Nvidia + Matrox TripleHead2Go with resolution 5040x1050!

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by portwolf

theres no way to edit the pixel clock...

I'm pretty sure that it is possible to somehow tweak the pixel clock on
Windows, too. I recommend asking in a nvidia/windows related forum.

But apart from that, the pixelclock as shown in your screenshot, above,
is definitely not correct, it simply doesn't fit to the given timing parameters.
I guess you should file a bug report to nvidia and/or Matrox.

regards

Bernhard

[dillzz]

Was wondering since this is a triple head thread. . . .


Does anyone have any good recommendations for a triple head wall mount like the one below for 3x24" monitors? These do not "support" 3x24"s. .

http://www.ergoindemand.com/cte_mult...arm-wall_2.htm

Jaxxon,

Still loving the TH2G. I have not been posting as much cause I am not in pain from the dual graphics cards, things are just working. Got a dead pixel now but will call Dell!


Thanks!

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by portwolf

I guess it's time for new ... new monitors.

Just popped into my mind: i think this wouldn't help, either, because with the
pixel clock and the other timing parameters as shown in the screenshot, you
would get a refresh rate of

273450000 / 5376 / 1068 = 47.6 Hz

Which is typically out of range of most LCDs

I suggest contacting Matrox support, attaching the screenshot.

regards

Bernhard

[portwolf]

Thanks i've forwarded it to them

ive been speaking with them... they seem to know alot less about this than you do

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by dillzz

Still loving the TH2G. I have not been posting as much cause I am not in pain from the dual graphics cards, things are just working.

Thanks for the feedback - it's always nice to read some positive news :-)

BTW.: as for the monitor stands, i could only find off-the shelf triple head
stands for up to 21" (and they have been incredibly expensive).

regards

Bernhard

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by portwolf

they seem to know alot less about this than you do

I fear it's quite common that the first line supporters are only trained to
deal with "standard" issues.

I'd recommend the following procedure:

1. Re-install everything (Vista 64, nvidia driver and GXM tools, potentially using
a different hard drive), run the GXM wizzard, select the 5040x1050 mode.
This will demonstrate you have a "clean" system. Make sure to document the
software versions you are using.

2. If you still get blank screens, then do your magic to capture a screenshot of the
settings. Then install Linux or WindowsXP and check if your setup works there.
If it works on Linux/WindowsXP but not on a cleanly installed Vista system then
this proves that

a) your setup is technically ok, and

b) there is obviously something wrong with the GXM tool, probably in
combination with the nvidia driver.

I guess a detailed bug report will break the first line support and propagated
up to higher support levels.

regards

Bernhard

[portwolf]

Ok so my battle continues...

I'm on my second set of monitors this time... I upgraded. Checked a compatibility list made sure these ones would supposedly work.

LG L227WTG

When i try for 5040x1050, they also don't work

Here's the strange part, these ones tell me the signal coming in, and all three monitors are reporting 48hz rather than the supposed 57.


I've tried probably 5 different Nvidia drivers..

I've tried reinstalling vista

I'm just not sure what to do anymore...


The custom resolution that the matrox software creates, states 57 hz, but when I actually try to apply it... the monitors interpret it as 48 and don't display.

I have an Asus GTX285

If that means anything to this problem..


Any thoughts?

[portwolf]

On a side note, my pixel clocks ect are reading the same as before... and if you remember when you did the math, you suggested the output being 47.6hz

which probably rounds up to 48


not a coincidence i think


but what could be causing multiple drivers to do that?

even after a fresh install

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by portwolf

On a side note, my pixel clocks ect are reading the same as before... and if you remember when you did the math, you suggested the output being 47.6hz

which probably rounds up to 48

not a coincidence i think

Not very likely, in deed :-)

It appears as if the the pixel clock calculation is done incorrectly by the
nvidia control panel. That would be a bug in the nvidia driver/panel, IMHO.
But on the other hand nvidia officially only supports a maximum resolution of
2560x1600 pixel per output, so filing a bug report to nvidia may not be effective,
because nvidia may not recognize it as a problem they need to fix.

Maybe it helps to increase the "Desired refresh rate" underneath "Advanced
Refresh Rate Parameters"? Does changing the "Desired refresh rate" has
any effect on the pixel clock value displayed? If so, maybe you can trick the
setting into creating the right pixel clock applying an actually wrong refresh rate?
Means: at the moment, a setting of 57Hz obviously generates a 48Hz output
(as actually expected when looking at the pixel clock). Assuming the error is
linear, then a setting of 68Hz might generate a 57Hz output (57*327.27/273.45).

BTW.: underneath "Custom display mode values", there is "Bit per pixel: 16".
Does it make any difference when setting this value to 32?

Other than that, i can only recommend to install Windows XP just to make
sure everything works fine, there. I fear, installing Linux with the modelines
as published earlier in this thread wouldn't help you for testing, because Linux
isn't officially supported by Matrox, so reporting "but it's working on Linux"
wouldn't impress Matrox support engineers a lot, i assume :-)

regards

Bernhard

[portwolf]

Just thought you should know....

Just got off the phone with Matrox support.

Turns out the GTX285 and 295 have a "known issue"


the driver locks the pixel clock at high resoutions forcing a refresh rate of 48hz


Turns out you were right.

They're working on a fix now, with Nvidia.

Basically the "fix" is nvidia needs to unlock that speed... shouldn't be too difficult just bureaucratic BS.

[JaXXoN]

Originally Posted by portwolf

Basically the "fix" is nvidia needs to unlock that speed.

Thanks for sharing this information - it would be pretty interesting if the
latest nvidia linux driver for GF 285/295 is affected, too! Maybe you can
spare the time to try this out with your equipment? :-)

regards

Bernhard

[chall]

i seem to have the same issue with Vista 64, triplehead2go and three samsung monitors.

Everything works fine on Win xp using Nvidia 9600. Built a new machine using Vista 64, Core i7, MSI Nvidia 260, etc, and all monitors are showing 50 Hz and 48 Hz refresh rates. Samsung 226 BW and 225 BW sync ok (even with 48 Hz refresh rate). Samsung SyncMaster 2253BW sync's for about 60 seconds and then reverts to "Not Optimal Mode".

bummer.