Need refresh rate with 9800pro

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Hello.

I am trying to set my Eizo F931 at 120hz in 1152*864 with this card. But i
cannot find any places where i can succeed in that. Max is 100 hz.

If i user Powerstrip, i can easily do that.
But i want to avoid 3.part programs if possible.

No problems setting this with my old fx5900.

Am i just stupid for not finding the correct place in ATI control panel ?

When i tried the sandra soft 2004, i found out that the driver does not give
more than 100hz in 1152*864.

I use driver 4.5 (newest i guess).

Any tips ?

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
correct. Let me know if that helps.

--
Tony DiMarzio
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net


"Richard Jønvåg" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:c9prau$ael$1@services.kq.no...
> Hello.
>
> I am trying to set my Eizo F931 at 120hz in 1152*864 with this card. But i
> cannot find any places where i can succeed in that. Max is 100 hz.
>
> If i user Powerstrip, i can easily do that.
> But i want to avoid 3.part programs if possible.
>
> No problems setting this with my old fx5900.
>
> Am i just stupid for not finding the correct place in ATI control panel ?
>
> When i tried the sandra soft 2004, i found out that the driver does not
give
> more than 100hz in 1152*864.
>
> I use driver 4.5 (newest i guess).
>
> Any tips ?
>
> Richard
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:jJSdnRFcO6GhFV3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
> monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
> Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
> correct. Let me know if that helps.
>
> --
> Tony DiMarzio
> djtone81@hotmail.com
> djraid@comcast.net
>
>

I have tried that, but it just won't work. I'm starting to belive that the
ATI 9800 cannot get me 120 hz at 1152*864
But i now that it's the drivers fault since its working perfect with
Powerstrip..

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Have you tried RefreshForce v1.10? Give that a whirl. If it sees 120hz as
valid for the resolution you want, you should be able to force it to that
refresh rate.
--
Tony DiMarzio
djtone81@hotmail.com
djraid@comcast.net


"Richard Jønvåg" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:c9q1fe$sch$1@services.kq.no...
>
> "Tony DiMarzio" <djtone81@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:jJSdnRFcO6GhFV3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
> > monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
> > Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
> > correct. Let me know if that helps.
> >
> > --
> > Tony DiMarzio
> > djtone81@hotmail.com
> > djraid@comcast.net
> >
> >
>
> I have tried that, but it just won't work. I'm starting to belive that the
> ATI 9800 cannot get me 120 hz at 1152*864
> But i now that it's the drivers fault since its working perfect with
> Powerstrip..
>
> Richard
>
>

 

[a]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I've had this problem as well.
I want to run my Radeon 9800np @ 1600x1299x32 @ 99 Hz.
The 100 Hz setting gives a blank screen.
I know my Nokia 445XPro can do this as I've run it under powerstrip before.

My Matrox G400 had 1Hz increment changes possible under the driver settings.
I wish ATI would do this as well!



Regards,



Jon

 

[a]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I've tried refresh force before and all it did
was take away resolutions, let alone give me new refresh rates.


Jon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Right... that is the purpose of a program like refresh force: to take away
unwanted refresh rates and leave you with only the desired refresh rates
(sort of like weeding a garden). What I was implying is that if the drivers
don't have much to chose from in the way of a range of refresh rates, that
they may behave better in this situation.

Tony


"a" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Uk3wc.444$Rp4.299272@monger.newsread.com...
> I've tried refresh force before and all it did
> was take away resolutions, let alone give me new refresh rates.
>
>
> Jon
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:33:29 -0400, "Tony DiMarzio"
<djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
>monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
>Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
>correct. Let me know if that helps.


A better method in W2K or XP is to install your monitor as Plug and
Play rather than use its specific driver. This forces the OS to query
it for refresh rates and gives you a choice of all the useable ones.
See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309569&Product=win2000.

patrickp

patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 00:22:29 +0100, patrickp <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:33:29 -0400, "Tony DiMarzio"
><djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
>>monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
>>Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
>>correct. Let me know if that helps.
>
>
>A better method in W2K or XP is to install your monitor as Plug and
>Play rather than use its specific driver. This forces the OS to query
>it for refresh rates and gives you a choice of all the useable ones.
>See
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309569&Product=win2000.
>
>patrickp
>
>patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me

I make my living from repairing TV's and monitors and I smile when I see these
posts regarding high refresh rates.... good for business though!

Anything over 75 or 85 is just putting un-necessary stress on the monitor, and
in most cases will result in a poorer picture.

Just because manufacturers state a maximum high refresh for a given resolution
does not mean one should run permanently at the maximum. Often these figures
are optimistic and serve merely to sell monitors.

Its much more preferable to run at 85, its impossible to see any flicker above
75/80 anyway..... those that say they can detect it are mistaken, probably what
they are seeing are just moire patterns.
I can assure you that your monitor will last a lot longer if the LOPT is not
driven so hard and the picture should be a little sharper too.

Some gamers might say they can get a higher frame rate in games if frame sync is
enabled with higher refresh rates... this is immaterial... how many fps do you
want! Don't forget that most cinema's used to be only 26fps and UK TV's are
tied to the 50Hz mains, and before some smart alec mentions 100Hz TV's even
those are still synced to 50Hz mains cycle, although they do double the lines to
try and reduce flicker which is only mainly noticeable on text. The problem is
there is no 100Hz system transmitted in the UK, the set only enhances what still
is a 50Hz synced picture, and its a known fact in the trade that many 100Hz sets
especially the cheaper variety tend to have a slightly softer picture.

Anyway its your choice...

Regards

Mike Richer.

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Mike" <dy73ui39aHe5@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uh12c012nddcvrv92q7tv5rno6bb31jp2s@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 00:22:29 +0100, patrickp <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:33:29 -0400, "Tony DiMarzio"
> ><djtone81@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The DDC detection may be providing inaccurate information about your
> >>monitor's maximum capabilities. Over-ride it in the ATI Control Panel /
> >>Displays / Monitor properties, with the information that you know to be
> >>correct. Let me know if that helps.
> >
> >
> >A better method in W2K or XP is to install your monitor as Plug and
> >Play rather than use its specific driver. This forces the OS to query
> >it for refresh rates and gives you a choice of all the useable ones.
> >See
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;309569&Product=win2
000.
> >
> >patrickp
> >
> >patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk - take five to email me
>
> I make my living from repairing TV's and monitors and I smile when I see
these
> posts regarding high refresh rates.... good for business though!
>
> Anything over 75 or 85 is just putting un-necessary stress on the monitor,
and
> in most cases will result in a poorer picture.
>
> Just because manufacturers state a maximum high refresh for a given
resolution
> does not mean one should run permanently at the maximum. Often these
figures
> are optimistic and serve merely to sell monitors.
>
> Its much more preferable to run at 85, its impossible to see any flicker
above
> 75/80 anyway..... those that say they can detect it are mistaken,
probably what
> they are seeing are just moire patterns.
> I can assure you that your monitor will last a lot longer if the LOPT is
not
> driven so hard and the picture should be a little sharper too.
>
> Some gamers might say they can get a higher frame rate in games if frame
sync is
> enabled with higher refresh rates... this is immaterial... how many fps do
you
> want! Don't forget that most cinema's used to be only 26fps and UK TV's
are
> tied to the 50Hz mains, and before some smart alec mentions 100Hz TV's
even
> those are still synced to 50Hz mains cycle, although they do double the
lines to
> try and reduce flicker which is only mainly noticeable on text. The
problem is
> there is no 100Hz system transmitted in the UK, the set only enhances what
still
> is a 50Hz synced picture, and its a known fact in the trade that many
100Hz sets
> especially the cheaper variety tend to have a slightly softer picture.
>
> Anyway its your choice...
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Richer.

Informative. Thank for this reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Mike" <dy73ui39aHe5@cableinet.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:uh12c012nddcvrv92q7tv5rno6bb31jp2s@4ax.com...


> I make my living from repairing TV's and monitors and I smile when I see
these
> posts regarding high refresh rates.... good for business though!
>
> Anything over 75 or 85 is just putting un-necessary stress on the monitor,
and
> in most cases will result in a poorer picture.

Well, my experience is that with a 14, 15 og 17" monitor, it doesn't really
matter.
But with 21" i feel a great difference turning to 120 hz. The picture is
really ultra sharp
on my 2.5 years Eizo on 1152*864.

As long as i use hz that is being optionable when using "hide the
frequencies that can damage monitor",
i cannot see how i can harm my monitor.

But i think i have got my answer in this, ATI does not make 120 hz in
1152*864
So i will be stuck with 3part programs as Powerstrip until ATI improves
their drivers.


Thanks for the replys !

Richard