Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 23" LCD Largesse Lowdown!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:47 am 
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:40 am
Posts: 3219
Location: Da Basestar
I think I'm about to take issue with Katherine's review of the two 23" LCDs in the December '04 issue, unless someone can clear something up for me.

To get the most out of the LCD panels, you would want, of course, a pure digital signal. I'm unaware of any single-link card that can pump out 1920x1200 @ 60Hz without reduced blanking. So, my question is, what videocard did you use and did you use reduced blanking or reduced refresh rate?

Also, a sampling of ATI cards consistently exhibited superior digital signals than NVIDIA cards (see Tom's Hardware). I would hope that these monitors were tested with high-end ATI cards, as well as 6' or shorter video cables, to get the most out of them.

Please, for the love of God please, don't tell me you used an analog signal.

Thanks for your anticipated clarification,
6


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:58 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:00 pm
Posts: 86
Can't speak for the MPC test, but my HP 23" is running at 1920x1200 with reduced blanking on a X800 and has worked fine that way. I assume that is how they tested. I've run it analog off my laptop at times, and the result is certainly inferior.

What puzzled me is why they chose the overpriced HP f2304 with built-in speakers over the more flexible and elegant HP L2335 with the same panel and connections for $500 less. :shock:

oc


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:27 pm 
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:40 am
Posts: 3219
Location: Da Basestar
Thanks oddlycalm!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:15 am 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
As a general rule, Katherine tests with a first party ATI board (I think it's a 9600, but I'm not 100%) and always tests DVI-capable displays with the DVI connection.

That means that the reduced refresh rate was also enabled for the large panel tests, but I don't think she saw anything untoward as a result. If she did, she would have mentioned it in the review.

The only exception is the new 30" Apple display, which you have to use an nVidia card with right now.

///Will


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:36 am 
Willamette
Willamette
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 1366
I'm currently testing the HP display and it runs just fine at 1900 x 1200 on the X800 Radeon card it's using. Plays game perfectly at that resolution too.


Last edited by joshnorem on Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:58 am 
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:40 am
Posts: 3219
Location: Da Basestar
WillSmith wrote:
The only exception is the new 30" Apple display, which you have to use an nVidia card with right now.


The 30" Apple should work with any dual-link card. ATI has some workstation cards with dual link.

FYI, my brother is not satisfied with his three (3), 21" Viewsonic LCDs. He's scrapping the whole computer & monitors for two Apple 30" LCDs and he's considering the Alienware MJ-12 7550 dual-Xeon workstation and running two Quadro FX 3400s (not SLI'd) to power the two Apple displays.

His issue right now is the fact that the Tumwater mobo only supports PCI-Express x16 and x4 for the videocards. He'd prefer a x8 x8 solution, because of the graphically intense 2D stock quotes he needs to display. I'm telling him he can either wait for an opteron based solution or wait for the Quadro FX 4400, which has dual- duallink dvi outputs. I'd rather see him get just a single Quadro FX 4400 for heat & noise concerns.

Nice to have stupid money like my brother does, eh?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:41 am 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
The Tumwater board was originally pitched to us as a X16 X8 solution. My understanding is that Tumwater has 24 PCI-Express pipes.

Needless to say, PCI Express is kind of overkill for anything 2D.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:08 am 
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
All Your Basestar Are Belong to Us
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:40 am
Posts: 3219
Location: Da Basestar
WillSmith wrote:
The Tumwater board was originally pitched to us as a X16 X8 solution. My understanding is that Tumwater has 24 PCI-Express pipes.

Yet the only SLI mobo I can find (it's a Supermicro) has it as a x16, x4 solution.

If, in fact, there's a Tumwater that can do x16 and x8, that would be superior to NVIDIA's x8 x8 solution. I'm just talking available PCI-Express bandwidth here, not necessarily overall performance (where I suspect Opterons would eat up Xeons).
--------
IMPORTANT EDIT:

Woah, Supermicro now has this:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/moth ... 6DAi-G.cfm

That's a tumwater that clearly does x16 /x 8. Wooties!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:01 pm 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
Alienware's custom Tumwater board was supposed to be X8 and X16, but I don't know if it actually shipped in that config.

The thing is, the difference between X8 and X4 performance for 2D apps--assuming he's not editing super high-res video--is going to be negligible.

I'm using a PCI card for my third display on my desktop and it's quite peppy.

As for X16/X8 vs. X8/X8, nVidia claims that they specifically designed the nForce4 chipset to do X8/X8 because the symmetrical bandwidth is better for 3D apps. I've not tested it yet though.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group