{ "numMessagesInTopic": 6, "nextInTime": 1553, "senderId": "Aau1aFH6gakAyzbRPadM6I_m4L7a5Xv2vZrsvjLp5YWNfq60S9M_aNzDcO055Hw0bJjj3pPgdQJZ4ORt1FHZqyE_hkkpkqFZJMM9mmUM3Q", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: Best Practices using nVidia QuadroFX Graphics Cards & T221's", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... Thanks for getting back to me. :-) ... The reason I m confused is that I d not expect to be able to tell the monitor to do 3840x2400 at anything higher", "msgId": 1552, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 1544, "spamInfo": { "reason": "6", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
>Thanks for getting back to me. :-)
\n> Hey Flup!
\n>
\n> I'll try to explain...
\n
\n
> > > $ Using the nView Nvidia Taskbar Tool, go to Display SettingsThe reason I'm confused is that I'd not expect to be able to
\n> > > and set it for a SINGLE Display @ 3840x2400. NOT H/V span,
\n> > > etc. SINGLE!
\n> > >
\n> > > $ Using the Nvidia nView (Taskbar) Tool, go to Screen
\n> > > Resoulution and Refresh Rates. Check the box to "Hide
\n> > > Modes.. the Display can't handle, then ENABLE "Custom"
\n> > > modes and set the refresh rate to 33Hz, when asked. That's
\n> > > all there is to it. This gives the best results.
\n> >
\n> > Hi Dave. You've confused me. You're running a *single* display,
\n> > without spanning mode, in 3840x2400 at 33Hz down a single-link
\n> > connection? Er...
\n> >
\n> > How exactly do you have the T221 attached to the Quadros? I
\n> > can believe you'd get 33Hz out of spanning mode with two
\n> > connections on one Quadro, or by either 2x1920x2400 from one
\n> > Quadro or two heads, one per Quadro. Not by selecting a single
\n> > 3840x2400 display mode, though. The spanning (if working) would
\n> > give you two heads on one card presented as one display, so
\n> > dragging a window up and down the divide won't show tearing
\n> > (unlike non-spanned).
\n
\n
> I used the two "Y cables" that came with my unit (I got mine fromWhat does the monitor claim (left button to get the OSD, left
\n> Tiger Direct new about a year ago) installing the single end into
\n> the monitor A input and the other single end into monitor B input.
\n> The Y (dual) ends are connected to each of the QuadroFX's 4 DVI
\n> outputs (the cable with writing on it to the bottom output on each
\n> card (it makes a difference - I don't know why but other cable
\n> arrangements didn't work - all blank screens w/no other changes).
\n>
\n> I believe I am getting four DVI outputs from the two videocards - at
\n> least the monitor "thinks" it is seeing 4 distinct inputs from my
\n> two dual DVI outputs. I think this since using Windows standard
\n> desktop/display settings [right clicking the desktop], I see 4
\n> addressable monitors in the display settings window. I can arrange
\n> these in any configuration and have tried them all, 4 - Verticle
\n> spanned 960 x 2400's, 2 - 1920 x 2400 Horizontal spans, 4 - 1920 x
\n> 1200 Quad tile configs, etc. None worked as well as "best practice"
\n> solution.
\n
\n
> With H-Span I got 25hz, but even with the Quick Launch/Task Bar13Hz horizontal spanned? Are you sure it wasn't trying to offer
\n> spanned across the entire monitor, the mouse would cross over the
\n> right side, for example, and reappear on the left. It would
\n> periodically disappear off the screen altogether at times and be in
\n> hyperspace somewhere unknown - only a reboot would bring it back.
\n> Further, when shutting down, the right half of the display would go
\n> blank first, then (5 sec's later) the left half would shutdown
\n> normally. It worked, but with these less than elegant nuances. I
\n> had it working in H-Span at 13Hz and 25Hz, with SLI and without SLI.
\n
\n
> As I said before, I could not determine any difference in SLI mode,Yup - you're down to a single, single-link connection. (I only
\n> other than that it reset the output to a *single* display if I had H-
\n> spanned it originally then rebooted. In either mode (SLI or not) it
\n> always offered to give me 41Hz Interlaced @ 1920 x 1200 and that
\n> setting worked well in either mode (SLI/no SLI) with no difficulties
\n> at that res/rate.
\n
\n
> Obviously, there are a lot of less expensiveDepressingly, the bloke in my office who's using the company's
\n> display choices at that resolution and not what we buy T221's for.
\n
\n
> In quad mode, I could never get the windows to align ragrdless ofConfirming: with Windows thinking it had 2x2 1920x1200 screens,
\n> how I canged the cable arrangements or monitor layouts onscreen (i.e
\n> Display 1 upper left, display two upper right, dislay 3 lower left
\n> and display 4 lower right [all at 1920 x 1200]. Assume every
\n> possible mix of displays - 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-3, 4-3, 4,2 on top, etc
\n> and none ever "aligned". By that I mean, I could get full screen
\n> 3840 x 2400 displayed, but in four distinct quad-tiled windows
\n> onscreen (like 4 virtual desktops). You'd get what you arranged in
\n> the "Windows" configuration screen, but the mouse would always act
\n> randomly and displays would nevber "align". That is, if the taskbar
\n> was in the upper left window, the mouse would need to go up
\n> (vertically) to resurface in the lower left hand window and go
\n> offscreen left to appear in the upper right window. Therefore,
\n> while "displayed" correctly at the max resoultion, it was not
\n> practicably usable (the best refresh in quad was 25Hz at max res). I
\n> never tried anything higher as I could never get them "aligned". No
\n> amount of cable shuffling or desktop rearrangements of onscreen
\n> monitors would ever align. After trying every possible arrangement
\n> with no success, I moved on.
\n
\n
> (I had the default XP background imageAh, no, you won't. Windows stretches the backdrop over it's idea
\n> and "hills" never aligned correctly to form a "single image" in the
\n> quad approach). That was probably my lowest point, you'd expect to
\n> find some arrangement that would "align", but I never could get
\n> a "single* image from any combination of 4 screen arrangements.
\n
\n
> I will be happy to run 3D-mark and will post results as soon as IYup, the only benefit to SLI is that it should (significantly)
\n> can find the time (figure within next 30 days). SLI worked at 13,
\n> 20 and 25Hz, I never tried it at the current 33 as I saw no benefit
\n> in "enabling" it in any other configuration. Perhaps a benchmark
\n> would reveal "hidden" benefits so I will have to see if it works at
\n> 33 and then run it with and without. I'll report those findings
\n> then as well.
\n
\n
> Hope this further explains the torturous route to "best practice"Big hand for your investigation, even if I can't explain the
\n> suggestions.
\n
\n
> As many others have said, mfg.'s or reseller supportIn their defence, it's probably nVidia's problem, and IBM have
\n> is useless as these guys have no desire I think to cater to a "niche
\n> market" like us. IBM wanted me to "tell them" how I made out, "if"
\n> I ever did. How's that for balls, not only do we get the hassles of
\n> trying to make "their" product work, but we get to provide them with
\n> free R&D as well.
\n
\n
> Unbelievable...thank goodness there are people inWe've learnt as much as we have in part because of generous
\n> this group with the knowhow and ability to pursue homemade solutions
\n> like Yeang's DG-5 box "simulator". I'll bet he'll sell quite a few
\n> in here if he gets it "perfected" and wants to make them.
\n
\n
> Again, hope this helps explains how I got my results and will reportCool, I look forward to it.
\n> back on 41Hz attempt and benchmarks w & w/o SLI next.
\n
\n