One thing that's kinda bothering me is that I'd probably end up buying a 18" LCD. These things come in at 1280x1024 - the only non-4:3 aspect ratio that's really out there.
-
Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP. -
looks promising... turn the heat up!!!!!!
few days ago ATI headquarters had a tech day.
darkcrow has an article on it.
I live like 5 minutes from their headquarters
I have never seen ATI's new building interiors until know. Their labs look not nearly as well equipted as NVIDIA's, but somehow ATI managed to remain competitive. Their engineers must be pretty good.
NVIDIA has like 5 buildings in their santa clara headquarters, with like rows and rows of servers, some even itanium boxes. whereas, whereas, ATI has like standard rows of PCs...
make me wonder if ATI is gonna upgrade soon? (the one photoed is their new building built like 2 years ago or something...)Last edited by Chrono_Wanderer; 23 April 2004, 13:18.Comment
-
Nvidia needs those servers.
See, the thing is, they don't write good drivers. They write drivers, and use the servers to morph the code - kinda genetic code, but kinda not. They then compile/run/simulate all these drivers, and then choose the best performing as what will be released.Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.Comment
-
The bathroom looks nice.no matrox, no matroxusers.Comment
-
That's precisely why I don't want an LCD right now. If someone would make an 18" screen at 1280x960 (at a reasonable price of course), I'd snap one up real quick. 1024x768 is too low, 1600x1200 is too expensive, and 1280x1024 looks weird.Originally posted by Wombat
One thing that's kinda bothering me is that I'd probably end up buying a 18" LCD. These things come in at 1280x1024 - the only non-4:3 aspect ratio that's really out there.Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive, bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine. -- Dr. Perry CoxComment
-
I think I'll wait till 1600x1200 units become reasonably-priced (which I hope they do sometime in the next two years).
AZComment
-
If I understand you correctly, then you're wrong. 1280x1024 LCD's aren't 4/3, they are 5/4. So it doesn't look weird.Originally posted by agallag
That's precisely why I don't want an LCD right now. If someone would make an 18" screen at 1280x960 (at a reasonable price of course), I'd snap one up real quick. 1024x768 is too low, 1600x1200 is too expensive, and 1280x1024 looks weird.Comment
-
Yes, but everything else looks weird (because only more expensive units have more modes than fullscreen interpolation).
AZComment
-
Damn, i wish we could have more widescreen lcd's.
i've been looking at 17-22in 1280*768 screens, and they arn't too expensive, and some games (like farcry) can use the widescreen resolution.
And why not 1600*960 lcd's...most of video (TV and DVD and Films...) is going widescreen, why not computers? The extra real estate is worth it, even if you just wordprocess extra width to see two pages, comments....PC-1
Fractal Design Arc Mini R2, 3800X, Asus B450M-PRO mATX, 2x8GB B-die@3800C16, AMD Vega64, Seasonic 850W Gold, Black Ice Nemesis/Laing DDC/EKWB 240 Loop (VRM>CPU>GPU), Noctua Fans.
Nas : i3/itx/2x4GB/8x4TB BTRFS/Raid6 (7 + Hotspare) Xpenology
+++ : FSP Nano 800VA (Pi's+switch) + 1600VA (PC-1+Nas)Comment
-
yep, I would like 16:9 screens to become more common as well.
in the first X-Men movie, every screen you saw was 16:9
Comment
-
A 5/4 aspect ratio is the definition of "looks weird." Squares aren't squares, they're squished up.Originally posted by Novdid
If I understand you correctly, then you're wrong. 1280x1024 LCD's aren't 4/3, they are 5/4. So it doesn't look weird.Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.Comment
-
no they appear as squares. LCDs with native 5:4 res have a 5:4 phyisical aspect ratio too (at least all the ones I've ever seen).Comment
-
Yes dZeus is right, the pixels are perfect squares. There is nothing really wrong with 1280x1024 LCDs, except if you dislike 5:4 in general.no matrox, no matroxusers.Comment
-
For all it's worth, my 21" Eizo T965 (new one is T966) is plainly and simply perfect.
It hasn't been color-calibrated since I play games that need various gamma adjustments, but at least I NEVER had to correct the image geometry.
Can't say that for all the Sony's I've seen.
@The Pit: you're probably not seeing any ghosting _because_ your VGA card is too slow
Comment
-
Thanks Kurt for telling me my 9800 pro is too slow. I knew it needing confirming.
Comment
Comment