PDA

View Full Version : Anyway to get a resolution higher than 2048x1536?


Xevious
08-09-02, 10:14 PM
I was wondering what the top resolution of the nvidia cards are, i was wondering if I could go up to 2560x1920, currently im running at 2048x1536, and my monitor can do up to 2560x1920, but i dont know if there is a video card that will allow me to do it, right now im on a nvidia geforce 2 mx 440 64 MB, i was wondering if i could edit the drivers some how for me to exced the 2048x1536 limitations, if it can do 2048x1536 @ 75 Hz, the video card, that is, then I would think it would be able to supposrt 2560x1920@60 Hz, anyway thanks in advance, any responces are appreciated.

btw, sorry i probably posted this in the wrong forum before, the open forum.

saturnotaku
08-09-02, 10:31 PM
You'll have to check the specs on your specific card (which should be available at the manufacturer's web site). But I have a GF4 Ti4600 and the maximum resolution my card is capable of is 2048x1536 and only in 16-bit color. So I would say there's no way you'll be able to get more than that on yours, especially on a GeForce2 MX. To get those insanely high resolutions, you'd probably have to go with something like a Quadro 4, Matrox Parhelia, ATI FireGL or some other professional grade card.

koslov
08-10-02, 01:33 AM
Just out of curiousity, I checked all the major MFG sites: NVIDIA, ATi, Matrox, 3dlabs. And none of them have a card that will do 2560x1920! Even this beast of a board (http://www.the3dshop.com/productinfo.asp?a_prodid=367) can't do it!

What monitor are you using? Unless it is a >30incher, I don't think anyone would need that resolution, especially if it is at 60Hz! Besides, your eyes might bleed from the beauty of it!

The closest thing would be the R300, aka Radeon 9700 Pro. ATi lists it as being able to do 85Hz @ 2048x1536.

Xevious
08-10-02, 03:30 AM
Anyway your ti 4600 should be able to 2048x1536x16@75 and 2048x1536x32@60 with newer drivers, with the older drivers you cant, the monitor im using is a viewsonic p225F, i got it because of the high resolution, i wish i could run it at its max, and considering im already running at 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz, because i was using old drivers, just updated, it doesnt really bother me, i wish i could do 2560x1920 though..

pgn.inertia
08-10-02, 05:15 AM
I believe the RAMDAC's they are placing on the board these days cannot cope with such high resolutions. A GF4Ti has a RAMDAC of 350+ MHz and still cannot do that kind of resolutions.

I think the industry is just not ready for it or something. :(

saturnotaku
08-10-02, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by pgn.inertia
I think the industry is just not ready for it or something.

I don't think it's the industry that's not ready, but rather the fact that probably less than 1% of computer users have monitors that are capable of such resolutions. And as such, these monitors are, for most of us, far too expensive for what we use them for. There are still plenty of monitors out there that can't do resolutions higher than 1600x1200 at refresh rates higher than 75-85 Hz.

pgn.inertia
08-11-02, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by saturnotaku


There are still plenty of monitors out there that can't do resolutions higher than 1600x1200 at refresh rates higher than 75-85 Hz.

Hehe, including mine (NEC FE950+)...

Xevious
08-11-02, 02:52 AM
well, i guess it was pretty expensive for a monitor, ~$750 at the time, but well worth getting 2048x1536@79 Hz capable if your a resolution freak like me, viewsonic also recently came out with a 22 inch viewable 16:10 ratio LCD that runs at 3840x2400, thats 9.2 megapixel, it also has 235 nits of brightness and 170 degree horrizontal/vertical viewing angles and low response times. it is QUXGA-W Quad Ultra XGA, XGA is 1024x768, UXGA is 1600x1200, so 4 times 1600x1200, or quad times, is 3200x2400, and the W is for wide, for 16:10 instead of 4:3

TheOneKEA
08-11-02, 07:31 AM
You have way too much money laying around. Can we have some? ;) :)

koslov
08-11-02, 04:21 PM
Here is a link to this (un)godly LCD monitor:
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/lcd_vp2290b.htm

Price:
http://www.pcnation.com/asp/details.asp?item=369111

Feanor
08-11-02, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku


I don't think it's the industry that's not ready, but rather the fact that probably less than 1% of computer users have monitors that are capable of such resolutions. And as such, these monitors are, for most of us, far too expensive for what we use them for. There are still plenty of monitors out there that can't do resolutions higher than 1600x1200 at refresh rates higher than 75-85 Hz.

hehe, like mine... I've got a Viewsonic A90 and it can only do 1600x1200x32 at 60 Hz refresh (maybe 72 but haven't tried that one). As I want 75 Hz refresh, that puts me at 1280x1024x32... My monitor is now over 2 years old but has held up pretty good and no reason to buy a new one now. When I do though, I'll probably go larger then 19" next time (as prices have further coem down)...

swamped
08-11-02, 09:39 PM
I have had a Radeon 7500 - not your highest end card - running at 2560x1920x60Hz on a Sony G520.

IBM apparently runs their T221 at 3800x2400 with a Radeon.

pgn.inertia
08-12-02, 04:34 AM
Please say again... ;)

Xevious
08-12-02, 11:28 AM
Why is it that on the ATI site it says the max resolution is 2048x1536?

Monitor Resolution
Hz


640x480
200


800x600
200


1024x768
200


1152x864
100


1280x1024
160


1600x1200
120


1920x1080
100


1920x1200
100


1920x1440
85


2048x1536
75

swamped
08-12-02, 12:15 PM
That's the highest VESA standard resolution, and the highest ATI supports directly. You can use 3rd party utilities to go higher in both resolution and refresh rate.

Xevious
08-12-02, 12:57 PM
anyway to do that on a nvidia? and can you give me some links to the utilities? thanks

swamped
08-12-02, 02:02 PM
http://www.entechtaiwan.com/files/pstrip.exe
PowerStrip menu > Display profiles > Configure > Advanced timing options > Custom resolutions

But its not going to help you break the limits of an nv driver, which is 2048 and 1536. You can get 2040x1536 or 2048x1534, but nothing higher than 2048 horizontally and 1536 vertically.

Note that the hardware itself can do higher, so the driver ceiling could be lifted in future.

Xevious
08-12-02, 09:03 PM
for some weird reason it when i add a mode 2560x1920 it wont show up in windows, 1800x1440 did, and 3840x2400 or whatever did too, but 2560x1920 wont.

swamped
08-12-02, 09:11 PM
That's often the case: this or that specific driver won't allow this or that specific resolution - I don't know why.

E.g., uou can get 1400x1050 out of the 30.82 NV Win9x/Me drivers, but not with the 30.82 2K/XP ones. 1400x1050 just won't work at all - but 1408x1050 will. Go figure...

Xevious
08-13-02, 03:25 AM
yeah i found that out, but now it just runs at a lower resolution with the "scrolling desktop effect"

swamped
08-13-02, 07:57 AM
Are you using a Radeon or GF card? I've never seen a GF card virtualize the screen, but ATI will *if* the resolution you select is higher than what a PnP monitor says it can support.

You just need to break the DDC connection: pluck the pins or use a BNC cable, or something like that...

Setting IDCRegOptionDontUseOSMonitorInfo to 00 00 00 00 (binary) will sometimes work too.

Xevious
08-13-02, 03:38 PM
yeah its the ATI, the card in that laptop is amazing, it can run 2 monitors @ 2048x1536, or 1 at 1600x1200 and 1 at 2560x1920, its pretty awesome, run the LCD at native 1600x1200 and run external monitor at 2560x1920, i think ill try the regestry thing, thanks, but where is that in the registry?

Xevious
08-13-02, 04:00 PM
on the regestry thing, i found it, and it already has that entry.