<strong>No one has answered my question... I am using a stock g4-500 with the Rage Pro, and do not seem to have all these options. What graphics cards are you all using in order to get these refresh rates?
Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>
i use a proformance 3 plus video card with my sony F500 : the refresh rate is 100 hz at 1152 per 870 and is 80 hz maximum at higher resolution.
on my G4 533 the maximum refresh rate avalaible with my screen (an blue line apple 17 inch CRT ) is 85 hz.
Anything less than 85 Hz and I notice the flicker... I tolerate an iMac maxed out at 75 Hz only because I have too. I prefer running my Sony G400 at 100 or 120 Hz!
The flat panel in my Ti is beautiful, except at 16bit color where I notice the dithering...
Your question Mandricard is related to one that I have had for a long time.
As I understand it, the display is capable of some frequency at some resolution. It cannot refresh any faster, though you can set it to refresh slower (who would want to though?). The video card also has certain refresh rates at given resolutions. The max you can run your monitor at a given resolution is the lower of the refresh frequencies of the monitor and video card.
Is this correct?
In my experience, the monitor has been the determiner of the best refresh rate, as the graphics card (Rage Pro and Radeon for me) can handle resolutions/scan rates far above what the monitor can.
The ATi Radeon supports 200 Hz refreshes up to 1024 x 768, 150 Hz at 1152x864, 130 Hz at 1280x1024, 90 Hz at 1600x1200, and 75 Hz at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536.
My monitor (17" ADC Apple Studio Display (the CRT)) supports 154 Hz at 640 x 480, 120 Hz at 832 x 624, 99 Hz at 1024 x 768, 96 Hz at 1056 x 792, 75 Hz at 1280 x 1024, and 64 Hz at 1600 x 1200.
As you can see, the graphics card provides refresh rates far above what the monitor supports, and I am limited to the monitor's refresh rate. Because of this, I think that unless you have a really crappy graphics card (pre Rage Pro), you would benefit most from a better monitor rather than a better graphics card.
When I upgraded to the Radeon from the Rage Pro, the resolutions and refresh rates of my monitor did not change at all.
If I'm wrong with any of this, let me know. I'm just going from what I've seen from my hardware. I don't know if it's indicative of graphics/monitor hardware in general.
I'd also like to say that the Apple's CRT monitors (remember when Apple made CRT monitors? ) are very high quality. Well worth the extra cost IMHO.
I used to have a cheapo 17" monitor next to my high quality ADC 17" CRT. If I ran the two monitors at the same refresh rate (generally 75 Hz, I think it was the max the cheapo would go) I would see the horizontal scan lines move from top to bottom on the cheap 17" monitor, while the Apple monitor was unaffected.
I recently gave the bad monitor away and picked up an Apple 17" CRT before they switched to ADC (the 17" that was offered with the first G4 systems). Because the PCI Rage Pro only has VGA, I couldn't use the ADC connector. Well, the VGA Apple monitor can be run at the same frequency as the ADC Apple monitor without any interference, and it has excellent image quality. Far above the image quality of my old monitor.
I love Apple's old CRTs and will continue to use them until I can justify the cost of their top-end LCD... whatever size it is when I finally get enough cash.
Back in January, my decision was either get a 22" LCD, or get a top-end PowerBook G4 to compliment my desktop G4 (DP 500)... my decision was fairly easy, considering I was going to Hawaii and New York City in the near future.
My NT box run at 1600 x 1200 on a 19" CRT. 85 Hz refresh. It's OK, not as easy as my iBook naturally. While less than 75 Hz hurts (heh), far worse is the late afternoon glare I get on that screen (can't get out of the way).
Someone mentioned the cables used to connect one's display and video card...
I've found that cable quality matters only at high refresh rates and/or at high resolutions. With lesser cables I've observed ghosting and other artifacts, whereas with my Sony's built-in cable I get a crystal clear image even at 120Hz.
Anything plain works fine, except with the crappiest of cables; I'm talking 1024x768@85Hz
Comments
<strong>No one has answered my question... I am using a stock g4-500 with the Rage Pro, and do not seem to have all these options. What graphics cards are you all using in order to get these refresh rates?
Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>
i use a proformance 3 plus video card with my sony F500 : the refresh rate is 100 hz at 1152 per 870 and is 80 hz maximum at higher resolution.
on my G4 533 the maximum refresh rate avalaible with my screen (an blue line apple 17 inch CRT ) is 85 hz.
My eyes are aching to return to the comfort of an LCD. This Apple 15" is not much fun... too bad there is no emoticon for bleeding eyes
The flat panel in my Ti is beautiful, except at 16bit color where I notice the dithering...
As I understand it, the display is capable of some frequency at some resolution. It cannot refresh any faster, though you can set it to refresh slower (who would want to though?). The video card also has certain refresh rates at given resolutions. The max you can run your monitor at a given resolution is the lower of the refresh frequencies of the monitor and video card.
Is this correct?
In my experience, the monitor has been the determiner of the best refresh rate, as the graphics card (Rage Pro and Radeon for me) can handle resolutions/scan rates far above what the monitor can.
The ATi Radeon supports 200 Hz refreshes up to 1024 x 768, 150 Hz at 1152x864, 130 Hz at 1280x1024, 90 Hz at 1600x1200, and 75 Hz at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536.
My monitor (17" ADC Apple Studio Display (the CRT)) supports 154 Hz at 640 x 480, 120 Hz at 832 x 624, 99 Hz at 1024 x 768, 96 Hz at 1056 x 792, 75 Hz at 1280 x 1024, and 64 Hz at 1600 x 1200.
As you can see, the graphics card provides refresh rates far above what the monitor supports, and I am limited to the monitor's refresh rate. Because of this, I think that unless you have a really crappy graphics card (pre Rage Pro), you would benefit most from a better monitor rather than a better graphics card.
When I upgraded to the Radeon from the Rage Pro, the resolutions and refresh rates of my monitor did not change at all.
If I'm wrong with any of this, let me know. I'm just going from what I've seen from my hardware. I don't know if it's indicative of graphics/monitor hardware in general.
-Ender
I used to have a cheapo 17" monitor next to my high quality ADC 17" CRT. If I ran the two monitors at the same refresh rate (generally 75 Hz, I think it was the max the cheapo would go) I would see the horizontal scan lines move from top to bottom on the cheap 17" monitor, while the Apple monitor was unaffected.
I recently gave the bad monitor away and picked up an Apple 17" CRT before they switched to ADC (the 17" that was offered with the first G4 systems). Because the PCI Rage Pro only has VGA, I couldn't use the ADC connector. Well, the VGA Apple monitor can be run at the same frequency as the ADC Apple monitor without any interference, and it has excellent image quality. Far above the image quality of my old monitor.
I love Apple's old CRTs and will continue to use them until I can justify the cost of their top-end LCD... whatever size it is when I finally get enough cash.
Back in January, my decision was either get a 22" LCD, or get a top-end PowerBook G4 to compliment my desktop G4 (DP 500)... my decision was fairly easy, considering I was going to Hawaii and New York City in the near future.
Hope this helps somewhat.
-Ender
It's a 22" Diamondtron. Sweet monitor.
But, yeah, any computer I buy has to have an LCD.
85 hz @ 1024 x 768 on a 19" crt
tiny icons are no fun!
I've found that cable quality matters only at high refresh rates and/or at high resolutions. With lesser cables I've observed ghosting and other artifacts, whereas with my Sony's built-in cable I get a crystal clear image even at 120Hz.
Anything plain works fine, except with the crappiest of cables; I'm talking 1024x768@85Hz
<strong>I will never buy a CRT with a desktop ever again. Maybe.
I won't either.