What specs to look for in a video card to run 22" monitor at high resolutions

[JB West]

check out [url]http://www.upgradesource.com/Comparison-VideoCards.htm[/url].
[url]http://www.upgradesource.com/Comparison-VideoCards.htm[/url]

2048x1536 @ 75--85 hz.@ 32 bits is at the upper end of the capabiltiies;
many of the higher-end cards can run *2* of these off of one card. (I use a
quadro4 980 xgl in such an arrangement, on LCD's).

So, the short answer is, maybe. 2048x1536x32bpp = about 12.5 megs, so,
memory size isn't an issue. It's all about the vram speed and the speed of
the DACs --
but most modern cards are close, as shown by the chart (above). Note that
some lower-end ones can only refresh at 75hz or less; I wouldn't go below
75hz. 2048x1536x85hz requires a pretty high-end card, but a geforce4mx
can run at 75hz, and they are cheap (but onl;y 16bit color?). Avoid
super-cheap versions of
chipset implementations; their DAC's aren't up to the task of high-res and
high refresh; stick with a quality vendor and *explicit* support for the res
and
refresh --and color depth -- you are after. If the monitor can use a digital
(DVI) input, then by all means
use a card with digital rather than VGA output connector.

Also, make sure the card can do 2048x1536x75hz *at 32 bit color depth* --
some
of them can only do it at 16 bits.

I'd avoid Matrox if you want to do any 3D stuff.

===============//==============
Part 2: it will either sync up or it won't. If your monitor can't
sync at 120 hz, then, you can't run it at 1920x1080x120hz.

Look for the monitor's "maximum refresh rate" spec.; it probably will, but,
what a waste! run that sucker at 2048x1536!


"Steve Rossiter" <SRossiter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b1d640e316b5fd98969a@news.fullerton.edu ...

> Hi,
> I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
> [url]http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/ProductDetail.cfm?product_i[/url]
> 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.

[Andrew McDonald]

2048 x 1536 at 32 bpp requires only 12 MB of memory for the frame buffer; 24 for double buffering.
So you see any modern card can provide enough memory for that. The reason these cards come with so
much memory now is to store textures and data for 3D games on-board. On the other hand they may not
be able to drive the display fast enough; it looks like even the ATI Radeon 9200 series, which is
their budget-end card, can do 2048 x 1536 at 85 Hz. Curiously they present lower specs for the 9600
series, a typo perhaps? If you only want low-tech gaming the 9200 should be fine, and very cheap.

If you have drivers installed correctly for your monitor and graphics card, Windows will only
present you with a list of display modes supported by both, so it should be impossible to select an
incorrect mode. That mode you listed for the 9800 Pro happens to be a widescreen aspect ratio so it
would probably look very odd on your screen anyway... often the drivers don't actually report all
the modes the card is capable of supporting and you can "unlock" them with a tool like Rage3D Tweak
([url]http://www.rage3d.com/r3dtweak/[/url]) for ATI boards.

Andrew

"Steve Rossiter" <SRossiter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b1d640e316b5fd98969a@news.fullerton.edu ...

> Hi,
> I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
> [url]http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/ProductDetail.cfm?product_i[/url]
> 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.