When do you think Dual DVI will arrive from ATi or Nvidia?

OK....then that explains the lack of DVI on analog monitors then. It's also a big disappointment to me.

Assuming what you're saying is true, then I am disappointed to learn that 1600x1200x60Hz is not achievable with a "single" DVI. I was figuring on waiting for a DVI flat panel (17-19") at 1600x1200 to come along before making an investment in a flat panel.

Looks like that may be a bit further off than I'd like.

 

no you can get 1600x1200x60 with a single TMDS link - some cards can't do this however (I think the Matrox G550 can't, but Parhelia can).

edit: that's of course not enough for a 21" CRT, but it is sufficient for almost all existing LCD's out there. Dual-link TMDS would suffice for CRTs.

 

The highest spec that Silicon Image list (produce a lot of the digital transmitters and receivers used in monitors and graphics cards) is 165MHz which would go up to 1600x1200 @ 60Hz.
However it is possible to use dual tmds transmitters and receivers thus doubling your bandwidth. Which would give you a 330Mhz pixel clock, but I don't know if anyone supports this.

CC

 

Yeah, me too. I do agree with the general consensus that an 18" flatpanel is pretty much the same as a 19" monitor - actually, the biggest problem with it is that it is _so sharp_ it can be quite hard work to read.

I'd like a 20" panel to replace the ten-ton monstrosity that is my main work monitor, but like you said, I need 16x12. 60Hz is just fine for the flatpanel though.

In the end I bit the bullet and put on cleartype, which annoyed the hell out of me for about two weeks and I haven't noticed it since.

 

You're probably lucky, it looks like there's a new standard class of LCD, which is 20" with 1600x1200. I've not seen reviews yet, but for instance Philips and VideoSeven have such monitors out, which are not that expensive either (about 1k USD).

 

Yeah, I just did a bit of googling and I found the same thing. That's good news to me. It gives me hope that an 18-20" or so Flat Panel at 1600x1200 is a possibility in the next year or two.

I hear ya! I currently have a 19" CRT, which I would like to run at 16x12, but it can only handle 75hz at that rez, which I don't like. A 19-20" flatpanel at 1600x1200 would seem to be exactly my target.

Only problem is waiting for such a displays to hit the market in any sort of volume...

 

Just on a side note...

1600x1200 for LCDs has become the "sweet spot" for me at this time, and probably many other gamers, for a couple reasons.

1) The best video cards out can finally drive that resolution, at least without AA, and sometimes with, in the vast majority of games. So as long as you get a leading edge video card, you can have the "ultimate" in gaming resolution, running in native LCD resolution.

2) Even if you HAVE to run in a non-native resolution (for either performnace reasons, or because the game doesn't support 1600x1200), you can at least run in 800x600 (which is at least reasonable, with AA), and not suffer the stretching artifacts or smaller screen if that resolution were run on a 1200x1024 monitor.

The big question is, what are the pixel refresh rates of these emerging 19-20" 16x12 flat panels?

 

I am using a Dell FP2000 20'' 1600*1200 LCD for 1 and 1/2 year now, which worked great on my then old gf3 and my now old 9700p. As for games the display works quite well. Before that i used an nec 15" lcd with an advertised PRR of 25ms, which had way more tearing than the Dell (which I guess is using a Philipps panel). I also had a 21" Sony CRT which just stank compared to the LCDs (aside from colour fidelity). If your doing real work on your pc, I'd strongly suggest switching to an lcd.

 

Yeah, I've heard some good things about that Dell unit, as well as the Viewsonic VX2000.

I did some basic searching, and have not come up with ANY 1600x1200 native resolution monitors with lower than 25 ms response time. Looks like 16ms is currently reserved just for 1280x1024 units. Are the 16x12 units supposedly coming any time soon?

 

Supposedly the LG I'm sitting in front of right now is more than 25ms, but it doesn't bother me at all.

 

You'll see more dual DVI cards the day someone starts selling a 16ms 15" LCD for $150. That's still at least a year away, I think.

 

One 17" LCD is great, two identical ones side by side on my desk at work is glorious

Both Phillips 170B2T

Since I don't game on them (damn IT policy.....grumble.....erm.....I did write that policy after all ) I can't say whether they are any good or not, but I'd personally would be happy with a 17" LCD at home running UT2003 on my Ti4200.

They are coming down in price too. Only around £250 + vat in the UK. When it gets to about £200 inclusive I'll get the card out

T

 

Tyan seems to make a 9600pro with dual dvi (using an external tmds transmitter it seems). First ATI based card (not considering professional cards) with dual DVI? http://www.tyan.com.tw/products/html/g9600pro.html
Now where are the 20", UXGA, 16ms TFTs?
And where's the money so I could buy two of them?

 

Ditto on the FP2000. I have 1 FP2000, and 2 other FP1900 LCD's. Right now, my basic configuration is to run one of the 19" LCD's on a Radeon 7200 PCI, and the FP2000 is the primary DVI on my 9800 Pro, while the other 1900FP is on the 9800's analog port.

Personally, I think going the PCI route is the way to go until dual-DVI becomes commonplace. Even when they do become somewhat available, I have a good feeling they will jack the prices up.

 

I was under the impression that LCDs cant do more than 60hz due to the DVI connection and that Sony and Phillips i think it is, are working on a new connection HDTV or something.
And i can see why Dual DVI is rare on expensive nvidia and ati graphics card, no SERIOUS gamer would ever play on LCD, 60hz SUX to play on, LCDs are absolutely awful for gaming, CRTs beat them hands down for it. Which in the same manner would explain why they are mostly on the professional cards.(Of course this assuming they are limited to 60hz, ive never heard of any LCD with more than 60hz)

 

Well, while i agree that LCD's suck for gaming, its not because of the refresh (although if you dont like tearing, it limits your FPS cause of vsync). The worst part is the REAL response time.
That quoted 16ms is the BEST case - whats the worst? What the average?
Cause i know on the 25ms screens, the ghosting is so bad i hate em for ANY gaming at all. havent tried one of the 16ms ones, but i am not all that hopefull.

 

Might be OT, but. . . anyone know if projectors are any good for gaming?

 

Readers of this thread may be interested in this news item.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20030619161332.html

The bandwidth limitations of DVI have always been ugly, but didn't matter much due to the limitations in resolution and pixel response time. We are already pushing the limits of DVI however, and we can only hope that a new connection standard will be introduced. Knowing the PC industry, I guess DVI will be patched, hacked and kludged to cope. OLEDs bring the hope of really fast response time, it would be a shame if it was hamstrung by the connector standard.

Entropy

 

I was even more interested in the dual DVI version of the Radeon 9800 Pro that was mentioned on Tyan's Computex pages, but apparently (as I can't find it there anymore), this has been dropped. To bad, but I'm getting used to it.

cu

incurable