Whats your maximum resolution?

  • Thread starter Robin2
  • 50 comments
  • 1,243 views
2,660
heh...
 

Attachments

  • maxres.jpg
    maxres.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 135
your a bastard ;)
anyway, i have 2 monitors. On the one i am on right now its 1280X1024@32bit. On my 21" Hitachi is 1600x1200@32bit.
your still a twit :P
i gotta see what your display looks like. sounds....big.
 
ok i just did a google search. tor1 or tor seemingly has nothing to do with a monitor, and X-Micro Hulk5 is an ancient dual head GF2 MX card. so wut kind of display are you using? or is it just 2 monitors? eh? :confused:
 
3200 x 1200. It's a dual head card with each monitor at 1600 x 1200. I was kind of excited about the new Matrox tri-head card, but when you add the third monitor it drops the resolution of all three down to 1280 x 1024. That doesn't add enough digital realestate to make me shell out the $500 they're asking for.

1600 x 1200 x 2 = 3,840,000px
1280 x 1024 x 3 = 3,932,160px

Difference of 92,160.

I think what I'm giong to do now is get a really nice AGP card (GeForce 4 4600??) and two really nice PCI cards and just put each monitor on its own controller. I imagine games will be happier that way as well.

~LoudMusic
 
I'm on a Samsung SyncMaster 955DF 21-inch. It can only do 1600x1200x32 but my GeForce can do 2048x1536x32.
 

Attachments

  • res.jpg
    res.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 113
My LCD's limit me to a whopping 1024x768 x2, but the foot print is so small on the flat panels, I can justify the loss in resolution for the additional desk space and the ability to have the room to add the second monitor...

Besides, until I can get a faster video card, 1024x768 is the highest resolution I'd want to go while maintaining 60+ FPS.

~Peace~
 
Originally posted by Angel O'Death
ok i just did a google search. tor1 or tor seemingly has nothing to do with a monitor, and X-Micro Hulk5 is an ancient dual head GF2 MX card. so wut kind of display are you using? or is it just 2 monitors? eh? :confused:

im running a geforce2mx400 with 64 meg of ram. i was just ****ing around, thats not the monitors max res, thats the cards max res. my max monitor res is 1280x1024x32.
 
Originally posted by RVDNuT374
I'm forgetting everything because it's Monday.:P:P Max resolution is 1280x1024.:)


yeah i thought my pic was the acctual display panle : :dopey:
 

Still trying to figure out how I'm going to do tri-head. This desktop is actually done by an AGP Matrox G450 dual head, so Windows thinks is all one monitor. The card does all the smarts.

~LoudMusic
 

Attachments

  • settings.gif
    settings.gif
    11 KB · Views: 86
Originally posted by   
holy snapping duck****...

Yeah. I'd like to get a phat AGP card like the GeForce4 4600, and then two pretty nice PCI cards and have all three of my 19" monitors at 1600 x 1200 (or even higher). Trouble is, I start to run out of desk space at that point ...

But 4800 x 1200 would be most bad ass (:

~LoudMusic
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic

Still trying to figure out how I'm going to do tri-head. This desktop is actually done by an AGP Matrox G450 dual head, so Windows thinks is all one monitor. The card does all the smarts.

~LoudMusic
Faaarrrrkkk a donkey!
 
Wow, accidently stumbled onto this doing a search for something else. I did in fact get three monitors going at 1600 x 1200 each. The strain on my PCI bus was unbarable at best. I've since gone back to one monitor, though.

For the short while I was using it, 4800 x 1200 was pretty neat. I need a faster motherboard if I ever go back to it again. Or an AGP card that has tri-head support at that resolution.
 
Heh, I just bought and installed my 9600 XT(on sale at Best Buy this week!) and apparently my monitor and card can support 1600x1200 at 120 hz even though the max refresh rate for it at that resolution is 60hz(I suspect it just displays at 60hz because there is a lot of flicker). I'm gonna run it through 3dMark2001 and see what kind of score it gets. I need the latest version of that though.
 
So in the software it's stuck at 60? Surely you can get that thing to crank up to 120. The refresh rate is a really big deal.

How's the card? I'm not big on ATI, but I could go for something new if it's not too expensive.
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
So in the software it's stuck at 60? Surely you can get that thing to crank up to 120. The refresh rate is a really big deal.

How's the card? I'm not big on ATI, but I could go for something new if it's not too expensive.

It is extremely fast. I am having some problems getting it to run Call Of Duty right now but I am hoping a reinstall will fix that. For some really strange reason it will lock up even at default settings after minute or so and I have to reset my system. I'm pretty sure I removed all traces of my Ti4200 from my system but I may have forgotten something.

It works great in Tron 2.0 though. I have bumped the settings to high performance.
 
Originally posted by Matrixhasu77
It is extremely fast. I am having some problems getting it to run Call Of Duty right now but I am hoping a reinstall will fix that. For some really strange reason it will lock up even at default settings after minute or so and I have to reset my system. I'm pretty sure I removed all traces of my Ti4200 from my system but I may have forgotten something.

It works great in Tron 2.0 though. I have bumped the settings to high performance.

How did the NVidia do? Any problems there, or was it just install and go?


Old school card..

If you think a 9000 is old school, I won't comment on my Geforce 256. No, that's not 256mb, that's Geforce 256, as in the ORIGINAL Geforce. And with SDRAM too - none of that fancy DDR crap (:

I'm currently running a dual-VGA Matrox G450. It's a 32MB AGP card. Woo. Obviously 3d means nothing to me.
 
Originally posted by LoudMusic
How did the NVidia do? Any problems there, or was it just install and go?

No real problems with the Ti4200. However, I noticed a lot of random pixels turned into artifacts in games(i.e. they didn't match the rest of the screen, they were darker). It's a good card, but that was one thing that annoyed me.

I think I have figured out why my graphics card doesn't like Call of Duty. It has to do with the fact that my drivers are outdated and the VPU Recovery tries to reset the graphics card when it hangs. On the Ti4200 it would just stutter and drop a few frames. This card shouldn't even do that considering it is basically an underclocked 9800. I'm downloading updated drivers to see if that helps. If it doesn't then I will just disable the VPU Recovery feature.
 
My 2Mb S3 Virge (feel the power :() can support 1024 * 768 and I've got no idea what my monitor can do.

Me wants my 9600XT, gimme some 3DMark scores matrix, which your system being just a little less powerful then mine I'd like to see what sort of score I would get..
 
Originally posted by Cobraboy
My 2Mb S3 Virge (feel the power :() can support 1024 * 768 and I've got no idea what my monitor can do.

Me wants my 9600XT, gimme some 3DMark scores matrix, which your system being just a little less powerful then mine I'd like to see what sort of score I would get..

I lost 3dmark when I reformatted(I can't seem to find it). Sorry. I'll try to download it again though but its a larger file than I want to try and mess with.

EDIT: The updated drivers solved my problem. If you get a 9600XT, make sure you get the updated drivers as it includes Overdrive and solves the problem I had with Call of Duty. I played it at 1152 X 960 and I had no framerate drop at all! I plan to tweak with the card settings to see if I can get even better performance out of it. I didn't have Overdrive, Anti-aliasing, or Antithroping on at all. I love this card!
 
Back