I just bought a samsung sync master 2233sw for my brother's desktop. The lcd support 1920x1080 but the options of the resolution properties only shows until 1680x1050 max. The vga is asus en9600GT which I think it shouldn't have any problem supporting 1920x1080, so I hope someone could help me with this problem. Thanks
I just bought a samsung sync master 2233sw for my brother's desktop. The lcd support 1920x1080 but the options of the resolution properties only shows until 1680x1050 max. The vga is asus en9600GT which I think it shouldn't have any problem supporting 1920x1080, so I hope someone could help me with this problem. ThanksMRXwee
Well 1920x1080 is a 16:9 resolution, usually reserved for HDTVs. Since it is a monitor it should be displaying at 1920x1200 considering the previous 16:10 resolution of 1680x1050. The 1920x1080 was misleading you into thinking your monitor would run at that resolution, but in reality it probably can run that interlaced, but not progressive like (i believe) a PC output. So if you hooked up a 360 (or any other console) over VGA and set it for 1080i it would work just fine, but it would not work at 1080p. They are the same amount of pixels, just rendered in different ways (and it makes a big difference in picture quality on big screens). Thus your monitor is limited to 1680x1050. Seems like you got mislead. Of course I could be wrong and PCs do not render graphics progressively, but considering I can not run at 1920x1080 on my 1080i TV I am guessing you suffer the same. Plus since the monitor is 22 inches, running at such a high resolution would make most things much too small. 1680x1050 should be perfect. If games are too jaggy, bump up the AA.
Well 1920x1080 is a 16:9 resolution, usually reserved for HDTVs. Since it is a monitor it should be displaying at 1920x1200 considering the previous 16:10 resolution of 1680x1050. The 1920x1080 was misleading you into thinking your monitor would run at that resolution, but in reality it probably can run that interlaced, but not progressive like (i believe) a PC output. So if you hooked up a 360 (or any other console) over VGA and set it for 1080i it would work just fine, but it would not work at 1080p. They are the same amount of pixels, just rendered in different ways (and it makes a big difference in picture quality on big screens). Thus your monitor is limited to 1680x1050. Seems like you got mislead. Of course I could be wrong and PCs do not render graphics progressively, but considering I can not run at 1920x1080 on my 1080i TV I am guessing you suffer the same. Plus since the monitor is 22 inches, running at such a high resolution would make most things much too small. 1680x1050 should be perfect. If games are too jaggy, bump up the AA. blu-roy
No, new PC monitor have droped the 1920 x 1200 and now only producing 1920 x 1080. If anything i'd try with a DVI cable instead of VGA. The only reason why you can't use 1080p on your X360, it's because there no games or barely any games for x360 can render such resolution.
My god I am behind the computer times, you are absolutely right. I now remember seeing those snazzy 16:9 monitors at best buy. Drivers it is then. On the 360 though - my 1080p TV does tell me it is running at 1080p on every game I run it on (of course that is only because the 360 is set at the resolution, I don't even know of a native 1080p game on it). My PS3 is more true to its word and only runs games at 1080p that actually run at that resolution...well supposedly run at that resolution (MGS4, GT5: P ). The rest are all 720p.
The monitor I played my 360 on supported 1680x1050 only and had a 16:10 aspect ratio, so I was restricted to 1080i (it was a year ago, now I hear it has a 1680x1050 setting).
I had installed the latest driver for my brother's desktop (forceware 181.22). I don't think the resolution number is a misleading... I had tried the monitor on my own desktop with a 9800GTX+, it has the option of 1920x1080 and works perfectly, that's why I find it very weird why it don't work on my brother's 9600GT... Besides, I am using the DVI cable.
My god I am behind the computer times, you are absolutely right. I now remember seeing those snazzy 16:9 monitors at best buy. Drivers it is then. On the 360 though - my 1080p TV does tell me it is running at 1080p on every game I run it on (of course that is only because the 360 is set at the resolution, I don't even know of a native 1080p game on it). My PS3 is more true to its word and only runs games at 1080p that actually run at that resolution...well supposedly run at that resolution (MGS4, GT5: P ). The rest are all 720p.
The monitor I played my 360 on supported 1680x1050 only and had a 16:10 aspect ratio, so I was restricted to 1080i (it was a year ago, now I hear it has a 1680x1050 setting).
Wow that's a lot of unwarranted numbers.
blu-roy
You can get more information on native resolution for consoles games...
I had installed the latest driver for my brother's desktop (forceware 181.22). I don't think the resolution number is a misleading... I had tried the monitor on my own desktop with a 9800GTX+, it has the option of 1920x1080 and works perfectly, that's why I find it very weird why it don't work on my brother's 9600GT... Besides, I am using the DVI cable.MRXwee
[QUOTE="MRXwee"]I had installed the latest driver for my brother's desktop (forceware 181.22). I don't think the resolution number is a misleading... I had tried the monitor on my own desktop with a 9800GTX+, it has the option of 1920x1080 and works perfectly, that's why I find it very weird why it don't work on my brother's 9600GT... Besides, I am using the DVI cable.Bebi_vegeta
Hm... no idea then...
That's odd because it says the 9600GT can support resolutions past the 1920 x 1080 resolution for the card specs that I've been able to find....maybe you might have to contact that manufacturer and see what they have to say.
The video card is capable of resolutions up to 2560 x 1600. The monitor's native resolution is 1920 x 1080. It should be working just fine on his machine as it is on yours. I really have no idea why it isn't, but here's a bump for ya. Sorry.
Log in to comment