- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
even my old tnt does 2048x1536! my geforce2mx supports the same max res and so does the geforce4's and the 350MHz ramdac is getting old. its been there since the tnt2u. why not use 500MHz ramdac and 3200x2400 res? 
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
wheres support for 3200x2400 res?
- Thread starter Overclocker550
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
well its rare to find brad new moniters even that support 2048 res
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #3
my 3 year old 19" does 2048x1536 and ive gotten it as high as
3200x1920 on an 8mb tnt2 vanta using powerstrip! only problem is that the card doesnt offically support that res, so the picture quality is flaky and it flickers a little. Nvidia needs to realize some of us want higher res!
3200x1920 on an 8mb tnt2 vanta using powerstrip! only problem is that the card doesnt offically support that res, so the picture quality is flaky and it flickers a little. Nvidia needs to realize some of us want higher res!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
im too cheap to buy a 19
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #5
what res can yer 17" do max? if you use interlanced or like 30Hz you can get very high res
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
1280*1024
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #7
funnyperson1 said:
man that compcrap monitor sucks! I had a KDS 15" that did 1600x1200. you can sell it cheap and get a 19" for $200
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Location
- Montreal, Quebec, Canada
What the hechk do you do that you need that kind of resolution?
- Joined
- May 9, 2001
- Location
- Portland, OR
Unless you have a 36" CRT, there's absolutely no need for such high resolutions. Even 1600 x 1024 is overkill, let alone 2000 or 3000.
As such, it's not cost effective to offer monitors and video cards which can pipe out such high resolutions. If a company can't appeal to a mass market, chances are they won't, because they wont make as much money.
As such, it's not cost effective to offer monitors and video cards which can pipe out such high resolutions. If a company can't appeal to a mass market, chances are they won't, because they wont make as much money.
I agree with Crystal and Uber. I use 1024x768. There is no reason to have an extreme res. I don't know how good your eyes are, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't read the screen in 2000 or 3000. I also don't care to try.
But if you want to see how small you can get your screen then go for it.
But if you want to see how small you can get your screen then go for it.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2001
- Location
- Greenwich,CT,USA
My 19" can only do 1600x1200
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #12
CrystalMethod said:
3d games and CAD. in regular web surfing I use 1024x768
there are some very very high res photos used that go up to 4096x3072!
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #13
Über~PhLuBB said:
just cause 3200x2400 might not be used by everyone, why not just support it in the drivers? hell, even 2048x1536 isnt usable on small monitors, yet the option is there. you only need 32mb of video ram to do 3200x2400x32 bit in 2d! as for 3d, youd need 128mb which the geforce4 ti's have already! id rather use that res instead of 1600x1200x32 4x FSAA! antialising is a cheap trick to blur the jaggies, but high res is the real thing!
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #14
FerrariF50 said:
at what refresh rate? the box says the same, 1600x1200x75Hz but did ya know you can use any res as long as the refresh rate isnt too high? my monitor does 2048x1536 at 60Hz I can run 3200x2400 if I use 40Hz except the fact the drivers of my geforce2 dont support it!
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2001
- Location
- Greenwich,CT,USA
Overclocker550 said:
I don't know I think it was 75Mhz..
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #16
LOL MHz? you mean Hz that means yer monitor can support whatever res mine does. download powerstrip and you can get it much higher
that means yer monitor can support whatever res mine does. download powerstrip and you can get it much higherHi definition also starts around 1080 interlaced. 1024x768 is considered very hi res. Christ the new "High defenition TV's that are 50" are only about 1080 interalced!!! Having a small computer monitor that cranks out anywhere from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 is insane! And the need for more is??? I dont think the human eye could tell the difference betwwen 1600x1200 and 3200x2400, its past our own physical abilities.
And make sure you post what 19" does 2048x1536, or Im gonna call you on it, and call you a LIAR!
And make sure you post what 19" does 2048x1536, or Im gonna call you on it, and call you a LIAR!
OP
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #19
Mr.M said:Hi definition also starts around 1080 interlaced. 1024x768 is considered very hi res. Christ the new "High defenition TV's that are 50" are only about 1080 interalced!!! Having a small computer monitor that cranks out anywhere from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 is insane! And the need for more is??? I dont think the human eye could tell the difference betwwen 1600x1200 and 3200x2400, its past our own physical abilities.
And make sure you post what 19" does 2048x1536, or Im gonna call you on it, and call you a LIAR!
can you see a difference from 1024x768 to 1600x1200? from 2048x1536 to 3200x2400 is the same difference, in both 2d and 3d. any monitor, any size can do any res as long as the refresh rates are in spec in respect to its horzontal KHz specs. example:
if a monitor can support 30-50KHz this means it can do 640x480x60Hz for 31KHz, which is almost off the bottom. at 100Hz, it will give you 51Khz which is just off the top. most monitors also have a min and max Hz range. mine has a min range of 30, 160Hz max. 30-101KHz range. resolution doesnt matter as long as both ranges are met. its all the same if I use 1600x1200x75Hz=95Khz or 2400x1800x50Hz=95Khz both are in spec with the Hz and Khz frequency. only thing is high res is smaller but you can see more windows, just each window is smaller. kinda like a zoom out feature
Similar threads
