1200nf OR Iiyama 514

[tonytwotimes]

I'm looking to upgrade my samsung 900NF monitor. I had decided on the Samsung 1200NF until I saw the Iiyama vision pro 514.

They are both AG 20" viewable. The 514 is also $100 more expensive. The only other difference I noticed was that the 514 supports a higher refresh rate at 1600x1200 than the 1200NF (100Hz vs 85Hz).
Does the 1200NF also support 100Hz at that resolution? Until today, I had never heard of Iiyama. Which one is better for my money?

[vampireuk]

IIyama are a very good company, great products and great support too:cool:

I would say go with the IIyama:thumbsup:

[Smokey]

Well if the refresh rates are what you stated, then the Iiyama is using a higher quality tube, its like the cheaper Iiyama 19" vs the more exspensive. If you think that 1600*1200 is the max res you will ever do, then 1600*1200@ 85Hz will be fine. I think for games 1600*1200 on a 22" would be the best res, on a 19" I find 1280*1024 to be the best, then if your video card has the power, then start adding FSAA. As Vamp already stated Iiyama are a great company to deal with.

I dont know what price point you are going to, but if I had the cash, I would get the VM Pro 512 :afro:

2048*1536 @85Hz
1800*1440 @92Hz
1600*1200 @110Hz
1280*1024 @125Hz

Price £527 incl. VAT direct from Iiyama UK

Iiyama UK dont have the 514 listed on thier website, so I dont know the price in £, but I did a search on google and saw a price around $600 US, is that about right?

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by Smokey

2048*1536 @85Hz
1800*1440 @92Hz
1600*1200 @110Hz
1280*1024 @125Hz



Wow. Most video cards don't have refresh rates that go that high, especially at 2048x1536. If you bought this monitor, you wouldn't have to upgrade again for a very long time. :eek:

[Smokey]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
Wow. Most video cards don't have refresh rates that go that high, especially at 2048x1536. If you bought this monitor, you wouldn't have to upgrade again for a very long time. :eek:

Yes I was wondering about that, I was just reading a review on the Gigabyte Maya II 9700pro and it states a max res of 1920*1440@75Hz :confused: How does that work then becuase I thought the Q3 engine supports 2048x1536, btw which I have run RtCW in just to see what it looks like! Can you explaing this a bit more Saturnotaku?

[-=DVS=-]

Very Simple answer this is taken from ATI homepage

2D DISPLAY MODES
Resolutions, colors and maximum refresh rates (Hz) in 256, 65K or 16.7M colors Monitor Resolution Hz
640x480 120
800x600 120
1024x768 120
1152x864 120
1280x1024 120
1600x1200 85
1920x1080* 16:9 75
1920x1200 75
1920x1440 75
2048x1536 60

*16:9 aspect ratio monitors are supported on 1920x1080 and 848x480 on Windows® XP, Windows® 2000 and Winpows® ME. The complete list of resolutions depends on the driver version and operating system. NOTE: that resolutions are limited by the performance of the attatched monitor.

MAXIMUM 3D RESOLUTIONS
(with 128MB Frame Buffer) 65K colors 2048x1536
16.7M colors 2048x1536


http://mirror.ati.com/products/pc/radeon9700pro/specs.html

[-=DVS=-]

But this is not very correct ATI site states

640x480 120
800x600 120

On my 19" ViewSonic PF790 i can do

640x480 180
800x600 160 :confused: and all games ran just fine at this refresh

i guess you can run 2048x1536 at 75hz no prob depends on monitor :rolleyes: can't test this my limit only 1600x1200 75Hz :(

[Smokey]

I remember that I tested highest res in RtCW once before, but I just tried again and now I get an OpenGL error, so I guess that may be a driver thing? But yes I was wondering if your video card only supported say 1600*1200@85Hz and your monitor @100Hz, would your games accually run @100Hz?

[saturnotaku]

I would think (and I'm probably wrong about this) the RAMDAC would handle that kind of information. If your monitor can do, for example, 100 Hz at 1024x768 but your video card is only capable of 85 (if specs on the box are correct) then the game would run at the lower of the two frequencies.

I'm guessing with the monitor in question that can do such a high frequency at high resolutions that it may be geared more towards high end/workstation use. I'd be willing to bet cards like the NVIDIA Quadro, ATI FireGL and/or 3dlabs Wildcat and other cards have the ability to handle much high refresh rates at those higher resolutions because people who depend on their monitors and video cards for income will demand such support.

Edit: The Parhelia is one such card. According to Matrox' site, it can do 2048x1536@85 Hz.