Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-09-02, 10:14 PM   #1
Xevious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 291
Default 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.
Xevious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-02, 10:31 PM   #2
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

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.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-02, 01:33 AM   #3
koslov
Omnipresent Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 33
Default

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.
koslov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-02, 03:30 AM   #4
Xevious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 291
Default 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..
Xevious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-02, 05:15 AM   #5
pgn.inertia
NV_point_sprite
 
pgn.inertia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Middelharnis, The Netherlands
Posts: 130
Post

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.
__________________
Avé...
pgn.inertia

- Ter leering ende vermaek -
pgn.inertia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-02, 11:43 PM   #6
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

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.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-02, 02:39 AM   #7
pgn.inertia
NV_point_sprite
 
pgn.inertia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Middelharnis, The Netherlands
Posts: 130
Default

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+)...
__________________
Avé...
pgn.inertia

- Ter leering ende vermaek -
pgn.inertia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-02, 02:52 AM   #8
Xevious
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 291
Default 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
Xevious is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-11-02, 07:31 AM   #9
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default (Bleep) H. (Bleep)!

You have way too much money laying around. Can we have some?
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-02, 04:21 PM   #10
koslov
Omnipresent Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 33
Default

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
koslov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-02, 05:02 PM   #11
Feanor
Registered User
 
Feanor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Default

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)...
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-02, 09:39 PM   #12
swamped
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6
Default

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.
swamped is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti GPU is Out Now, Great for 720p S3D News Archived News Items 0 10-09-12 09:40 AM
Opinions on 1280x1024 resolution skipparoo NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 103 06-22-12 11:38 PM
Why cant I run at 2048x1536 with nvidia drivers Xevious NVIDIA Linux 10 09-16-05 09:48 PM
Unable to select 2048x1536 resolution zack NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 17 09-05-02 09:41 AM
30.82 and 40.41 resolution + monitor OSD. Max3D NVIDIA Windows Graphics Drivers 2 09-05-02 02:15 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.


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