View Full Version : extremely high resolutions on 17"monitor

16th July 2002, 09:43
I recently installed windows xp, which doesnīt detect my sony g200 17" monitor( http://www.sony-cp.com/en/products/archive/g200/index.html ), but installs it as a "standard monitor", allowing me to select resolutions like 1920*1440*32@60hz, and suprisingly it works!
acording to sony(which doesnīt provide an inf-file for this monitor for win xp), the maximum supported resolution is 1600*1200@78hz, so I want to know, why can my monitor suddenly use those extremely high resolutions, and can it damage my monitor? :confused:

16th July 2002, 09:52
the plug n play monitor is in place to be able to support any sort of monitor without having to install special drivers. It is a possibility that the monitor CAN run at that resolution, but not for very long. Sony probably didnt want to push the monitor very much because there is a GOOD chance that it will lessen the life of the monitor significantly. It's probably a good idea to kick it back down to the normal resolution for the sake of the monitor, not to mention running any monitor at any resolution at 60hz is going to kill your eyes real quick. (unless it's a LCD)

16th July 2002, 09:55
well, i couldnīt dream of running anything at 60hz either(currently running 1024*786*32@90hz), but i was curious. ;)

besides, 1920*1440*32, is a bit overkill on a 17" monitor.:square:

16th July 2002, 09:58
Do you hear your monitor whining at you? It's yelling at you to slow down.

16th July 2002, 10:03
no, it doesnīt make a sound, and the picture isnīt that much worse than 1600*1200*32@75hz, the only problem is that the text is too small, and its a bit unsharp, and of course, its only 60hz.

If sony claimed it to support 1920*1440@60hz, then I would believe them.

16th July 2002, 11:52
It's a matter of what MOST of them will and won't do.

Intel tests the hottest, least stable chips out of their lot, to find maximum stable speed. Then they drop a notch and slap that on the whole batch. Does that mean that the more stable, cooler ones won't go faster? No, it means the whole lot is only stable up to the rated speed.

Same with monitors. But you ARE asking the alignment circuit to do a lot if you overscan it.

- Gurm

16th July 2002, 12:09
So, I could be lucky and got a "overclockable" monitor, but like any other overclocking, it will, in theory, reduce the lifespan of the monitor.

I think I will stay away from that resolution then, this monitor needs to work fine, until I can afford a high-end 21" monitor, which means at least a year or 2.

16th July 2002, 12:19
Btw, how do I know if I run a monitor beyond spec, according to sony it can do 1280*1024@91hz, and 1600*1200@78hz, so lets say I add a custom resolution like 1400*1050@85hz, and it appears to look fine, can i be comfortable with something like that, is there some signs i should be looking for to determine if it is all right?
can its capabilities at custom resolutions be calculated based on its spec, and how?

16th July 2002, 15:11
Why don't you just run it at 1152x864 or 1280x960? those aren't bad resolutions for that monitor.. besides, try finding wallpaper at 1400x1050. :D

16th July 2002, 15:51
Another thing is that the dot pitch of most 17" monitors don't provide enough physical resolution to run at 1600x1200 or up with a crisp picture. Of course I do it with mine when I'm hungry for desktop realestate, but I think it can increase eyestrain.

16th July 2002, 17:15
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Why don't you just run it at 1152x864 or 1280x960? those aren't bad resolutions for that monitor.. besides, try finding wallpaper at 1400x1050. :D

actually I did ran it at 1152*864@90hz, for quite a while when I had my g400max. But after I switched to a hercules kyro2 64mb, i started to suffer some eyestrain, if I sat in front of my computer for several hours straight.

I know the g400max is better at 2d than the kyro2, but it shouldnīt make a difference at resolutions as low as 1152*864@90hz. :confused:
I canīt SEE the diiference at all, but after several hours I can feel the eyestrain.

I donīt know, if the kyro2 is to blame or if my eyesight has somehow gotten worse/more sensibel with regards to monitors, or if the monitor itself just degraded in quality.

I might try those resolutions again, when i get my parhelia, to see if it helps.

both 1280*960@85hz and 1400*1050@85hz, makes the fonts too small, it looked great on my g400max, but i always caught myself sitting WAY too close to the monitor, to read those small fonts.;)

p.s I donīt use wallpapers, I like the "greenish" default-background-color from the old win98 desktop, better than any wallpaper i have seen, it gives a more "calm" look to the desktop, especially if I remove all the desktop icons. :cool:

16th July 2002, 18:35
I can see this thread needs another opinion ;)

1152x864x32@85Hz or 100Hz is usually the best point for a good 17" monitor, I run my 19" at work at 1280x960x32@85Hz ... why squint at the text. High res is great in games coz it reduced the apparentness of the jaggies, but on the desktop you just use what you're comfortable with.

16th July 2002, 19:10
I _wish_ I had a 19" that would run 1280x1024 well. Even the Cornerstone I tried out was marginal at that resolution. Maybe I'm picky, maybe the environment I'm in sucks (yeah, my house EATS monitors), but honestly I run 17" monitors at 1024, 19" at 1152, and LCD's at 1280.

- Gurm

16th July 2002, 19:15
I used to like 1280x1024 on my 17" while running OS/2 Warp on my old PC ... Viper VLB (Weitek P9000). I had to lower it down to 1024x768 once I started using Windows.

16th July 2002, 20:36
Actually, it's not as bad as you think. It's not even overclocked, and you could push it a bit higher.
The only really important numbers are the VSync and HSync rates. HSync is the really important one, since you'll slam into that before you hit the VSync limit in high res. (You can certainly hit in in 640x480 though) Pixel clock is sorta irrelevant for an analog CRT, with the possible exception that on screen adjustment displays might end up corrupted.
An old IBM VGA would happily run 5000x480. You wouldn't be able to see the pixels since the dot pitch is way too big for that, but it'd sync up & wouldn't blow up. Getting your video card to do this is another story (Though many modern cards do have the DAC speed for it)
Just for reference, 1600x1200@75Hz gives an HSync rate of about 95-96 KHz. So 1600x1200@78 is about 100KHz.
You can estimate about what the VSync rates for a nearby mode are just by looking at the ratios of the number of lines on the screen.
There are some extra lines above and below the image so you can't just divide the max HSync by the # of lines, but you'll get a decent esitmate if you just assume the change is proportional.

78 * 1200/1440 = 65Hz refresh with HSync at max (~100KHz)

78 * 1200/1536 = 60 Hz... you can probably get it to work in 2048x1536.

17th July 2002, 01:31
My Iiyama VMPro 410 has been sitting on my desk for the last couple of years running 1600x1024x32bit@90hz. Using large fonts in windows and a large-ish display scheme its perfectly readable, very clear and very sharp.
Last night I maxed all the settings and had 2048x1600@61hz (I think, it was the max a G400 max would display) in 16-bit colour. Now that was unusable :)
It nearly did the same resolution in 24-bit colour, then the G400 drivers caused a BSOD on me. Serves me right for using the beta drivers I guess!