3007fpw with 2001FP's, anyone here do this?

attack

Member

​

Joined

May 23, 2002

• Apr 25, 2006

• #1

Just kinda curious how it looks...having the 3007 with a 2001 turned 90 degrees next to it?
Also to anyone who has a 3007, have you tried playing games at 1280x800 and see if they look good? I got a high end card but I don't think it could drive 2560x1600...but 1280x800 keeps the pixels exactly 4:1 so it should be in native res pretty much.

 

tom10167

Member

​

Joined

Oct 9, 2003

Location

Phoenix. YOUR HAIR IS GOOD TO EAT

• Apr 26, 2006

• #2

I know of someone. I can't find a picture but it looked awesome.

it was 2 2001s and a 3007

 

broken_Naols

Member

​

Joined

Nov 21, 2005

Location

L2 cache. England

• Apr 27, 2006

• #3

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=862341&page=142&pp=20


scroll down some. Looks real sweet

 

M

mOtH3r_bUrN3R

Registered

​

Joined

Jun 3, 2003

Location

Tampa

• Aug 4, 2006

• #4

I am running a 3007WFP with a BFG GeForce GTXOC 7900. Let me say it is one word and one word only. INSANE.

I can run Everquest II at 2560 X 1600 with nearly all models up. This thing is truly an eye sore and will be the end all monitor for all my gaming needs. I cannot imagine one reason to go any bigger than this. The resolution is so crisp....

Now, the issue is -- If you cannot get to 2560 x 1600 its other native 1280 x 800 is bogus for it. I was pulling my hair out trying to get a card to work and really power this badboy. I recommend the GeForce mentioned and I would also recommend the BFG power supply specially made for the two SLI cards. It is a joy to put together.

bUrn3r

 

OP

attack

Member

​

Joined

May 23, 2002

• Aug 4, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #5

can you explain more about how 1280x800 is bogus?

 

M

mOtH3r_bUrN3R

Registered

​

Joined

Jun 3, 2003

Location

Tampa

• Aug 4, 2006

• #6

1280 x 800 (1.024 mill pixels per screen) looks like crap in most real games (EQ2, WoW, FPS games). Resolution supported in todays market easily hits the 1600 x 1200 range (1.92 mill pixels per screen). The dell 30" supports 2560 x 1600 (4.096 mill pixels per screen) which is crystal clear for gaming and takes the gaming experience to a different level, IMHO.

So, to stretch 1 mill pixels over the 30" makes the pixels HUGE, compared to the native 4 million it is supposed to run at in optimal settings. Hope this helps...

bUrn3r

 

OP

attack

Member

​

Joined

May 23, 2002

• Aug 4, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #7

kinda curious, could you run 1680x1050 and see which one looks better? the 1680x1050 will have more pixels obviously, but which looks better in your opinion (because the 1680 will be distorted)....if the 1280 looks better could you try 1920 and see if the higher density makes up for non-native scale?

Thanks!

 

BossBorot

Member

​

Joined

Jul 7, 2006

• Aug 4, 2006

• #8

Some pics I have saved from around the web:

30" + 2 20"


30" + 2 24"


i have also heard that 1680x1050 is the min acceptable resolution, in terms of image quality, on the 30" but of course more is better.

edit: here is a pic of someone running 1680x1050 non stretched to give you an idea of how much 1680x1050 will have to be stretched to fill the 30".



I do not own a 30" but I hear that the image is acceptable when stretched to fit the 30" but anything under, even if it is also 16:10, is to blown up to look good close up.

 

Last edited: Aug 4, 2006

ctrl_alt_del_

Member

​

Joined

Dec 15, 2004

Location

Clermont, Florida

• Aug 4, 2006

• #9

HOLLY CRAP - the 30" + 2 20" is sick... just sick - an I thought it would be cool just to have one 24"... =(

 

tainice

Member

​

Joined

Oct 20, 2001

Location

Carbondale, IL

• Aug 6, 2006

• #10

Cannot image what to do with 1 x 30'' + 2 x 20'' of screen space...you gotta have some very serious needs to justify the cost....or maybe just pure rich.

 

nakatalee

Member

​

Joined

Jun 24, 2004

Location

Mars

• Aug 8, 2006

• #11

dang.. love that 1 x 30" + 2 x 20". but to think about it why not go with 1 x 65" 1080p? The image will look like real life size when playing game.

 

OP

attack

Member

​

Joined

May 23, 2002

• Aug 8, 2006

• Thread Starter
• #12

well the 30 and 2x20 has over 3.8 times as many pixels as a 65" 1080P....that's a lot! For computer I'd much rather have the pixels...DVD's and TV, the 65"

 

shrinkydinx

Member

​

Joined

Jul 17, 2004

• Aug 11, 2006

• #13

BossBorot said:

Some pics I have saved from around the web:

30" + 2 20"


30" + 2 24"


i have also heard that 1680x1050 is the min acceptable resolution, in terms of image quality, on the 30" but of course more is better.

edit: here is a pic of someone running 1680x1050 non stretched to give you an idea of how much 1680x1050 will have to be stretched to fill the 30".



I do not own a 30" but I hear that the image is acceptable when stretched to fit the 30" but anything under, even if it is also 16:10, is to blown up to look good close up.

Click to expand...

you have bigger pics? clicking those just takes me to imageshack

 

BossBorot

Member

​

Joined

Jul 7, 2006

• Aug 11, 2006

• #14

direct links to uploaded non resized images

30" +2 20.1"
30" +2 24"
1680x1050 centered

note the quality on the last image is not good so the true image is not really that bad.