Anyone running SL in a triple monitor view? SLI?

I'm starting to build my next PC as his one is 2 years old, and now can no longer run multiple accounts stablely since windlight.
So I got a box &drive a pair of 2Gb memory sticks, and am looking at a quadcore intel, and XP64bit.
So next question I''m considering is to go for a motherboard that can SLI a pair of $9600's so I can run triple monitors, or do I aim for a single 9800 instead? Or perhaps SLI mother board and start with a 9800, but I always fear that unless I buy the 9800's in pairs they may be different versions hardware wise.

If your looking to run 3 monitors take a look at the Matrox Triple Head2Go. Very smart piece of kit provided you have a reasonable graphics card.

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/

And dont touch XP64, driver support is horrendous, always has been.

If it's just a big view you want then maybe consider a large screen TV or a projector?.

Well I'm after the surround effect you can't get with a wide screen.
Hmm 64bit no good? Pity, hardly worth having a wizz bang quad core without it isit?
I'm planning that SL will run well in 64bit eventually, not keen in going to Vista though.............

Hrmmm.. Maybe the Matrox Triple Head with three of these guys?

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/ces-2008-alienw.html

You've got an oxymoron there. You can't run multiple monitors with SLI. By design, SLI uses multiple video cards to drive just a single monitor. For multiple monitors, SLI is out of the question.

If you want to use three monitors, you've got a couple of choices. One would be to use two video cards operating independently, not in SLI mode. That's what I'd recommend.

The other option would be to use a splitter like the Matrox box in Ex0dUs's link. In theory, you could probably use SLI with it if you wanted to, since if I understand it properly, it's the box, not the computer, that's doing the splitting. As far as the computer is concerned, it's just sending one large image to one device. SLI shouldn't be able to know or care that the box is splitting it after the fact.

I'd be leery of using such a device, though, myself, for a couple of reasons. First, it limits your screen size. According to the listed specs on the website, the biggest it can go with 3 screens is 1680x1050 each. If you want three 1920x1200's, you're out of luck. For that, you'd definitely need two video cards (sans SLI). Second, if you read the footnotes on the site, it appears there are some restrictions as far as cabling and ports. Certain sizes only work with certain cable types. You'll need to be absolutely certain all your hardware is a match for the specific screen sizes you want to use.


A single 9800 will be a better investment than a pair of 9600's. Not only would it probably run circles around the pair, all by itself, or at least come close, it's also more future-proof. If you've got one 9800, you can always add another 9800 later if you need to increase power. But if you've got two 9600's, you'd need to replace both, which is obviously twice the expense.



Even if they are a little different, it won't matter. For compatibility, all that matters is that they have the same chip in them. They could be from different manufacturers, have different amounts of memory, different click speeds, etc., but as long as they're both 9800's, they'll work together just fine. If you SLI two that don't quite match, the one with slower speed will dictate the speed of both, and the one with less memory will dictate the amount of memory used by both. In other words, they'll adjust to match each other.



I agree with Ex0dUs's assessment that 64-bit XP will be difficult, after having wanted to go that direction myself, and subsequently deciding against it (because of the unfortunate lack driver support). Even though I'd much prefer XP if it were a viable option, I have to say if you go 64-bit, go Vista.

As for whether a quad core is worthwhile without a 64-bit OS, I'd say absolutely yes it is. You don't need a 64-bit OS to take advantage of 4 cores, and you don't need 4 cores to take advantage of a 64-bit OS. Having both is obviously better than having just one or the other, but it's not a necessity.

What would be a waste would be putting more than 3GB of system RAM into a machine with a 32-bit OS, since no 32-bit OS in the world can use more than 4GB of total RAM (system and video combined). But any modern OS will benefit from additional processor cores.


Understandable, but like it or not, Vista is here to stay. We all have to get used to it. MS has stated that Windows 7, which I'd been hoping would allow me to bypass Vista, will be Vista-based, so there's no escaping it. I'm sticking with XP for as long as I can, but eventually we'll all need to switch.

And in fairness, even though it's got plenty of annoyances about it, Vista's not as terrible as the popular hype makes it out to be. It's not as polished as XP yet, since it hasn't yet had time to get there, but I'm sure it will be one day. XP took many years to become as solid as it is now. I'm sure the same will be true for Vista.



I'm eagerly waiting to see what happens with wraparound monitor technology over the next couple of years. I don't think the Alienware one in your link will be worth buying, nor will NEC's eerily similar one (http://www.techpowerup.com/?49685), but their descendants probably will be.

wow, man I only got one monitor and its only 22" or so... and you have 3? to run SL with 3 sessions? Why? I can not keep up with one usually..

Thanks all that enlightens quire a few bits, I won't be bothering with SLI then, and I think I will start with a dual card board with a 9800 and 4Gb ram, on 32bitXP I have a spare copy of. I know 32bit only uses 3.3Gb of 4Gb of ram, but it's so cheap at moment, I'd rather put 2x 2Gb sticks in now and have 2 spare slots for more later, as far as future proof goes, I expect to replace this machine in 2-3 years anyway

I run Second Life fine on 64-bit Windows XP.

Second Life will not use SLI unless you use the Nvidia control panel to force it to. If you do, it does not improve graphics performance significantly, but it does prevent all the load going onto the first graphics card.

I run sl on Vista 64 with one minor problem. Once in a while my video card driver crashes but that is the exception and not the rule. It happens maybe maybe once every ten days.

I am running dual monitors with an Nvidia 8800 card and just installed a 280 on a new PC, also running 64 bit, it seems to work fine.

So don't give up on 64 bit.

.d