Re: Success report: Radeon 7500, mystery manufacturer
On Sunday 03 August 2003 06:45 pm, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Kelledin [kelledin+DAXP@skarpsey.dyndns.org] wrote:
> > It works at 2048x1536x16, but...the screen image is a bit
> > unsteady. Probably because I'm pushing the limits of the
> > monitor. Take it down to 1920x1440x162 goodness and it's
> > fine. Console switching now works (woohoo!)
>
> This is usually a cable problem. You need a *very* good cable
> to support the 100's MHz dot clock. You get dispersion in the
> cable which looks like ghosting. Sometimes I think the kind
> of cables that terminate in a set of 5 BNC connectors are
> better for super-high resolutions but I'm not sure.
What I've got connected now is the 15-pin DSUB to 5xBNC cable
that came with my Sony monitor. It feels like a good quality
cable with pretty heavy insulation. It's running in a pretty
big cable mess behind my desk though--two workstations (one with
three power cables), scanner, printer, speakers, second monitor
cable (for the x86 box), Cat5e bundles, etc. etc. The fact that
I'm actually using both the monitor's inputs might have
something to do with it too. I really need to get around to
doing some cable management back there.
Currently, the screen looks like a vertical wave is proceeding
down the screen--no pixels ghosting, just the rows getting
offset a bit by varying degrees. Not all that pretty to look
at. Still, 1920x1440 isn't bad (and since my x86 box doesn't do
anything higher, I'm pretty used to it).
--
Kelledin
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does
it still cost four figures to fix?"
Reply to: