🚀 go-pugleaf

"Steve Rossiter" <SRossiter@msn.com> wrote in message news:MPG.19b1d603b8f87d7c989698@news.fullerton.edu...
> Hi,
>   I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
> http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/ProductDetail.cfm?product_i
> d=232&division=MITSUBISHI and am now looking a various cards to drive
> this monstrosity. Mitsubishi specs say it can go to 2048 x 1536 @  86
> and my job now is to match it to a card provide the signal. Although I
> will probably have the screen set to 2048 x 1536 I figure if the card
> can do this it will be able to provide viewing at lower resolutions
> flicker free.

Don't assume you'll be setting your res to 2048x1536 until you try it!
I have the same basic monitor (22" Mitsu 2040U) and IMO text is
way too small even at 1600x1200.  At 2048x1536 you'll likely need
a constant supply of Advil if you work with text apps for extended
periods.  Instead, I created two custom resolutions (1440x1080 and
1400x1050) in my card driver.  Both maintain the proper 4:3 aspect
ratio while keeping text big enough to not cause eyestrain.

>   My needs are to provide clean displays of various large data sets in
> 2D, sometimes rotate them in 3D and a little low-tech gaming like Age
> of Empires, Sim City. I'm a little confused because cards advertised
> with 64 MB, 128 MB, or now 256 MB of memory all claim to be able to
> display at resolutions near to my 2048 x 1536 benchmark so there must
> be more than aggregate memory that determines ability to run large
> monitors at high resolutions.

Don't pay much attention to the amount of video memory.  Even
32MB is more than enough for 2048x1536 @ 24 or 32-bit color.
Additional video memory is used to store textures for 3D apps, but
only a tiny number of current apps use more than 64MB for texture
storage.

More important is the speed of the video card's RAMDAC.  To
display very high resolutions at a decent refresh rate you'll need a
card with at least a 360MHz RAMDAC.  Higher-end Matrox,
Nvidia and ATI cards all qualify.

>   The Matrox P750 seems to a reliable choice for the job but lacks
> some of the fun stuff of say the ATI AIW 9000 Pro or GeForce4 Ti 4600.
> Will $150-$200 get me a reliable, flicker free card that can display
> at high resolutions (that way I can see more of the data set) or am I
> asking too much of a card in this price range?

For $200 you can certainly get a good, flicker free display, but
above ~1600x1200 you'll see a difference with a more expensive
card (e.g. Matrox Parhelia).

> One last question. What is the end result of setting the screen to a
> resolution and refresh rate that the card doesn't list? For example,
> the monitor mentioned above lists a capability to display 1800 x 1440
> @ 92 Hz but the closest a Radeon 9800 Pro comes in terms of its spec
> sheet is 1920x1080 @ 120. How would this display on the screen?
> Thanks for the help with these questions.

Throwing unsupported resolution/refresh rate combos at a monitor
is never a good idea.  Make a list of the highest refresh rates the
monitor supports at all resolutions, then start at 75Hz and work
your way up from there.  Most cards have a refresh rate tweaking
utility either included with the driver or available separately.  So in
your example you'd run 1920x1080 @ either 85 or 90Hz.

Rick