🚀 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

I have a Phillips 201b (20.1" vis?) running at 1600 x 1200 @ 75Hz with Large
Fonts.
Small fonts are just too small. Don't forget you can adjust the font size in
XP...

As Rick says, look for a card that will support the resolution you want at a
minimum of 75Hz. For an investment such as this, it is reasonable to see a
demo of the Card + Monitor.

I often wonder about the very point you ask - monitor manufacturers list odd
resolutions which are seemingly never tabled by graphics cards
manufacturers. I am currently looking at getting 2 x Phillips 20" LCD's -
but their native res is 1660 x 1200! Interpolation on LCD is an infinitely
worse thing than on a monitor. If the Mitsi has a Sony style shadow mask the
interpolation will also be bad - native resolutions are the only real way to
go. The reason why I originally opted for the Phillips was - 5 Year
warrantee + 0.22 mm dot pitch (although I have since seen this contradicted
and confirmed).

Alan's comment RE: 2 x 19" is extremely good advice - dual monitors are
always more cost effective.
FYI: the Phillips 201B is now at a very competitive price - you may be able
to get two of these for 1 Mitsi. You will need a strong desk!

Rick: If you are around, how did you "Instead, I created two custom
resolutions (1440x1080 and
1400x1050) in my card driver."?

- Tim



"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.
>   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.
>   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?
> 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.

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:bia1mg$794$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Rick: If you are around, how did you "Instead, I created two custom
> resolutions (1440x1080 and 1400x1050) in my card driver."?

On my Matrox I used their tweak utility which allows for creating
custom resolutions, and for my other system (Nvidia) I modified
NV4_DISP.INF prior to installing the driver.  The file format, at
least for Win2000/WinXP is self-explanatory and adding custom
resolutions via Notepad is easy.

Rick

Thank you for the help (especially Rick). The idea of two 19" monitors 
is something to think about.

Excellent - thanks.
- Tim

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:biage1$74eb3$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:bia1mg$794$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > Rick: If you are around, how did you "Instead, I created two custom
> > resolutions (1440x1080 and 1400x1050) in my card driver."?
>
> On my Matrox I used their tweak utility which allows for creating
> custom resolutions, and for my other system (Nvidia) I modified
> NV4_DISP.INF prior to installing the driver.  The file format, at
> least for Win2000/WinXP is self-explanatory and adding custom
> resolutions via Notepad is easy.
>
> Rick
>
>

Rick wrote:
> "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.


Indeed, my definition of flicker free is around 80Hz, but ambient lighting
affects that slightly - I'm running 85Hz right now.

> 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.

I'm personally using 1600x1200@85Hz on a 19" Sony G400 and don;t experience
any problems.  I think the eye strain issue lies in a combination of
factors, especially dot pitch and refresh rate should be considered.

>>   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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Agreed.  My Voodoo3 could do 1600*1200@85Hz, I think the RAMDAC was 300MHz.

>>   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).

The quality of the RAMDAC is important, I know some older nVidias suffered
from crap RAMDACS.

>> 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.

I like 80Hz as a minimum.  I think UK Health and Safety says 72Hz minimum -
although practically every monitor you see runs the default and rather
painful 60Hz.

Ben
-- 
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...