1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

"native" DVI resolution for 9700Pro?

Discussion in 'ATI' started by cfineman, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. cfineman

    cfineman Guest

    I've heard some discussion (elsewhere) about the "native" resolution
    with respect to driving a flat panel display. If I understand correctly,
    this is the actual resolution of the screen and any different
    resolutions are handled with a "digital zoom"/interpolation effect.

    In my case I have an ATI 9700Pro and I'm sorta interested in the the new
    dell flat panel i've been hearing good things about. I would like to be
    able drive things (games and work stuff) at 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 but
    folks have warned that many cards do not "natively" support this
    resolution. I've seen specific comments that the 9600 only does 1024x768.

    I've not been able to find anything specific about this in the ATI
    documentation. Can someone tell me what "native" resolution the 9700Pro
    supports for flat panels?
    cfineman, Apr 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. cfineman

    Chip Guest

    The ATI cards will do every conceivable resoluion you might want.

    Chip, Apr 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. I probably should have been more explicit. The point I read was that
    non-native resolutions on a FLAT PANEL display would look like crap.
    Charles Fineman, Apr 5, 2004
  4. cfineman

    Chip Guest

    I don't think you understood my answer. I will say it again:

    The ATI cards will do ***every*** conceivable resoluion you might want.

    Name a resolution, the card can output it.


    Chip, Apr 5, 2004
  5. cfineman

    Chip Guest

    I just re-read what you wrote, and I can see you are confused. So let me be
    even more clear:

    The ATI cards will output ("natively", as you call it) every conceivable
    resolution you might want. 1600x1200, 1280x1024, 1280x960, 852x480.
    Whatever you want, it will output it. If you have a 1731x903 panel, you can
    even use Powerstrip to get it to output 1731x903 if you really want.

    Is that better?

    Chip, Apr 5, 2004
  6. cfineman

    Rick Guest


    Whenever a "native" resolution is referred to, that means the device being
    driven runs best at that resolution, regardless of the video card. In the
    case of an LCD panel, they are manufactured with a physical amount of
    apertures. I am wording this incorrectly, but think of it this way...
    If there are physically 1024 pixels (dots) across the screen and 768 down,
    than any other resolution is a "zoom in" or "zoom out" of what the LCD can
    display. LCD's display much better at their native resolution (this has
    never been a problem with CRT monitors that I know of).

    Therefore, as long as your video card can display the native resolution of
    an LCD at it's preferred frequency, you will have the best picture the LCD
    can display with that video card.

    Go to your LCD manufacturers web site (or look in the LCD's manual), and one
    of the description specs will be the native resolution of the monitor.

    Cya, Rick
    Rick, Apr 5, 2004
  7. cfineman

    J. Clarke Guest

    The "native resolution" is a characteristic of the display, not of the video
    board. Any folks who are warning you that current production video boards
    will not support such standard resolutions as 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 is at
    best misinformed.
    J. Clarke, Apr 5, 2004
  8. One other comment regarding "Therefore, as long as your video card can
    display the native resolution of an LCD at it's preferred frequency, you
    will have the best picture the LCD can display with that video card."

    Watch the LCD cable, especially if (as is often the case) it's too
    short. Two weeks ago I helped someone setup a new Dell with a Circuit
    City "Liquid Video" LCD display (an excellent display for the money, by
    the way). Given the location of the PC, it was necessary to use an
    extension cable, and the extension cable absolutely destoyed the picture
    -- ringing, ghosts, loss of sharpness, it was just awful.

    This wasn't the monitor's fault, but be aware that if you need to use an
    extension cable, it can become a HUGE issue. Cheap cables will destroy
    the picture, and unfortunately, almost all of the cables available at
    retail ARE "cheap" (cheap here refers to quality, not to price). You
    need a cable with individual high quality, low capacitance coaxial
    cables for all 3 video signals (red, blue, green). Within broad limits,
    you can almost judge the quality of a cable by it's thickness, you want
    a big, fat cable approaching a garden hose in size. That said, if you
    pay less than $20-$30 for a video extension cable, it's probably a low
    quality cable. Unfortunately, lots of retailers also sell low-quality
    cables for high prices.

    [This all applies to analog monitors, there are some cable issues with
    DVI extenstion cables as well, but they will be more of a "go/no-go"
    issue than a quality issue.]

    [One thing that I liked about the Circuit City "liquid video" display
    was that the cable had a connector at the monitor, and you could use a
    single longer cable instead of a cable permanently attached to the
    monitor with an extension. Although it was analog only, this is a
    low-cost 17" monitor (about $300-$330), I did some objective tests on it
    with test-pattern softwae, and for an analog monitor, it's quality was
    actually excellent.]
    Barry Watzman, Apr 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.