Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BEST ANSWER: No, it does not actually support dual-link DVI, despite what the official description says. I tried it on a HP LP3065c monitor. (see my and other reviews)
Good choice. Some people have reported issues, though. We have an extensive discussion thread on it here:
If you have a CPU that has onboard video, you can use your motherboard's DVI out if it has one.
Good choice. Some people have reported issues, though. We have an extensive discussion thread on it here:
https://hardforum.com/threads/31-5-2560x1440-165-hz-va-g-sync-lg-32gk850g.1947751/
I noticed they don't have DVI connections anymore on the new cards, I have a Dell 3007 which is dual DVI, is there a way for me to use the 2080 Ti or do I need to buy a new monitor?
You need a powered active DisplayPort to DVI Dual Link converter. You'll probably need to find a more expensive one, as the cheaper ones you'll find around that claim dual link are really a single link channel operating at 340 MHz. This is fine for newer monitors, but some older ones require two discreet channels clocked at 165 MHz.
Dell has one on their site for $139.99.
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...to-dvi-dual-link/apd/470-aanw/tv-home-theater
StarTech also makes one, currently selling for $89.99 on Amazon. Be aware that StarTech are notorious for having a high failure rate.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A493CNY
Accell has one, as well, for $91.93 at Amazon. I've personally had more luck with Accell than StarTech in the realm of converters, but your mileage will vary.
https://www.amazon.com/Accell-B087B-007B-DisplayPort-Dual-Link-Adapter/dp/B00856WJH8
No, that is exactly what Armenius was talking about.
It will only work if your monitor can support an overclocked DVI port running at double-speed, so the list of monitors that this will work with is incredibly small.
The 2080 Ti has HDMI, right? Why wouldn't you just use an HDMI > DVI adapter then at that point since they're both the same connection type (logically and the adapters are much cheaper?
Also, nice first post, marnes, necroing threads out the gate.
Why wouldn't you just use an HDMI > DVI adapter then at that point since they're both the same connection type (logically and the adapters are much cheaper?
My plan is to see if i can run my old GTX 970 as a second video card that can still power the 3007 monitor as a non gaming secondary monitor.
HDMI to DVI/DP converters, even passive one, always requires some form of additional signal conversion (i.e. far more complicated).
This will work fine. I ran a GTX 680 along side my RTX 2080 for a while with no issues. I did it just to run extra monitors.
HDMI is fully compatible with Single-Link DVI using no "signal conversion" whatsoever. There are cables out there that have HDMI on one end and DVI on the other with no electronics in the cable whatsoever. I use them often. Unfortunately this compatibility only applies to single-link DVI (max 1920x1200) and does not help in the OP's case.
Im using 2 Accel active adapters with my 1080 regular to put my other two 3d monitors in nSurround. It already had one Dual DVI port. It was pretty rough getting information about it at the time, but i am addicted to nSurround and those monitors cost me a mint at the time, also replacing them at the time wasn't really an option either. Nowadays good monitors are a bit cheaper.
I may at some point get one of those curved gaming monitors if they make one that covers my screen real estate for a areasonable price...but i suspect that it will just be a front coew, and not the 'side mirror' views i enjoy in some games so there's that
I've ran 3x30" Dell 3007's for several years for NVSurround and general productivity and gaming use. I got sick of trying to get games to behave correctly with that aspect ratio. Not only that, but I hated the fish eye effect on the satellite monitors. You also had to buy dual-GPU's to run with higher settings on every game. Even 4K didn't match the overall pixel count, but that really ended up being a good thing. You would have to go to 8K to cover the same screen real estate as 7680x1600. The Samsung KS8500 worked mostly well for me allowing me to have enough of a pixel count for productivity at a size that was immersive. Everything looked fantastic, but it turned out to be too big for productivity actually. I never liked being virtually unable to use the top most portion of the screen. At 7680x1600, I had a similar problem of not being able to use the furthest out sides. It was an FOV that ended up being too wide.
I'm running a single 21:9 display right now, and while much smaller than I'm used to, I like it so far. I think a 43" 16:9 is probably ideal. I'm really looking forward to ASUS' and Acer's 43" 4K displays. The only thing that might stop me from getting one is the potential price. I'd pay upwards of $1,500 for that, but at $2,000 or $2,500 I'll pass on it.
Thanks for the insights. I have 1080 monitors so its not so bad, and they are i think 27" 120hz 3d monitors. For now it works for me. If i can get a single curved widescreen monitor that covers the same space id consider that (i also have a monitor above those and positioned it to drag up in the control panel where i have temp guages and whatnot)