|
Post Reply
MultiHeader 2007-10-15 06:36
I'm looking at building a three monitor system, and, as far as multi-head cards, I'm looking at
1) Matrox QID series
2) ATI FireMV series
3) Nvidia NVS 400/440 series
My question: How does spending $500 on one multi-head card differ from spending $50 X 3 = $150 on three single-head cards in three different PCI slots?
Will something like Ultramon [in conjunction with the native Windows 2000 multi-monitor support] driving three separate cards give me the same feeling as a turnkey hardware solution from Matrox/ATI/Nvidia?
|
Christian Studer 2007-10-15 10:20
The main advantage is that you'll need less slots, and should have no compatibility issues (I've had BIOS-related issues with quad cards in the past though, quad cards are a bit special in this regard).
Windows will treat a single quad card or multiple video cards the same way, the desktop will get extended across all monitors and video cards. You don't need additional software for this.
Christian Studer - www.realtimesoft.com
|
David DeRolph 2007-10-16 03:31
Why not use two cards, one to support two monitors and another one for the third monitor. It would cost less than 3 cards and use one less slot. See http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2148789&CatId=319
|
Post Reply
|
