Quote from George Kuyumji :

I use TH2GO with

AMD 4000+ 64 single core
2 GB
GeForce 7600 GS

In LFS: 3840 x 1024 no AA no AF

In NR2003: 3840 x 1024, 2 AA, 2 AF

Your setup looks nice What FPS are you getting in 3840 x 1024 in LFS?

Quote from GFresh :

When i first got my TH2G, the following were my system specs;

AMD64 3200+ Stock (2ghz i believe)
512mb pc3500 ddr
ATI 9800xt 256mb
TH2G @ 2400x600

With that system i got;
Single Player, single car - ~90-100fps with no AF/AA
Single Player, ~10-12 AI - ~40-50fps with no AF/AA
Multiplayer, ~10-20 Cars - ~70-80fps with no AF/AA

Really, there was hardly any difference with this system changing from 1600x1200 with a little AA to the TH2G.

that's because your triple head is a lower resolution than your original monitor, so its obviously going to be faster

2400 x 600 = 1440000 pixels
1600 x 1200 = 1920000 pixels

i just got two new samsung 214t's today. i tried some old dell 17's out but i didn't like having to have them rotated, and the refresh was way too slow so i sent them back. middle monitor is a dell 2405 widescreen. right now its running a pretty solid 25 FPS at 5120x1200 resolution. i'm going to overclock the system pretty soon to try and get it up around 30 FPS. graphics card is an 8600 gts, which handles the 3 monitors pretty nicely. intel e6600 processor, 2 gb ram.

picture:

unclebenny thats a nice setup! but 25fps is very low... But i also didn't know triplehead2go could handle widescreen monitors.
I thought the max rez th2go could handle was 3840 x 1024

Nice setup

Correct, th2go will only do 3840x1024 max, however software tripple head will do any resolution. Only the Geforce 8 series (and possible the ATI 2900) will do resolutions larger than 4096 pixels wide though.

i'm using softth which lets the resolution go that high. i would agree that 25 fps doesn't sound high but it really doesn't bother me at all. if it was a choppy 25 fps that would be a different story, but it stays smooth and i haven't had a problem with it yet.

you guys were right about the frame rate. i turned down my resolution a little bit to get it up to 35-40 FPS, and it feels like i'm going at least 50 mph faster. it wasn't bad before, but man is it nice now.

Seems like the idea of a cheap monitor and a 7600GS wont too good for it then, time to price up an 8800 :X

what do you need an 8800 for?

and if you are going to get one, i'd wait a couple months until the 9-series cards come out and the prices drop on the 8800's.

Currently i have a 7950GT (one which seems to be giving up the ghost, too) - if an 8600GTS (a card thats roughly the same speed) seems to be pulling 25 fps then my PC won't churn out anything amazing, and i'd be using SoftTH which should impact the FPS more.

if you're talking about my computer, i am also running softth, and the reason i was at 25 FPS was the 5120x1200 resolution. i'd say anything less than that and you'd be fine with what you have for now. what kind of monitors do you have?

I'm using a 22" 1680*1050 with a 17" 1280*1024, and am contemplating a third 17", making 4240*1050 (although i'm not sure how it would work with the "extra" 26 pixels vertically on the 22"), which is 72% of the amount of pixels your using - which means that actually it might just cope. Are you running with any AA? Is this with any hi-res textures? Alone or "in the pack"?

Jakg

EDIT - For a SoftTH solution, does the 2nd card do anything useful? ie is it worth buying a decent card (like a 7600GS) over a 6200/7100 etc

i'm not running any AA(can't figure out how to enable it through nvidia's terrible new control panel), all settings in LFS maxed out except for the paying for high res textures, and in a racing in a pack. i'm pretty sure those resolutions you posted are what i turned mine down to last night, softth handles the "extra" 26 pixels fine. and from what i've read, ALL of the rendering is done on your main card, and the second card is just getting the data passed through it so it doesn't need to be that fast, it just has to be PCI-E so it has a fast bus speed. i would say that a 6200/7100 would handle that fine.

another thing to add, by enabling 16 bit mode on the side monitors, my framerate jumped all the way up to 55-60. you can definitely notice the quality difference if you are staring at the side screens, but i don't know how many people drive out their side window.

this also syncs the screens up better timing wise. before there was a minor lag between the main monitor and the side ones. i'd say its well worth the drop in graphical quality. i only notice it on the roll cage in my FXR anyway, i feel like in an open cockpit car you wouldn't even be able to tell.

I ran in 4240*1050(and 2 x 1024) with the same setup as you're contemplating Jack, the extra height one the widescreen was fine, no issues at all really.

Think I used 16bit mode on the side panels with some AA, not sure how much, anyway I used to get around 80fps on my own, dropping to around maybe 30-35 at the back of a full grid.

Quote from UncleBenny :

that's because your triple head was a lower resolution than your original monitor, so its obviously going to be faster

2400 x 600 = 1440000 pixels
1600 x 1200 = 1920000 pixels

Eerm, i thought that fact was made obvious in that post , note that i stated the resolutions. The purpose of the post was to give FOGlegsy some info to think about.
Also, i corrected the sentence in your quote

i'm real good at missing obvious facts

Unclebenny, use nHancer for enabling AA and other stuff Works only for nVidia cards though

i actually realized that softth has settings for AA, so that's working fine for me. i will check this nhancer out though.