Hello everyone.
 
I'm thinking of buying an 8800GT card in the near future, but I need to know if it supports 1280*800 res.
I have a 20" 16:10 monitor with a standard native res of 1680*1050, but I use 1280*800 when I'm reading or writing or doing normal work on it, as I sit a bit far away from the monitor, and trying to read at native res is quite strenuous to my eyes.
A friend of mine has a 7950GT and that does not support that res, but I have no idea if that is a fault of the card itself or the Nvidia drivers in general, which is why I'm posting this topic.
 
Any help would be appreciated.
 
 

My 8800GTS doesn't support it natively.  I don't know if you could add it manually somehow, though.

Of course it can... It can support res up to 2560x1600. So can your friend's 7950GT. If a resolution doesn't show, then you need to set a manual resolution and you have to do it on the nvidia control panel.

Any semi-modern graphics card can support that resolution. Like emp said, if it doesn't show you can set in manually.

Instead of lowering the resolution have you considered increasing the font size? LCDs at non-native resolutions are mighty ugly if you ask me.

Thank you all.
 
I'm aware that any modern graphics card supports resolutions up 2560*1600, it was just this specific one that I was worried about since the 7950GT didn't have it listed with the supported resolutions.
It's good to know it's possible to set one manually.
 
I haven't really considered increasing the font size, but now that you've mentioned it, I just might.  
To me, though, the difference between native resolution and a slightly lower resolution is not as bad as it is in some people's eyes. However, 1280 is as low as it gets.  
 

It does support 1280x960, which is probably better because it will maintain the 16:9 aspect ratio rather than the 4:3 that you're looking for. It looks strange on my 22", but I can see how it will make reading easier.

 
Can i just ask, what the heck are you talking about? Firstly his monitor has a 16:10 aspect ratio, like pretty much all other widescreen monitors. Secondly the 1280x800 resolution is a 16:10 one.
 
Oh, and to the OP just increase the font size/icon size in the windows menu. Or sit closer and bask in the glory of the 1680x1050 resolution

Sorry, I must have gotten my facts wrong. I thought most HDTVs were 16:10, while most widescreen monitors were 16:9. I guess I had it backwards.   In that case, forget everything I said. It does not support 1280x800 naturally.  
 
Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting me, quantumsheep.

It does support 1280x800 naturally with vista but not with xp.

It's not listed as an option in my Vista installation...
 
Clint

Despite the fact that over a month has passed since this thread died, I have to ask; why do you want to run 1280x800? Are you using a laptop?

If you look at his first post Homerdog, you'll see that he runs it at that res because it's hard for him to see at his native res of 1680x1050. My brother has a similar issue, so he uses his 21inch 4:3 CRT @1024x768 when it can go up to 1600x1200. Of course, CRTs look good at any 4:3 resolution that they support, but LCD's can produce decent image quality now a days when not in their native resolution.

I was replying to CNeufeld. Looking back it doesn't seem like he/she is actually trying to run 1280x800, but rather just pointing out the fact that 1280x800 isn't an option for Vista on his/her particular setup.
 
As for the native res issue, I have always found fixed pixel displays revolting if not run at their native resolutions. Vista has very good font and icon scaling, so I would recommend increasing the font and icon size before adjusting the resolution (if the OP is using Vista of course).

Yeah I agree for the most part, but sometimes that's not even enough. Although, I can't stand LCDs when they aren't in their native resolution, but they are much worse when they are dealing with a different aspect ratio. They are a lot more tolerable when they don't skew the image.