Aisling

true. had a few matrox cards back in the PCI and AGP days and the picture quality over VGA was outstanding.
 
if i remember correctly, they were also among the first to put 2-4 or more VGA ports on their cards and actually allowed to expand the desktop onto multiple monitors.
consumer cards back then had one VGA and maybe s-video at best - but you could not even use both at the same time.

Matrox M9140 LP PCIe x16 provides 4x VGA but.... even on eBay the cheapest atm is 140€. New ones are closer to 500€.
Pricey but Matrox does 2D cards well.

consumer cards with more than one VGA pretty much died ages ago, some of the latest cards don't even have ANY analog output any more.
 
i guess your best bet would be to get a recent budget card with the desired amount of outputs (analog or digital) and buy yet another bunch of converters - something-still-supported-to-vga converters - and use the output from those to drive your proprietary vga thingies

Hi
First try this.
Adjust your color wheel index in service mode.  Increase or decrease number and see if it helps.
Press (Power→Left→Left→Up) to get  into service mode.
 
If changing cw index won't help, then disassemble projector and clean color wheel photo sensor.
Manual here. http://easp.optomausa.com/ASP/upload/Service manuals/Optoma HD80_HD80-LV_HD803-LV Series V6.0(DDP3021, 36.87Z05G001) Service Manual.pdf
 

haha  I feel like I'm in a corner under a rock in this thread.  I only recently upgraded to a HD 6870.  Previously I had a HD 4650 so to me it's a huge upgrade as the new one has DX11 support.  All the cards I see everyone wanting to upgrade from are like 2 to 3 times better than my 'upgrade'.  Doesn't bother me that much though.  The Phenom X4 9750 seems to hold this video card back in most of what I run anyway.   Brokelife ftl
Anyway - to edit in some relevant content.  I recommend looking into the selling value of your current card on eBay.  The time I spent looking into upgrades from my HD 4650 taught me just how well mid range GPUs hold their value in the used market.  Taking a brief break from gaming to sell your current card to fund a better upgrade now may be a good way to get something a bit better than you thought you otherwise could afford.

Actually they do - almost all AAA games in 2015 and 2016 use 8 threads or more as evident by TB"s port reports where all 16 threads on his 5960X are in active use. Furthermore, DX12 has no limit on the amount of cores/threads for games so expect every single CPU resource to be utilized. Locked i5s are not nearly as powerful as people preach - I've had my i5 4590 reach 100% usage when my R9 280 - a severely weaker GPU than a 1070 - was at 80-90% usage. It's possible. A 1070 will be fine with his i5 in MOST games but the 1080 will be bottlenecked across almost all.

fps will be acceptable but in certain cases stutter may occur depending on settings and your frame rate.

Overwatch is actually heavy on the CPU

That is because GTA V is more CPU bound. Of course the performance would be different. Now compare Overwatch which is less CPU bound...

3Dmark is not a "bottleneck hunter" - try GTA V and notice the gap

So I just went through 3dmark's results and compared 4670 vs 4770 with GTX 1080 and there is clearly no bottleneck. The big difference in scores is just the physx results. Comparing the GPU scores you can see they are dead even.

How? The only difference between the i5 and i7 is the hyperthreading which a lot of games don't utilize anyway. I would agree that a "K" sku would of been better but it still shouldn't be an issue, at all.

With a 770 no, with a 1070 slightly, with a 1080 severely. i5s are not magic - they have their limits just like any other CPU

If you are upgrading the CPU soon, that's even more of a reason to get the 1080.

Go for a 1070 - your CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for a 1080

Given that you have an ultrawide, a 1080 would be the better choice. You pretty much need all the horsepower you can get.

Hey, great to hear that! Drivers can indeed cause such situations. I do hope the problem was resolved and the drive is working as it should be. Do post back if the situation reoccurs or if you have other questions or something I can help you with. :)

Captain_WD.

That looks kinda normal for a WD Green. They are low power consumption drives so they don't maintain clean data rates like a Blue or Black would. I have a green that I salvaged from my external drive when the logic board went bad and it produces similar results from what I remember. I can test when I get home from work if you would like to compare them. how long have you had the drive and how much use does it get?

If the tool says PASS then you should be fine. If something failed you would have received an error message. 
Post back when the extended test completes.
Captain_WD.

According to these tests the drive is fully healthy. 

Try running a different benchmarking tool and if the results are confirmed contact our live support. The guys there should be able to give you more information. 


Captain_WD.

Sorry for the delay. After looking at it again and running my own benchmark just now, I think your drive is bad because your transfer rate spikes should not be that drastic, and you should probably replace it very soon. These are the results that I get from my WD Green 2TB.

Hi there Welcome to the community!
 
That WD Green drive has quite a lot of hours on it. 30k+ hours of work time is quite a lot, though the S.M.A.R.T. status does not show anything alarming. 
I would run WD Data Lifeguard Diagnostic tool and see if the drive passes both the quick and the extended tests. If the drive does it should be safe to use.
 
Do post the test results from the diagnostic tool.
 
Post back if you need more info on the drive
 
Captain_WD.