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

Hi,
I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product....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.

"Steve Rossiter" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product....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.

What in the blue blazes are you going on about? Nothing you have said in
this post makes any sense.

"Steve Rossiter" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product....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.

Most any 64 card should meet your requirements. Matrox OWNS the 2D space.

As to your question about running the card at a resolution and refresh that
the monitor doesnt expressly support...

the display goes blank.

NuTs

"Steve Rossiter" schreef in bericht
...
Hi,
I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product....cfm?product_i

snap

Thanks for the help with these questions.

Right, clear, uhhhhm, clear? Been drinking?

download the latest driver from nVidia for the cards you are talking about.
Unpack it. it contains a text file which lists all modes the various cards
do support.

Greetz,

Derob

Steve Rossiter wrote:
Hi,
I'll be buying a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
http://www.necmitsubishi.com/product....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.

That'd be my guess too =)

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?

Some drivers or tools let you define the refresh for the card. I know
Matrox provides a tool for that with their cards, or at least, they used
to, so you can set it to whatever Hz you want, provided the card can
handle it.

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?

Not, a black screen, and you might damage the monitor. I wouldn't try that.

Thanks for the help with these questions.

If you want crisp clear and stunning 2D, Matrox is definately the way to go.

RJT wrote:



If you want crisp clear and stunning 2D, Matrox is definately the way to go.

Bull.

My MSI FX5600VTDR looks awesome @ 2560x1024. Looks wonderful in Photoshop,
Cinestream, as well as games.

FWIW, I just upgraded from a Matrox card.

Keith

Keith Clark wrote:

My MSI FX5600VTDR looks awesome @ 2560x1024. Looks wonderful in Photoshop,
Cinestream, as well as games.

I never said your MSI wouldn't look fine. I happen to think that the
Matrox cards give a better output. You need a good monitor to see the
difference though. Which brings me to the next point: what monitor are
you using? One that, given the dotpitch and size of the tube, can
actually display 2560 pixels in width? At what refresh would that be,
deinterlaced?

FWIW, I just upgraded from a Matrox card.

FWIW, I've just upgraded from a Matrox too. The 2D picture is acceptable
on the nVidia chipset, but the Matrox cards picture was better, and I
had more software options to adjust the screen - I haven't seen nVidia
provide that.

RJT

"RJT" wrote in message
...


Keith Clark wrote:

My MSI FX5600VTDR looks awesome @ 2560x1024. Looks wonderful in
Photoshop,
Cinestream, as well as games.

I never said your MSI wouldn't look fine. I happen to think that the
Matrox cards give a better output. You need a good monitor to see the
difference though. Which brings me to the next point: what monitor are
you using? One that, given the dotpitch and size of the tube, can
actually display 2560 pixels in width? At what refresh would that be,
deinterlaced?

FWIW, I just upgraded from a Matrox card.

FWIW, I've just upgraded from a Matrox too. The 2D picture is acceptable
on the nVidia chipset, but the Matrox cards picture was better, and I
had more software options to adjust the screen - I haven't seen nVidia
provide that.

RJT


What nVidia have you upgraded to? And what was your previous Matrox card?

"RJT" wrote in message
...

The 2D picture is acceptable
on the nVidia chipset, but the Matrox cards picture was better, and I
had more software options to adjust the screen - I haven't seen nVidia
provide that.


Can I ask, in a non-confrontational way, what exactly you think is better
with the Matrox image rastering, as opposed to the Nvidia output. I suspect
you have seen both on the exact same CRT? It's really the only way to make a
meaningful comparison, which interests me, for I did see a noticable
difference with Matrox, some years ago, the quality of their high-pass
capacitors was to a degree better than the mediocre nvidia referenced ones,
particularly on the GeForce2 GTS.

Since then, nvidia's dictated analog output with rastering (2D for the
lesser geeks) has improved, to the point where it is better than where
Matrox's was then. Has Matrox's similarly improved to now be even better
than the FX's? Which is excellent.

n.b. I know certain manufacturers took it upon themselves to improve on
nvidia's questionable component specs, I'm specifically referring to the
reference designs.

Derek Wildstar wrote:

Can I ask, in a non-confrontational way, what exactly you think is better
with the Matrox image rastering, as opposed to the Nvidia output.

The first thing I noticed when switching from a G550 to a 5600 was that
the picture just wasn't as sharp. I had the option to adjust the timings
on the Matrox card, and having done this - it takes time and a lot of
effort to get it right - it was definately worth the effort. The picture
was sharper than anything I'd ever seen on a CRT. The nVidia's picture
is stable, but seems ever so slightly blurred. You can notice this, if
you want to, with black text on a white background an vice-versa.

Secondly, the colour on the nVidia is off. It is washed out, a symptom
that occurs more often with the nVidia cards, or so I've read. It seems
that for the very same reason you get the 'vibrance' setting in the
drivers. Using all the colour adjustment features in the drivers, and
Kodak software, I still haven't gotten it quite the same.

Last point of difference is the contrast. Using several darker shades
that are very similar in contrast, but not quite the same, the Matrox
card had no problem with the output. If I turn the brightness of my
monitor way up, I might see the different shades, but at a normal
setting I'm unable to tell.

Note that this is personal experience. There is no point in other people
now replying that they had opposite experiences. This is an n=1 study,
and not a scientific review, ok ppl?

I suspect you have seen both on the exact same CRT?

Naturally. Actually, the only thing changed was the card. Same BNC
cables, same computer, same desk, same chair, same software, same you
name it. Even the same screw to fasten it in the AGP slot.

I do think most people will settle for the 2D output any nVidia or ATi
based card gives. There are lots of people out there running the card at
the wrong resolution. I've seen people use a 800x600 res on a high-end
21", but also 1600x1200 on a 17" that accepts the signal, but - taking
into account the dotpitch of the tube - just cannot output the same
resolution.