -> DVI convertor for the other monitor.

Will I be able to do the same with 2 QX2710's and run them at their native resolutions?

 

[TerryMathews]

Been looking to upgrade my 2 monitors for a while now (currently have 2 Dell 2005FPWs, yes I know VERY old) to 2 Qnix QX2710's, however before I bite the bullet and make the purchase I wanted to know if my video card would be able to handle 2 of these monitors. Below are the current ports on the video card.

1 x HDMI
1 x DisplayPort 1.2
1 x Single-Link DVI-D
1 x Dual-Link DVI-I

I am currently running one DVI port to the monitor and am using an HDMI -> DVI convertor for the other monitor.

Will I be able to do the same with 2 QX2710's and run them at their native resolutions?

To hit native, you need something that can output dual link DVI. I couldn't find an HDMI adapter, but I did find displayport: http://www.amazon.com/Accell-UltraAV...m/B002ISVI3U/2

Whether or not this will let you OC, I don't know.

 

[KingFatty]

There is a displayport adapter that can provide a dual-link DVI signal. But it's more expensive than the single-link versions, so I think you might find it for $70-100 or so?

But another option that is cheaper, would be to get and install an old/spare/used second video card that has a dual-link DVI port to drive the second display, so you would be running two video cards at the same time. Weird that it's cheaper to go this route, instead of buying a silly adapter.

Another option would be to upgrade one of the monitors to a version that includes a displayport input, so you could directly/natively plug the video card directly into the display without needing an adapter. What I'm thinking is that it might make more sense to put the money into a more expensive monitor, instead of 'wasting' the money on a dual-link adapter for displayport-DVI. It might even be cheaper overall to go this route. The drawback would be that if you intend to game both monitors at the same time, then this more expensive monitor might have slightly more input lag or whatever, compared to the 'quicker' versions that are limited to DVI-only.

 

[DPoon]

Another option would be to upgrade one of the monitors to a version that includes a displayport input, so you could directly/natively plug the video card directly into the display without needing an adapter. What I'm thinking is that it might make more sense to put the money into a more expensive monitor, instead of 'wasting' the money on a dual-link adapter for displayport-DVI. It might even be cheaper overall to go this route. The drawback would be that if you intend to game both monitors at the same time, then this more expensive monitor might have slightly more input lag or whatever, compared to the 'quicker' versions that are limited to DVI-only.

So if I spend the extra 50 or so dollars for one with a display port, and one without the display port I should be golden? I only game on 1 monitor at a time (max windowed) and have the other monitor up with whatever

 

[TerryMathews]

So if I spend the extra 50 or so dollars for one with a display port, and one without the display port I should be golden? I only game on 1 monitor at a time (max windowed) and have the other monitor up with whatever

The multi-input models are limited to 60Hz only.

 

[DPoon]

The multi-input models are limited to 60Hz only.

But if I don't game on the multi-input model and just use it for browsing while gaming on the monitor I'd be fine right?

 

[KingFatty]

Yes it would be fine, and some people are even fine with gaming on those monitors. I think it's when you get into the professional/competition level of first-person-shooter type of games, where twitch/reaction is important, where you'll actually notice the difference. For a casual/ordinary human, I think gaming would even be OK too.

But, to save the most money would be to just get 2 identical monitors, and buy a cheap $10 video card to install into the computer as the second video card (assuming you have a motherboard that can accept more than one video card). Another tiny benefit besides saving money, is you would have a 'matched' pair of identical monitors, which might be easier to sell as a matched set or something. Doubtful, but it's slightly nice to have a set of matching things, instead of two mismatched things, because it's more likely that you'll be able to exactly match the shade/brightness/color between the two monitors.

But I use three different monitors right now, and it's fine with me because you get used to the slight differences between them. I came from a set of three identical samsungs and the color matching was perfect between all three which was kind of neat.

 

[DPoon]

Ok last question, I actually have a old video card I can pull out of my other computer, but will it matter if one is an nvidia and the other is radeon?

 

[dazelord]

I have two Qnix 2710s. Although now on two separate computers I tried once to feed one of them with a cheap Radeon HD6450. It worked but I got flickering and horizontal lines. Turned out it was the mem clock of the card that was too low for 1440p. After increasing the 2D mem clock from 150 MHz to 800 or so (using RBE from techpowerup) the image was free from artifacts.

FWIW Radeons 7750, 7850, 280 worked right away.

So if you go for the cheap 2nd gpu route, be prepared to mod the bios or live with flickering. Alternatively get a better card with a bus wider than 64 bits.