The interfaces are also different this time around, since the AGP era it was made easier to share data between the bus and main memory. PCI-E having more bandwidth and supporting more channels (and even AGP itself) are much better suited than chaining together the cards, as the joint point would actually be the system bus (faster than memory). I do agree that this implementation is much refined, I guess 14 years wouldn't have gone in vain![]()
I thought 3dfx used a pass-through cable and just switched between the 2D card's video out and the video from its 3d-only framebuffer.
Mac graphics (Radius TV among others) were doing this long before 3dfx or Matrox, BTW.
Sorry, missed the edit window. By "this" I mean "transferring framebuffer data from one card into the framebuffer of another card for display".
Tbe proprietary drivers allows you to use multiple graphics cards with a single GL desktop using Xinerama. This gives you multi-screen. The OSS drivers, don't do that though.
ATI's new cards support >2 screens as well with RANDR too.
Unfortunately, it isn't so much the drivers are fundamentally broken, but the userland. When I was playing with the 6 display cards, I would have a single desktop using RANDR. Yes, compiz would work, but when you rotate the cube or similar, the assumptions about what the different display information means (RANDR, Xinerama extensions, etc) would get misinterpreted and make the experience less than ideal. In theory, you could switch of RANDR and the XINERAMA extension and find that compiz would treat it like one big screen - but you then lose the ability to dynamically resize screens with RANDR or get poor window placement with Xinerama.
It's just a use-case that the Desktop Environments don't really consider.
Matthew