Have ATI's drivers for LCDs been fixed yet?

[Josh7289]

Before anything, I have to know if ATI's drivers have fixed the problem they have with 1:1 pixel mapping on LCD displays. When I had an X800GT last year, only certain resolutions would scale correctly, while all the others simply stretched and filled up my entire 1280 x 1024 17" LCD's (Samsung 730B) screen. Even stranger was that this feature worked differently and more successfully on different monitors. I heard that Nvidia's drivers had this feature working for every monitor of every type, and I naturally sold my X800GT and sidegraded to a 6600GT, which I have now.

This brings us to here and now. Right now I feel like upgrading my video card and I was thinking about the 7600GT for about $150, but then I read about this little gem on Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102688

An X850XT for $90 after rebate? Nice, but have ATI's drivers been fixed yet? How does this card perform compared to the 7600GT? I like the Sapphire brand, because I have never had a problem with them, but these questions are preventing me from thinking further about purchasing this card. It really does seem to be a good deal, but I need some more answers here. Thank you.

And don't tell me 1:1 pixel scaling is entirely up to the monitor, as my monitor does not have that feature built-in, but my 6600GT supports it and so, I can have that feature.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

1:1 ratio still does not work as of 6.7 cat driver... at least on my setup. stretches like an ugly duckling. sucks :thumbsdown:

 

[Josh7289]

Thanks. That's all I needed to know to keep me away (still) from ATI cards. At least your Dell monitor has 1:1 pixel scaling built-in (right?).

 

[Caecus Veritas]

it works on the VGA mode, but DVI is only controllable through the driver.


EDIT: just remembered - i think gersson said it is fixed for him now (Link).. so all i can tell you is that it's not fixed universally.. can't tell whether it'll work out on your samsung...

gersson, can you confirm? thanks.

 

[Josh7289]

Seriously, only on VGA? That's entirely pointless, then.

As for the 1:1 pixel scaling, if it doesn't work for all monitors, I'm not going to try it.

 

[Dr J]

Gee,

I just spent significant time debating choices between the X850 and 7600 gt because I want the very best from my new LG L203wt. And now, if I understand you correctly, the ATI drivers are not ideal/suitable for this DVI-D display?

Is it primarily a driver problem (which would suggest a possible fix)?

John

 

[Heartbreaker]

It works if the monitor isn't broken. I had a 2405. If I set 1600x1200 it didn't stretch. The 2407 will stretch 1600x1200 out to 1920x1200. It is a monitor issue.

Nvidia has workaround for broken monitors. That is the difference. Technically nothing wrong with ATI. It just doesn't fix broken monitors.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

well, it's not that the ati card is "unsuitable" for dvi display... it performs perfectly and IQ is arguably the best. it's just that the CCC currently has a bug with their option for centered timing, thus preventing 1:1 scaling... (meaning, yes it can be fixed - whether ati follows through is another question) this presents a bigger annoyance with widescreen monitors than your normal 5:4, 4:3 monitors since the image will be stretched when the correct resolution is not offered (usually with older games, so this problem usually isn't an issue in newer game titles). i would still choose a video card that gives you the best performance since you would usually play at the monitor's native resolution (i.e. josh's native is 1280x1024 which is supported by virtually all games - and the x850 should be able to handle that resolution in games with no problem, right?) and centered timing shouldn't be too big of an issue (is the L203wt widescreen?)....

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: guidryp
It works if the monitor isn't broken. I had a 2405. If I set 1600x1200 it didn't stretch. The 2407 will stretch 1600x1200 out to 1920x1200. It is a monitor issue.

Nvidia has workaround for broken monitors. That is the difference. Technically nothing wrong with ATI. It just doesn't fix broken monitors.

yeah, my 2405 correctly displayed 1600x1200 when i was using geforce 4400 ti... and now that im using x1900.. doesn't work. dunno how my monitor is screwed.. but if it worked with nvidia why should it not work with ati? do you have any technical data as to how and why the monitor is "broken"?

 

[Auric]

ATi's "centered timings" option is confusing to many users because it really means that "scale image to panel size" (driver scaling) is just toggled off and thus the ouput to the DVI jack is unaltered. Then it is up to the FPD how it treats the input signal to produce the final output. Where user options do not exist you are then at the mercy of however the FPD was designed to handle various input resolutions (it's not that it's broken).

Whereas nVidia provides the equivalent options of "monitor scaling" and "display adapter scaling" respectively and additionally the more useful options for actual (on the display) "centered output" and "fixed aspect ratio scaling", made possible by effectively padding the output at the DVI jack so that the FPD receives input of its maximum addressable pixels and therefore attempts no scaling.

Note that ATi's limitations apply to its discrete desktop parts, not mobile. So there is even less excuse for failing to offer the same driver options.

 

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas
yeah, my 2405 correctly displayed 1600x1200 when i was using geforce 4400 ti... and now that im using x1900.. doesn't work. dunno how my monitor is screwed.. but if it worked with nvidia why should it not work with ati? do you have any technical data as to how and why the monitor is "broken"?

put your resolution to something less then 1920*1200, go into your monitor settings -> image settings -> scaling, select 1:1

works on my 2405

 

[Dr J]

Caecus Veritas,

thanks for the explanation.

Yes, the L203wt, is a wide-screen display, with a native resolution of 1680 x 1050. And, yes, in native rev, the image perspective is not skewed.

With my current 9600 Pro and CCC 6.5 drivers, my options are: ?scale image to full panel size? and/or ?use centered timings.? There is no setting for 1:1, that I can see (and I assume this relates to what you?re pointing out, here?).

thanks,

John

 

[imported_spank]

I should have been a bit more clearer. I meant the settings you do thrue the monitor, not with CCC. the dell 2405 have the 1:1, If your monitor dont have such a setting i wouldent get an ati card.

edit: i just read the manual for the l203wt, your monitor dont have any image scaling settings.

 

[Dr J]

Thanks, spank.

I suppose it's a miracle that all these disparate technologies are able to work with each other, at all. This thought kept me from writing: "will there ever be an acceptable level of standardization for this stuff?" Ah'well.

So, the reality is, then, that unless I run the ATI card settings at the native res of the panel, I can expect to have a skewed image? And, the chances are that most games will not perform well at 1680x1050 or even scale to this res; is that correct?

Hum ... I was looking forward to that X850 ...

thanks,

John

 

[Dr J]

Is it possible, however, that ATI's CCC?s drivers will provide for wide-screen scaling down the road?

I managed a good deal on an X850Pro, AGP ($119.00), but they're short of stock and so there is a chance I might not actually receive a copy.

However, I priced out the new 7600 gt, pci cards and they're double the money (not sure what the Leadtek AGP version will sell for, but I'm really not into spending double as much on an upgrade for an older machine).

So, I ask again ... can this scaling issue be resolved with vid drivers and, if so, what are the chances that ATI will follow through?

John

 

[PingSpike]

I'd like to know the same thing Dr J. I'm hoping that ati will solve this with the driver update, but its been a problem for awhile. However, I'm seeing a lot more people complaining about it now so it may become a bigger priority. Nvidia has had their own troubles with it in the 7 series, but I understand that workarounds are now available. Its possible that theres just a hardware issue that makes this impossible, but this doesn't seem like that kind of problem. It seems within the ability of the driver to do this.

I like ati products and am aiming for the x1900xt for my next upgrade...but if they don't solve this I may have to look at nvidia again. I still play some older games occasionally and I'd rather not have them squashed across my widescreen.

 

[Josh7289]

As of right now, it seems that the problem with ATI is in the drivers, but they don't show any signs of willing to fix this problem because this "feature" in their drivers has been flawed as long as they have implemented the "feature".

Also, Dr J, the "use centered timings" feature is the same as the 1:1 pixel scaling feature we are talking about. Enable it and see if it works for you. If not, just get an Nvidia card. I highly advise against buying an ATI card under the "hope" that their drivers will be fixed.

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Nvidia has had their own troubles with it in the 7 series, but I understand that workarounds are now available.

Since I'm considering upgrading to another Nvidia video card (7600 GT), can someone explain to me what this is all about?

 

[Peter]

There is no bug in the ATI drivers.

Here's the deal (yeat again): The ATI driver's "centered" mode outputs the resolution you set as it is, unscaled, and leaves the scaling to the display device. This lets you use unscaled 1:1 if your display's firmware does it right.

The "scaled" mode scales the output to the display's native resolution.

What's different with NVidia's drivers? Simple: There's a third mode, wherein the ACTUAL resolution is set to the display's native format, while the system only renders to a smaller rectangle within. That way, the display's scaler is tricked into not scaling at all, while the perceived picture is a smaller resolution with black borders around it. This is a workaround against LCDs whose firmware doesn't have a (working) no-scaling mode.

 

[archcommus]

Why don't you just not scale and run everything at native res?

 

[Dr J]

Yes,

that would seem the most reasonable and simple solution. Problem is, some of the older games (most, I'm guessing) will not play in wide screen format, meaning the image will be skewed, stretched out of proportion.

Thanks, Josh ... I've chosen the "centered timing" setting. There's no doubt it's best in native, though.

By the way, can anyone tell me why a manufacturer of an LCD display would recommend a refresh rate of 60 hz, at native res, when the display is listed as capable of an 85 hz refresh rate? Is there some chance of harm in choosing 85 hz at native res?

thanks,

John

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Why don't you just not scale and run everything at native res?

Applications have limited resolution options and even if they do offer the maximum of a given display it is not necessarily desirable due to performance demands. Regardless of performance, the offered resolutions may not match the aspect ratio of the display's maximum so it is critical to utilize less area.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: archcommus
Why don't you just not scale and run everything at native res?

Applications have limited resolution options and even if they do offer the maximum of a given display it is not necessarily desirable due to performance demands. Regardless of performance, the offered resolutions may not match the aspect ratio of the display's maximum so it is critical to utilize less area.

Ahh I see. I guess this is more an issue for widescreen users then.

 

[Auric]

Any of wide (16:9 &c.), narrow (5:4), higher vertical resolution (1200) displays, single aspect ratio games (4:3), or low-res-only games (800x600, 1024x768)... all of which adds up to most users.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: Dr JBy the way, can anyone tell me why a manufacturer of an LCD display would recommend a refresh rate of 60 hz, at native res, when the display is listed as capable of an 85 hz refresh rate? Is there some chance of harm in choosing 85 hz at native res?

LCDs don't refresh. One usually feeds them 60 images per second, because the LCD panel itself isn't actually any quicker in updating the pixels.

Now, why do the specs list "up to 85 Hz"? This is nothing to do with the display end, but is actually the maximum frequency that the input side of its internal logic can cope with. Particularly for analog VGA input - there's a resampling unit in the display, and that has a maximum sampling frequency.

Now, what's the point in setting to higher than 60 Hz? None actually. On a digital link, it'll do nothing to display quality - and on an analog VGA cable, the display's resampling results will eventually get WORSE as you approach the limits of the inbuilt logic.

Only with panels that REALLY are much faster than 16ms for ALL KINDS of pixel changes will it make sense. 60 Hz = 16.6 ms, 75 Hz = 12.5 ms, 85 Hz = 11.7 ms, 100 Hz = 10 ns. Now, marketing aside, nothing currently available actually does that.

 

[xtknight]

There are at least three LCDs capable of keeping the response time within 0~6 ms. for all transitions (Samsung 940BF, BenQ FP93GX, ViewSonic VX922). See here for details. As for refresh rates I have a small article on it here.