Final Words

For any gamer, the thought of a box like the TripleHead2Go most likely brings first to mind what it would be like playing your favorite game with the additional screens on each side, and a widescreen resolution which stretches out into your peripheral vision. This type of display setup seems better suited for simulation games, particularly flight-sims, where the breaks between monitors would be less noticeable. However, the TripleHead2Go solves the DualHead2Go's problem of having a break in the middle of the screen due to the two displays being side by side, making wide-screen first person shooters more feasible.

The idea of being a sniper for instance in Battlefield 2, and having the wider field of view that a resolution like 3840x1024 provides would potentially give you an edge over those players that don't, being able to see enemies who might try to sneak up on you from the side. However, the breaks on each side can still be quite bothersome in fast paced first-person games where having a clear field of view is important. In games like Age of Empires 3, the extra view can potentially make a difference when managing units, allowing you to select and control very large numbers of units more easily than before. Simulation games like Microsoft Flight Simulator seem to be best suited for a three-monitor display, and with a powerful graphics card and/or SLI setup the view can be breathtaking.

These are just a few examples, and there are other types of games or 3D applications that can also benefit from the extra displays, but we still find the breaks between monitors too much of a distraction to make it worthwhile with most games. There is one slight problem, however: not all games are supported by Matrox's SGU application right now, and some games may never see support. For example, while we listed Battlefield 2 above, it is at present a hypothetical example, as it is not currently supported. You can try to force the proper resolution, but you will not get the correct field of view. There are at present 120 game titles officially supported, and presumably more will be added, but there are certainly going to be titles that never receive support. Anyone familiar with widescreen gaming will probably already recognize this fact, but proper TH2G resolution support in games is going to be even less common.

Of course, the TripleHead2Go isn't just for gaming. For those with laptops in office situations, the added desktop space is good for running multiple applications, or large media editing programs, and could theoretically boost productivity. However, how much your productivity will skyrocket over what you could normally accomplish on a single display is subjective, and this is where the price tag will determine for each individual if it's right for him or her. Being able to have the extra desktop space that the TripleHead2Go provides might be very practical, but any PC user can get extra desktop space by adding another GPU for less than the cost of a TripleHead2Go. This is why it seems that the TripleHead2Go is a fairly specialized piece of hardware that won't be practical for the average PC owner.

As with the DualHead2Go, the TripleHead2Go does exactly what it claims to do without any problems, and we were able to install and set up the drivers fairly easily. While the 3D gaming is much improved with the device, we would still prefer not to be limited to analog and have a dual-link DVI version of the TripleHead2Go. The fact that at the maximum resolution only a refresh rate of 60hz is supported is unfavorable to some, but is understandable given the limitations of this device.

As we mentioned in the introduction, the TripleHead2Go can be bought for about $270 at the time of this writing ($250 if you are a student). This is no small amount of money, considering this device requires a computer with a graphics card and three monitors to be of any use. On top of this, because the resolutions it can achieve are so large, a powerful graphics card for your system would be preferable. The cost of the device, graphics card, as well as the extra monitors would be pretty staggering, so those with extra monitors or a powerful graphics card would be much more likely to consider this than someone looking to make a triple-display system from scratch. Regardless of this, Matrox has provided the first realistic device to allow a triple-display setup, and is no doubt counting on the fact that there are those willing to get a setup like this by any means.

To sum up, the TripleHead2Go is a good quality, albeit expensive, device for setting up a triple display system without much trouble at all. While it's really the only way to get the type of "surround graphics" that it claims, we see this as more of a novelty item than a practical one for most users. The kinds of users who would really benefit the most from this are die-hard gamers (preferably simulation type games), and laptop owners who really want to impress people with their three screen presentations. Other users would be better off upgrading their monitor(s) to widescreen LCDs, or using a big-screen TV for a display, and those (desktop users) needing extra desktop space across multiple monitors can already get that sort of feature by purchasing a second graphics card with dual DVI connections. The TripleHead2Go's negative aspects like high performance requirements for gaming at high resolutions and compatibility issues (with ATI hardware) might ultimately be overshadowed by the positives, but the bottom line is the Matrox TripleHead2Go is a piece of hardware that, in spite of what it achieves, isn't worth the high price for most people.

Performance and Power Requirements
Comments Locked

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • Furen - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    Most games don't support multiple monitor spanning, though. TripleHead2Go makes the video card think it's working with a single high-res monitor and then does all the splitting itself.
  • Lonyo - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    And in nVidia driver properties, if you set 2 displays to "span" the computer makes them look like one display and everything runs spanned across 2 monitors. My point was can you not use the DH2Go to make one 2560x1024 monitor, and then span using a third monitor hooked up to the other output to make 3840x1024 without needing TH2Go. Games like Unreal TOurnament, or anything running on the Unreal Engine can have the FOV altered to it would look correct if it would work. The configuration of the game itself (adjusting resolution/FOV etc) can be done by the user.
  • Furen - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    Oh, nVidia's driver supports spanning in 3-D mode? This is the limitation I was talking about, the last time I checked it didn't work (going into 3-d mode blanked a screen).
  • DerekWilson - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    Unless the game specifically support output to two (or more) seperate displays, you cannot run 3d spanned across monitors.

    NVIDIA drivers will run 3d in only one display and leave the other in 2d mode (this is how we used to read temperature from the driver while we ran a benchmark before the neat temp logging feature was added).

    There is no driver setting that can be used to make both outputs of either an ATI or NVIDIA card look like one display to a game.
  • Lonyo - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    YES YOU CAN. I HAVE DONE IT WITH MORE THAN ONE GAME.

    nView properties -> Display Wizard -> Custom setup -> Span mode.

    Games will then run up to 2560x1024 across 2 LCD's, one plugged into each output of a graphics card. In 3D mode.
    Games I have used with this include UT2004, Rome: Total War and Trackmania: Nations.

    Unless I am misunderstanding you, you can make games see 2 monitors as one.
    http://www.lonyo.co.uk/duals.JPG">http://www.lonyo.co.uk/duals.JPG
    And that's how they look to a game as well.
    Which looks remarkably similar to the TripleHead2Go display properties, only with one less monitor:
    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/matrox/t...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/vid...x/triple...

    What I'm asking is can you use a DualHead2Go on one ouput, and then span with a single monitor on the outher output to effectively create a TripleHead2Go type thing with a DualHead2Go plus the graphics cards second output. Since you can make nVidia drivers span 3D across monitors connected to both outputs.
  • Furen - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    I always find Matrox's products... errr.. "Interesting"

    I dont mean to diss them, I actually like Matrox quite a bit, in fact I was going to buy a Matrox Mistique way back but since I didnt see it at the shop I went to I bought a Rendition Verite 2-based video card that had a crappy non-working OpenGL ICD that I had to coax to work... those were the times.

    $270 is dirt cheap if this thing can improve labor efficiency for a business, even if it's something as low as 5% or so. Labor costs are huge for most businesses, which is why they're willing to spend lots of cash to improve efficiency.
  • DerekWilson - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    in most cases business apps don't have the limitation games do --

    for games not designed to run on multiple displays (simultaneous rendering in different framebuffers), the matrox part makes multidisplay possible. some games still have problems with resolution or aspect ratio support, but many more games are able to take advantage of this than the two output available on almost all modern graphics add-in cards.

    video does share this limitation in many cases as well. it is difficult to playback part of a video on one screen and part on another when they aren't rendered together and split on output.

    if all you are talking about is improving efficiency for business users, two cheap graphics cards can offer more display and screen space for less money than one fast graphics card and the Matrox TripleHead2Go.

    For instance -- with 2 7600 gs cards, I can run 4 monitors at 1600x1200 getting me a desktop that can either be 6400x1200 or 3200x2400. And the cost of both graphics cards (about $240) is less than the cost of one TripleHead2Go (about $270). Even if you just go with 3 monitors off the two graphics cards you get more screen space.

    I certainly understand the argument, but even if Matrox succeeds at filling this niche, there are better and cheaper ways to do it.
  • Guuts - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    "As we mentioned before, ATI hardware isn't able to achieve this resolution, so instead we tested one of the most powerful NVIDIA cards we had, the EVGA e-GeForce 9700 GTX (Factory overclocked to 690MHz/1.76GHz) with and without AA."

    Should be "7900 GTX," no?

    Also, it might be nice to have some "real-world" pictures of the setup you used in the lab to test this, showing the games you tested it on, instead of only the PR pictures from Matrox that look either simulated or edited.
  • Lifted - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    A GeForce 9700 GTX? Where can I get one?!
  • JarredWalton - Monday, July 31, 2006 - link

    Fixed, thanks. About two more years for the 9700 I guess. ;)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now