Have ATI's drivers for LCDs been fixed yet?

[Dr J]

Peter & xtknight,

thanks for the explanations.

Gee, my display's response time is supposed to be 8 ms, b to b.

In any case, refreshing beyond the recommended rate seems like supplying a 1080p signal to a 720p display; is that a fair comparison?

From what you've both written, I'm assuming it's best to just follow the recommendations, as there will really be no performance advantage in over-refreshing; is that correct?

thanks,

John

 

[M0RPH]

I really don't see why this is an issue for someone with a standard (non-widescreen) LCD, like the OP. If your monitor has a common resolution like 1280x1024, the vast majority (if not all) of games are going to support that res out of the box. So use it. Why would you want to use a smaller res that doesn't fill your screen and leaves big black bars on every side? If it's a performance issue then turn down some graphics options in the game, or better yet get a decently powered video card.

As for those with widescreen LCDs, I do see how this is an issue, especially since I just got one myself and I'm going through these issues. Many games do not support widescreen resolutions and thus you either have to run them at some standard resolution that gets stretched to widescreen, or you have to find a hack that allows you to run the game at the resolution of your LCD. This is how it's been for me, anyway, since I have an ATI card. After hearing about how Nvidia cards can do this 1:1 scaling thing, I may just have to get one and try it out.

 

[Josh7289]

M0RPH, it's not only that, but there are games and applications that are limited to lower resolutions, so it is useful to be able to display 1:1 or at least with the same aspect ratio and scaled up.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Josh7289
M0RPH, it's not only that, but there are games and applications that are limited to lower resolutions, so it is useful to be able to display 1:1 or at least with the same aspect ratio and scaled up.

Exactly. Try setting Starcraft of Diablo 2 to your native res. You may laugh, they're old games...but they're still played a lot! For those games you really want 'fixed aspect ratio scaling' which unfortunately doesn't work right now.

Also, 1280x1024 is not a standard 4:3 resolution, even those its probably the most common LCD resolution. Older games will stretch that one a little too. It's not really just a widescreen issue...its an issue for everyone with a non-4:3 aspect ratio LCD...which happens to be almost everyone with an LCD.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Josh7289
M0RPH, it's not only that, but there are games and applications that are limited to lower resolutions, so it is useful to be able to display 1:1 or at least with the same aspect ratio and scaled up.

Exactly. Try setting Starcraft of Diablo 2 to your native res. You may laugh, they're old games...but they're still played a lot! For those games you really want 'fixed aspect ratio scaling' which unfortunately doesn't work right now.

Also, 1280x1024 is not a standard 4:3 resolution, even those its probably the most common LCD resolution. Older games will stretch that one a little too. It's not really just a widescreen issue...its an issue for everyone with a non-4:3 aspect ratio LCD...which happens to be almost everyone with an LCD.

Yep, why they made 19" LCDs 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960 like their 19" CRT counterparts is beyond me. If anything, 1280x960 is a bit more "widescreen" than 1280x1024, so the switch really doesn't make much sense. I don't think we're gaining much with those additional 64 pixels, and if it was 4:3 it would once again match ratios like standard cable TV.

But, it's not an issue for me because I play no games that don't offer 12x10 resolution.

 

[Auric]

Although 1280x1024 does seem queer it is a standard going way back, is prolly cheaper to produce, and is certainly best suited for portrait orientation (desktop publishing and intarweb pages).