DVI card for 1600x1200 recommendations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Strassberg
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Strassberg

Got a shiny new Dell LCD that does 1600x1200. Looks pretty
nice with an ATI Radeon 9200 on VGA (no DVI on this card).
Was wondering what a good card DVI for this would be ? Only
care about 2D. 9600 Pro ?

Also, will using DVI be that much visually superior ? I understand
the technical side, but what's the reality of using DVI ?
Worth the money to upgrade ? Thanks

alan
 
Got a shiny new Dell LCD that does 1600x1200. Looks pretty
nice with an ATI Radeon 9200 on VGA (no DVI on this card).
Was wondering what a good card DVI for this would be ? Only
care about 2D. 9600 Pro ?

Also, will using DVI be that much visually superior ? I understand
the technical side, but what's the reality of using DVI ?
Worth the money to upgrade ? Thanks
Click to expand...

An ATi9200 (even the cheapie SE version) have include a DVI... but
like everything else - theres an extra CHEAP version - typical of name
brand systems.

Is this a new computer?

A $65 ATI9200SE can include one, I've sold one to a non gaming
customer. Or for a slightly better card, the ATI9600SE for $90~100.
And I'm talking ATI brand card which includes a 2~3 year warranty.

And YES, DVI will make a difference. If you shop on the net or a
good electronics store - a DVI cable will cost about $15~20 (unless it
was included with your LCD) buy it from CompUSa and you'll pay $50.
 
Alan Strassberg said:
Got a shiny new Dell LCD that does 1600x1200. Looks pretty
nice with an ATI Radeon 9200 on VGA (no DVI on this card).
Was wondering what a good card DVI for this would be ? Only
care about 2D. 9600 Pro ?
Click to expand...

I'd go for a Matrox card, if your main concern is 2D and picture quality.
I have a Parhelia on my worksation; great with two panels and picture
quality is excellent.

Then I havea oldish gaming pc, which have a 8500DV AIW Radeon. It is faster
than Matrox, but the picture quality is not so good.

Jari ;)
 
I have a Gigabyte 9200-VIVO with DVI. On my Samsung 191T at 1280x1024-60Hz,
the DVI connection made little to no difference. Until I bought the Gigabyte
9200, I was using an ATI 7200-VIVO at 1280x1024-60Hz in analog mode. I was
surprised at how well the Samsung autosized, centered, and displayed the
analog signal. So, I wasn't surprised that after upgrading to the 9200-VIVO
and DVI that the display didn't get that much better. Subjectively, I think
the text got a little crisper and easier to read.

One thing to research is whether DVI is capable of doing 1600x1200. I may be
out of date on my info but I thought you needed two DVI connections in
parallel in order to get to 16x12.

Mike
 
I have a Gigabyte 9200-VIVO with DVI. On my Samsung 191T at 1280x1024-60Hz,
the DVI connection made little to no difference. Until I bought the Gigabyte
9200, I was using an ATI 7200-VIVO at 1280x1024-60Hz in analog mode. I was
surprised at how well the Samsung autosized, centered, and displayed the
analog signal. So, I wasn't surprised that after upgrading to the 9200-VIVO
and DVI that the display didn't get that much better. Subjectively, I think
the text got a little crisper and easier to read.

One thing to research is whether DVI is capable of doing 1600x1200. I may be
out of date on my info but I thought you needed two DVI connections in
parallel in order to get to 16x12.
Click to expand...

DVI can go higher than 1600x1200... such as Samsung's 240T - 1920x1200

Their 2401MP is a bit of a downgrade, for some reason - it doesn't
include a DVI - but Samsung has more models than they can remember.

It's a downgrade for ANY monitor above 17" (LCD) to not have DVI
input.
 
Back
Top