Eyefinity 2.0 -- no PLP.....

[boushidosan]

You have earned a medal for that excellent explanation

 

[Unknown-One]

Just a quick addition. The mode-change is also why one or more of your displays might appear "fuzzy" after switching into or out of Eyefinity.

If the video mode changed subtly and the monitor hardware didn't catch it, you can end up with sync issues (monitor thinks it's the old mode, even while being fed the new mode, so pixels aren't mapped correctly). This can also cause the afflicted monitor to "blink" at random intervals if it detects a sync issue but does not re-sync because the signal is found again within an internal grace period. Simply power-cycling your monitor will fix the problem by forcing it to re-detect its sync settings.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

SNIPPED

That doesn't explain why you can alter the color, scaling, and the overdrive to each individual display after it's past the SLS hardware. It also doesn't explain why each display is OFF synch with each other by a few milliseconds (easier to see in 3x1 portrait and a menu that moves across all three displays). Surely if you can post process each frame that's sent to each monitor, you can manipulate the orientation. It will probably take processing time and then you'd have to re-sync the images (introduce minute lag), but it could be done.

I'm not saying this would not require extra hardware, but as far as I know, it could be done.

 

[Unknown-One]

That doesn't explain why you can alter the color, scaling, and the overdrive to each individual display after it's past the SLS hardware.

Sure it does...

I mentioned that there are TWO sets of display hardware being employed here, the SLS hardware and then the normal hardware connected to each display head.

All of those settings you mentioned are driver-level and take place AFTER the SLS hardware, so they can change each screen's settings individually. If you try to use any color correction that takes place BEFORE the SLS hardware (like Windows built-in color management) it can't control each monitor individually.

Bezel correction takes place after the SLS hardware as well (as I already explained), which is why it can set different corrections on each screen. The left-hand screen needs its right-hand edge placed out of bounds, while the right-hand screen needs its left-hand edge placed out of bounds.

It also doesn't explain why each display is OFF synch with each other by a few milliseconds (easier to see in 3x1 portrait and a menu that moves across all three displays).

It explains this perfectly as well...

The SLS hardware can only maintain sync with one of the display-output clock generators on the card. The two DVI ports use identical clock generators that run at identical fixed steps, so if the SLS hardware syncs with a DVI port, both DVI ports should stay in sync. In this particular scenario, any monitor connected via DisplayPort is the odd man out. DisplayPort doesn't use a traditional clock generator, so if the SLS hardware syncs to a DVI clock gen then it will be ever-so-slightly out of sync with the DisplayPort clock (which is why you get a fixed line of tearing on one screen).

You can actually REVERSE this situation as well. If you set the monitor attached to DisplayPort as the primary display, it forces the SLS hardware to sync to the DisplayPort clockgen instead of one of the DVI clockgens. Guess what happens... both of the screens attached to DVI end up with a fixed line of tearing while the monitor attached to DisplayPort is perfectly synced.

Surely if you can post process each frame that's sent to each monitor, you can manipulate the orientation.

I don't think you quite understood the part about SLS hardware output modes in my previous post...

The individual display output hardware on each display head CAN rotate the image. The problem is, the SLS hardware can't give it the data it needs for rotated modes unless ALL displays are rotated (which precludes the possibility of PLP configurations).

If the primary monitor is set to landscape, then the SLS hardware generates three landscape signals based on the display mode of the primary monitor. If the primary monitor is set to portrait, same thing, the SLS hardware generates three portrait signals based on the display mode of the primary monitor. There is NO WAY to get the SLS hardware to put out one landscape and two portrait signals because it only had the ability to duplicate one screen mode to be applied to all output.

Now, that said, the non-primary heads COULD be rotated at the display-output hardware... but to what point or purpose? If the primary monitor is in landscape mode, then all three sets of display-output hardware are receiving a landscape image from the SLS hardware.

In a 1200x1600 + 2560x1600 + 1200x1600 PLP configuration, the best you could get is a spanned resolution of 7680x1600 with the image on the side monitors squished from 2560x1600 to 1200x1600... which would look like crap and be pointless

 

[AnonymousUser]

There is NO WAY to get the SLS hardware to put out one landscape and two portrait signals because it only had the ability to duplicate one screen mode to be applied to all output.

Okay (from what you're stating), so it's not happening on current cards but can't this easily be fixed on cards yet to come out by the manufacturers (implementing P-L-P ability into the SLS)?

Or are you saying it's not going to happen anytime at all in the near future because it's more complicated? If it's a stupid question, there are no stupid questions...lol.



Note: Half of what you said was over my head, I'm just here because I want PLP in game.

 

[Unknown-One]

Yeah, it's not gonna happen on current cards, a new SLS (single large surface) hardware design is required. They might be able to fix the tearing on current cards if they can tweak the DisplayPort clock to match the DVI clockgens more closely (without causing sync issues with DisplayPort monitors), but I'm not sure how much control they have over that.

It's totally possible for AMD to make hardware that can do SLS, but the question is... is it worth it for them to do so? Those who want SLS make up a fraction of the already small number of users who have gone out of their way to set up Eyefinity rigs. Do they really want to redesign their hardware and overhaul their software to handle a very small edge use case?

Not saying I agree with them not implementing it, just saying... it might not be worth it to them.

 

[AnonymousUser]

Do they really want to redesign their hardware and overhaul their software to handle a very small edge use case?

Only if Bill Gates actually gamed, he'd make them do it!

I really just wanted to post this picture...weird!

 

[frosty3907]

I feel that they have an obligation to implement this given the enormous amount of promotion they've done of it, every driver we've installed since what, 12.1? has had EYEFINITY GAMING plastered all over every splash screen.

Ok so the hardware is incapable, so eyefinity is useless, how then do we force window mode reliably, remove window borders, force resource priority to current window (thought everything but windows server already did that?) ?

Must be a workaround.

I've noticed some (most?) games won't allow selecting a resolution greater than your primary display (unless it has an .ini to mod) - what if we modded the monitor DCC info to report the full resolution 4960x1600 as an available video mode?

 

[Final8ty]

As far as I can tell, after poking around a bit, it IS a hardware limitation. In fact, it's caused by the same hardware limitation that causes a fixed tear to appear on one screen when Eyefinity is enabled.

To everyone who thinks it's a software problem because PLP is supported when in Extended Desktop mode, it's time for a wake-up call. When you're in extended-desktop, the hardware on the card responsible for SLS mode (eyefinity) is bypassed. Windows is allowed to see 3 separate screens, and the clock generators generating the display sync signal on the card can operate independently of one another. This allows each screen to operate at its own resolution and refresh rate while keeping independent sync settings (no tearing).

When you enable Eyefinity, the dedicated SLS hardware is inserted into the video pipeline at a very early stage, before the per-display clock generators. This dedicated hardware is fairly "dumb" and is relatively limited in regard to what input and output modes it supports, which is where the issues with V-Sync and PLP modes come from.

The SLS hardware has only ONE internal clock generator, and it can only be synced to one of the clock generators handling actual display output at any one time. Because there's only one clock generator to work with, all three output streams from the SLS hardware are running at identical display mode settings to one another before being fed into the actual display-output hardware. This holds true for bezel-corrected resolutions as well, the SLS hardware outputs 3 images at identical resolution, the display-output hardware has its sync settings altered to "crop" the extra rendered frame by moving those pixels out of bounds (which is why there's a full video reset when adjusting bezel correction).

Rotating a display to portrait requires a vastly different display mode, but the SLS hardware can only be synced to ONE of the display-output clock generators at any one time.

The breakdown is as follows:
- If you rotate one monitor in portrait, and that's the one the SLS hardware is synced to, then all output from the SLS hardware is portrait-mode.
- If you have one monitor in landscape, and it's the one the SLS hardware is synced to, then all output from the SLS hardware is landscape-mode.

The SLS hardware can accept a 4960x1600 source, but it is physically incapable of creating the individual 1200x1600 + 2560x1600 + 1200x1600 signals needed for PLP from from that 4960x1600 source.

There is the option of spoofing 7680x1600 (triple 2560x1600) by syncing the SLS hardware to the center monitor, then using the display-output hardware to crop off a MASSIVE chunk of the rendered frame so that it fits on the portrait screens to either side. There are three major problems with that, though.
- Performance would suck because you're rendering 7680x1600 but only displaying 4960x1600 of it, massive waste of resources there.
- The sides of the rendered image would be cropped off, so in many cases, your HUD would be entirely off-screen.
- You can only do so much cropping by monkeying with sync settings, that's why bezel correction is already limited in how much it can crop. it's not actually possible to remove THAT much screen using this method.

Right so let Windows handle EyEfininty (name sake) when in PLP if the SLS cant handle it. Because clearly the SLS is not needed for PLP.
When i play 4960x1600 in windowed mode or HTSoft im not getting all these tearing syncing issues, the hardware is not saying error i cant do games at 4960x1600.

Something is regarded as a hardware limitation when it cant be done, so for example while my software is 32bit colour the gfx card is only 16bit colour and i slap a black and white monitor on to it all and when people ask why is it black and white, i say its a hardware limitation when its a choice because i have a 32bit colour gfx card and colour monitor in storage.

Going through the limited SLS was and AMD choice as there are 2 other things that can do PLP just fine and keep sync on my hardware at least without SLS on the same AMD hardware .

 

[Unknown-One]

Uh, the entire point of Eyefinity is to create a spanned resolution that your OS (and games) see as one big monitor. This requires dedicated hardware on the graphics card to spoof the Single Large Surface (SLS) to the operating system, and dedicated hardware to take that large image and split it into three (or more) separate images that can then be handled individually by the normal display-out hardware attached to each display head on the graphics card.

Running in Extended Desktop mode and using SoftTH (which also requires extended desktop mode) do not create a spanned resolution. Without a spanned resolution, compatibility with games isn't nearly as good.

And SoftTH isn't even close to the same thing as Eyefinity. SoftTH is a hack that works at the DirectX level to spoof a larger monitor than is actually present. Compatibility and speed are both poor because it's 100% software based. Eyefinity actually presents the OS with one large monitor, and the spanning is handled entirely in hardware, which makes it compatible and fast.

Like it or not, you need Eyefinity (SLS Mode) in order to do this properly. It's unfortunate that it can't handle mixed display modes when generating spanned display resolutions, but that's how the hardware was designed.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

Well this all makes sense because when Eyefinity came out, it was a "Value Added" feature. They went with DP on cards because it didn't require any royalty fees, so not including the extra hardware to use SLS mode with non-identical resolutions was out of the question I guess. But I agree, if they want to push eyefinity as a great feature, they should continue to progress on the Multi-Monitor Gaming front. I love ATI/AMD for what they did for the scene, but I need more.

 

[XTF]

This requires dedicated hardware on the graphics card to spoof the Single Large Surface (SLS) to the operating system, and dedicated hardware to take that large image and split it into three (or more) separate images that can then be handled individually by the normal display-out hardware attached to each display head on the graphics card.

What makes you think this requires special hardware? Speculation?

 

[suiken_2mieu]

What makes you think this requires special hardware? Speculation?

Well, according to Unknown-One's theories, I'd think you'd need the SLS Module to be able to split the image at different points and not just a division by 3. You'd literally need need something like the following:

Rendered Image [ ] -> SLS Module [ ][ ][ ] -> Separate Clocks [ ]
......................................................................Separate Clocks [ ]
......................................................................Separate Clocks [ ]

*... are just spaces

That being said, you'd need to be an engineer over at AMD to know how dumb the SLS hardware really is.

 

[XTF]

SLS hardware probably doesn't even exist.
As far as I know display outputs are configured by a buffer pointer, pitch (offset to next line), width and height. Portrait and flipped modes requires some more effort but are fairly trivial. I can't think of a good reason for this not being supported in Eyefinity.

 

[Final8ty]

Uh, the entire point of Eyefinity is to create a spanned resolution that your OS (and games) see as one big monitor. This requires dedicated hardware on the graphics card to spoof the Single Large Surface (SLS) to the operating system, and dedicated hardware to take that large image and split it into three (or more) separate images that can then be handled individually by the normal display-out hardware attached to each display head on the graphics card.

Running in Extended Desktop mode and using SoftTH (which also requires extended desktop mode) do not create a spanned resolution. Without a spanned resolution, compatibility with games isn't nearly as good.

And SoftTH isn't even close to the same thing as Eyefinity. SoftTH is a hack that works at the DirectX level to spoof a larger monitor than is actually present. Compatibility and speed are both poor because it's 100% software based. Eyefinity actually presents the OS with one large monitor, and the spanning is handled entirely in hardware, which makes it compatible and fast.

Like it or not, you need Eyefinity (SLS Mode) in order to do this properly. It's unfortunate that it can't handle mixed display modes when generating spanned display resolutions, but that's how the hardware was designed.

While that's the point and the easier it is not the necessity.
I can run EVE online across all 3 screens in PLP in boarder less windowed mode and besides bezel compensation the end result is no different to Eyefinity, the fact is windows does it without special hardware, so its not imperative to have the screens seen as one, its just the logical.

 

[Unknown-One]

While that's the point and the easier it is not the necessity.
I can run EVE online across all 3 screens in PLP in boarder less windowed mode and besides bezel compensation the end result is no different to Eyefinity, the fact is windows does it without special hardware, so its not imperative to have the screens seen as one, its just the logical.

The end result there is VERY different from Eyefinity... how can you not see that?

Windows is still dealing with three separate displays in that scenario, and the game is being spanned across multiple monitors thanks to being a window. Being a window allows DWM to handle positioning rather than allowing the game to connect directly to the graphics hardware to create a surface for itself.

Using DWM as an intermediary creates a performance hit. Using DWM as an intermediary and then asking it to span across two separate display heads creates an even bigger performance hit. None of this is an issue when the card handles the spanning IN HARDWARE rather than some horrible kludge being carried out IN SOFTWARE.

Sorry, but I really don't think you quite understand the difference between a hardware-based solution like Eyefinity and a software-based one like using a window or SoftTH (or there's a language barrier that's causing issues)... Eyefinity is almost equivalent to plugging a TripleHead2Go into a single display-out on your graphics card, it handles spoofing one large display and splitting the resultant super-wide image into three parts entirely in hardware.


The only reason EVE Online sort-of works is because it just happens to support fullscreen-window mode, and also just happens to allow setting resolutions in fullscreen-window mode that are larger than the primary display. This isn't something that AMD can magically implement in all games via a driver update, it requires the developer to write support for this specific mode into the game engine itself. This is not a valid global solution for PLP gaming.

 

[Final8ty]

The end result there is VERY different from Eyefinity... how can you not see that?

Windows is still dealing with three separate displays in that scenario, and the game is being spanned across multiple monitors thanks to being a window. Being a window allows DWM to handle positioning rather than allowing the game to connect directly to the graphics hardware to create a surface for itself.

Using DWM as an intermediary creates a performance hit. Using DWM as an intermediary and then asking it to span across two separate display heads creates an even bigger performance hit. None of this is an issue when the card handles the spanning IN HARDWARE rather than some horrible kludge being carried out IN SOFTWARE.

Sorry, but I really don't think you quite understand the difference between a hardware-based solution like Eyefinity and a software-based one like using a window or SoftTH (or there's a language barrier that's causing issues)... Eyefinity is almost equivalent to plugging a TripleHead2Go into a single display-out on your graphics card, it handles spoofing one large display and splitting the resultant super-wide image into three parts entirely in hardware.


The only reason EVE Online sort-of works is because it just happens to support fullscreen-window mode, and also just happens to allow setting resolutions in fullscreen-window mode that are larger than the primary display. This isn't something that AMD can magically implement in all games via a driver update, it requires the developer to write support for this specific mode into the game engine itself. This is not a valid global solution for PLP gaming.

The end results look exactly the same, people don't care what's going on under the hood internally.
How it works is not my point, the end results is what matters and the performance hit is insignificant and compared to other things that add for greater performance hit in gaming that are still an option.
The point is it can be done and it does not need to be done at the hardware level.

This is windowed mode with no boarders, it LOOKS no different in Eyefinity and i still get my 60fps Vsync, i got it connected by 2 DVI Duallink ports and DP to DualLink DVI adaptor, no tearing, who is going to care that it was not all done at the hardware level.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I'd love to see someone hack BF3 to do this 'software spanning' that you're doing with EVE, and report on the performance, if it's even possible to generate a scenario to measure it. I can see the argument where PLP is going to require a hardware change, but I really have to wonder if it can't be done by a driver.

Going forward, you'd think that GPU makers would want to build as much flexibility into their architectures as possible. It's pretty hard to imagine them continuing to ignore the ability to render to an arbitrary surface in hardware!

 

[Final8ty]

I'd love to see someone hack BF3 to do this 'software spanning' that you're doing with EVE, and report on the performance, if it's even possible to generate a scenario to measure it. I can see the argument where PLP is going to require a hardware change, but I really have to wonder if it can't be done by a driver.

Going forward, you'd think that GPU makers would want to build as much flexibility into their architectures as possible. It's pretty hard to imagine them continuing to ignore the ability to render to an arbitrary surface in hardware!

No hacks have been used, there are quite a few games that can span multiple screens in windowed mode.
There are window boarders in BF3 but ABs screen grab does not show them.

The only real problem to performance is that only one GPU in CF when used in windowed mode and a GPU heavy game like BF3 need multi GPU at that res with my 5 series, i hear that SLI works in windowed mode. The 7xxx series may get 60fps with med setting.

 

[frosty3907]

unknown one - we (i at least) really appreciate the expertise you're bringing to the argument, but as the bearer of bad news it may make you unpopular with the less knowledgeable (myself included) who just can't believe something that windows has been able to manage natively forever can't be done with our overpriced hardware that was apparently built to do it.

 

[Final8ty]

unknown one - we (i at least) really appreciate the expertise you're bringing to the argument, but as the bearer of bad news it may make you unpopular with the less knowledgeable (myself included) who just can't believe something that windows has been able to manage natively forever can't be done with our overpriced hardware that was apparently built to do it.

I fully understand what he was saying and lt clearly was an oversight for the SLS not to included PLP and now that its been explained we have to look past that, my only problem is that he seems not to accept anything other than that if its not done at the hardware level then its not worth bothering about and lucky others don't think like that or we wouldn't even have PLP at the desktop or other PLP solutions.

 

[Bratman]

Just filled in the troubleshoot form, hope they pull their finger out there asses. They should hire Kegetys he knows the score.