nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Anyway to get a resolution higher than 2048x1536? (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=570)

Xevious 08-09-02 10:14 PM

Anyway to get higher than 2048x1536?
 
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 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

hmm
 
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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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...
 
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

(Bleep) H. (Bleep)!
 
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

Quote:

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.