GeForce3 + High Res LCD?

0 weergaven
Naar het eerste ongelezen bericht

Brian McGroarty

ongelezen,
26 nov. 2001 11:26:1726-11-2001
aan
Are there any DVI monitors beyond 1280x1024 which work with a
GeForce3? After using DVI-D LCDs, I prefer not to go back to a CRT or
analog LCD.

I need at least GeForce3 performance for my current work, and I need a
screen resolution better than my 1024x768 displays. I prefer to bypass
1280x1024 due to its non-square pixel aspect.

It's my understanding that the 1600SW from SGI and the DVI-based Apple
Cinema displays require altered drivers which don't work on the
GeForce3 hardware.

Is 1280x1024 it for GeForce3 cards?

nick kang

ongelezen,
26 nov. 2001 22:42:0226-11-2001
aan
Planar, Eizo, MItsubishi, Samsung, IBM all make 20" or larger panels
that are 1600x1200 native with DVI. Most of these are about $2.5K to
4K US. There is a Dell-branded 20" panel that is only $1600 that does
1600x1200 also. Samsung makes an awesome 24" wide-aspect panel that
has a native resolution of 1920x1200 for $6K. I saw a Fujitsu panel
with similar specs at Siggraph and the image looked like printed
paper. Most larger panels tend to be better spec'ed than smaller
ones, ie, much higher contrast ratios and brightness, faster pixel
refresh speed, multiple inputs (including DVI, SVideo, BNC), etc. The
current model 22" Cinema Display uses a proprietary connector that
supplies power in addition to the signal (I am unaware of an adaptor).
The 1600Sw has been discontinued but you might find it for a good
price. I thought it was a little too small and the pixel lag was too
dramatic for gaming. Bang for the buck, definitely the Dell 2000fp
model.

Brian McGroarty <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:<87snb1o...@booberry.speakeasy.net>...

Gav

ongelezen,
27 nov. 2001 03:21:2227-11-2001
aan
On 26 Nov 2001 10:26:17 -0600, Brian McGroarty <br...@robotattack.com>
wrote:


>I need at least GeForce3 performance for my current work, and I need a
>screen resolution better than my 1024x768 displays. I prefer to bypass
>1280x1024 due to its non-square pixel aspect.

If you look for a 5:4 ratio screen, the pixels are the regular
square shape. At least some of the LCDs out there are 5:4 format, do
a google.groups search.


Gav
--
Real email is gavan(hyphen)martin(dot)moran(at)ubs(dot)com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own, not my employers
"Du musst Amboss oder Hammer sein"

Brian McGroarty

ongelezen,
27 nov. 2001 12:27:4327-11-2001
aan
neura...@hotmail.com (nick kang) writes:

> Planar, Eizo, MItsubishi, Samsung, IBM all make 20" or larger panels
> that are 1600x1200 native with DVI. Most of these are about $2.5K to
> 4K US. There is a Dell-branded 20" panel that is only $1600 that does
> 1600x1200 also. Samsung makes an awesome 24" wide-aspect panel that
> has a native resolution of 1920x1200 for $6K. I saw a Fujitsu panel

Can you point to any specific models?

Every unit I've seen that had DVI-D and was 1600x1200 or better had a
VGA input as well, and the VGA input was used for the 1600x1200 mode.

A $6k price-tag doesn't scare me unless I end up paying that only to
be saddled with 1280x1024 stretched to 1600x1200 in DVI-D mode.

nick kang

ongelezen,
29 nov. 2001 01:00:1529-11-2001
aan
Samsung 240T (24" Wide 1920x1200)
Samsung 210T (21")
EIZO NANAO FlexScan L771 (20")
Mitsubishi MULTISYNC LCD2010X (20")
VIEWSONIC VP201MB (20")
Dell 2000FP (20")
Planar UXGA (19")

All of the above are 1600x1200 native except for the 240T, and listed
downward in order of relative cost. Princeton advertises their 18" as
having a 1600x1200 max resolution, but it uses the scaler to decimate
the analog input to fit its 1280x1024 pixel array. With many displays
in the past, the scaler is not available when using DVI, but maybe
this is no longer the case with current models

On the truly exotic end of things, IBM makes a 22" panel that has an
amazing native resolution of 3840x2400, for $18K. I believe it
requires a video card that can drive two DVI connectors simultaneously
in order to achieve that resolution. Good luck with your purchase.


Brian McGroarty <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:<87d724y...@booberry.speakeasy.net>...

Brian McGroarty

ongelezen,
29 nov. 2001 01:11:1329-11-2001
aan
neura...@hotmail.com (nick kang) writes:

> On the truly exotic end of things, IBM makes a 22" panel that has an
> amazing native resolution of 3840x2400, for $18K. I believe it
> requires a video card that can drive two DVI connectors simultaneously
> in order to achieve that resolution. Good luck with your purchase.

The video card for the IBM is actually a quad-head Matrox G200 MMS
with four DVI outputs and a PCI 33mhz/32-bit bus.

While I haven't seen one running, I can promise you that it's slow as
hell.

Brian McGroarty

ongelezen,
29 nov. 2001 01:18:0329-11-2001
aan
neura...@hotmail.com (nick kang) writes:

> Samsung 240T (24" Wide 1920x1200)
> Samsung 210T (21")
> EIZO NANAO FlexScan L771 (20")
> Mitsubishi MULTISYNC LCD2010X (20")
> VIEWSONIC VP201MB (20")
> Dell 2000FP (20")
> Planar UXGA (19")
>
> All of the above are 1600x1200 native except for the 240T, and
> listed
> downward in order of relative cost. Princeton advertises their 18"
> as
> having a 1600x1200 max resolution, but it uses the scaler to
> decimate
> the analog input to fit its 1280x1024 pixel array.


The question is whether anything has 1600x1200 double data rate DVI-D
instead of Apple Cinema or SGI 1200SW trickery. I checked, and none of
those seem to support 1600x1200 via DDR DVI-D. (I can't even get a
straight answer as to whether the GeForce3 supports this anyway, so
maybe I'm asking for too much too soon.)


> With many displays
> in the past, the scaler is not available when using DVI, but maybe
> this is no longer the case with current models

With every DVI-D display I've used, scaling has been implemented by
the video card, not by the display.

Bill Harris

ongelezen,
1 dec. 2001 09:51:3301-12-2001
aan
Brian,
I believe you're correct--I think 1280x1024 is the max DVI resolution for
Geforce 3 at present. I had the Leadtek Ti500 and 1280x1024 was it, and I
haven't seen any other brand at 1600x1200. The Radeon 8500 does support
1600x1200.


"Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message

news:87snb1o...@booberry.speakeasy.net...

nick kang

ongelezen,
2 dec. 2001 05:20:2002-12-2001
aan
Brian McGroarty <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message
>
> The question is whether anything has 1600x1200 double data rate DVI-D
> instead of Apple Cinema or SGI 1200SW trickery. I checked, and none of
> those seem to support 1600x1200 via DDR DVI-D. (I can't even get a
> straight answer as to whether the GeForce3 supports this anyway, so
> maybe I'm asking for too much too soon.)
>

I am not sure if a dual-link DVI setup is necessary at this
resolution. A single-link DVI configuration was designed to support
HDTV resolutions (1920x1080) at 60 Hz, which should be plenty fast for
a TFT panel. Not having actually tried this, I don't know if the
hardware mentioned above conforms to the spec. Agreed, this important
to know, because often early generation models don't actually meet the
limits of a particular standards specification.

The Hercules Prophet Ti 500 GF3 lists 1600x1200 as its max DVI res,
for what its worth. I would assume since most folks are hooking TFT
panels via DVI rather than CRTs with DVI (which I think are still
pretty rare), this rating is for a 60 Hz refresh.

Allen beantwoorden
Auteur beantwoorden
Doorsturen
0 nieuwe berichten