{ "numMessagesInTopic": 10, "nextInTime": 2029, "senderId": "8fyZoJjQah353mVBab9bZQZkAF5zN61Cgua3zUqboc8-9J91hQ-p6YsjjY-hgoeMfjbqISkVQjWZgUbWgCvsp07LTPkpQxdOPQ", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: New T221-DG5", "from": ""jcuphall44" <jc-yahoo@...>", "authorName": "jcuphall44", "msgSnippet": "Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Believe it or not I did try some searching and scanning before posting, but there s really quite a lot of history here to", "msgId": 2028, "profile": "jcuphall44", "topicId": 2017, "spamInfo": { "reason": "6", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 104840570, "messageBody": "
--- In IBM_T2X_LCD@yahoogroups.com, David Evans <key-yahoo@...> wrote:
\n>
\n> Sigh... searching is your friend. Read the archive.
\n>
\n> The 2560x1600 issue is a known limitation imposed on the ATI
\ndrivers by
\n> default registry entries.
\n> I have provided the specific registry entries that need to change
\nin
\n> earlier posts, almost certainly in Q1 2004.
\n> yeangchng reported on 09-10-2006 a GUI based windows tool
\ncalled "ATI
\n> Tray Tools" that allows you to set these registry entries using a
\nnice GUI.
\n>
\n> As to working with cheep consumer ATI AGP cards:
\n> I reported on this list on 02-26-2004 that a Powered by ATI RADEON
\n7000
\n> VE, which I obtained at the time for <$50, could easily drive my
\nDG3
\n> with 3840x2400 @ 17.7 Hz (single, single link DVI). Given my later
\n> experience with testing a FireGL X1 256p, I would expect that 7000
\nVE to
\n> be able to drive my DG3 at 3840x2400 @ 21.5Hz (single, single link
\n> DVI). Looks like you can pick up a 64MB version off of eBay for <
\n$20
\n> including shipping.
\n>
\n> Two single link DVI connectors were easily able to drive my DG3 at
\nthe
\n> full 41Hz refresh (each single DVI link driving 1920x2400 @ 41Hz+).
\n>
\n> You probably want to spend a bit more than < $20 for better
\ngraphics
\n> performance.
\n> I recall it being mentioned that the DG5 is not able to run single
\nlink
\n> DVI at rates that high. I am not too surprised. The problems
\nthat I
\n> previously thought limited the refresh rate to 17.7Hz (single link
\nDVI)
\n> changed based on which DG3 firmware revision I was using (as
\npreviously
\n> reported). This seriously implies that the upper limit is T221
\nlimited,
\n> not ATI card limited.
\n>
\n>
\n> The 17.7HZ is within the DVI spec. The 21.5Hz uses a 199.828MHz
\npixel
\n> clock which is _far_ beyond the 165MHz limit specified in the DVI
\nspec
\n> for single link, but at least for me it works. I should not that
\nto get
\n> the driver to set the refresh above 17.7Hz at 3840x2400 I have to
\nuse
\n> PowerStrip. My brief tries (I spent only about an hour) at getting
\nthe
\n> emulated EDID to just make the ATI driver automatically produce the
\n> 21.5Hz. The emulated EDID does work at up to at least the 17.7Hz.
\nIn
\n> other words, when I switch to 3840x2400 single link, the driver
\njust
\n> runs it at 17.7Hz even if PowerStrip is not running.
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> There have been a couple/few posts that I was asked to respond to
\nin the
\n> last few/several months. I apologize for not responding, I have
\nbeen
\n> unavailable for various reasons. I do not recall the actual posts
\nthat
\n> requested information from me. However, I think the information
\nwas
\n> covered by others. If someone is still looking for specific
\ninformation
\n> from me, please ask again.
\n>
\n> Thanks,
\n> Dave
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> jcuphall44 wrote:
\n>
\n> > Thanks for the comments. I'm not too worried as to why the DG5
\n> > didn't work with the FX-1500 in the laptop - it was just the one
\nm/c
\n> > in the office I thought should produce a full resolution picture
\n> > without any hassle. In the end we found it worked just fine with
\nan
\n> > old Nvidia 4600 - admittedly at only 13Hz but that was enough to
\n> > prove that 3840x2400 worked (and that everyone else in the office
\n> > wanted a T221).
\n> >
\n> > Having found that that worked I was generally hopeful that the
\nmuch
\n> > newer ATI X1600 in my m/c at home would work too. No such luck; as
\n> > far as I can tell the drivers refuse to render at greater than
\n> > 2560x1600 :-( (I may, of course, have missed something - if anyone
\n> > knows better I would love to know.) Is it generally the case
\n> > that 'consumer' ATI cards don't work but Nvidia ones do?
\n> >
\n> > I'm going to build a new m/c in the new year with an appropriate
\ncard
\n> > (probably an 8800), but till then does anyone have any
\n> > recommendations for a cheap, easy to obtain, AGP (x4) card that is
\n> > known to work with a T221; 48Hz refresh not required though 24Hz
\noff
\n> > a single dual-link output would be nice?
\n> >
\n> > Many thanks
\n> >
\n> > John Cox
\n> >
\n> >
\n>