ATI (Asus) 9250 compatibility

[.:mike:.]

I own an Asus A2950 graphics card (which is a rebadged ATI with DVI out) and
I am thinking of purchasing a new widescreen LCD monitor, this one in
particular:

http://www.acer.co.uk/acereuro/page...oupCtxParam=0&dctx1=17&ctx1=UK&crc=4288051543

The monitor's native resolution is 1600 x 1050 and my question is, is the
A2950 capable of displaying this resolution? I know it can do 1600 x 1200
but can it display 1600 x 1050 specifically, or will I need to purchase a
new ATI card, and if so, what do you recommend (I use mainly Photoshop and
Dreamweaver, very little gaming)?

Mike.

 

[Cuzman]

..:mike:. wrote:

" The monitor's native resolution is 1600 x 1050 and my question is, is
the A2950 capable of displaying this resolution? I know it can do 1600
x 1200 but can it display 1600 x 1050 specifically, or will I need to
purchase a new ATI card... "


The monitor's native resolution is actually 1680x1050, not 1600x1050. I
can't see that Asus has made a card called the A2950, but if it is a
128-bit Asus A9250/TD/128 or A9250/GE/TD/256, then it should be able to
do 2048x1536. As to whether it's powerful enough to do what you need at
that resolution is a different matter altogether. My advice would be to
install the latest drivers and run it on your current monitor at
1680x1050 to see if you get problems in your average useage.

 

[.:mike:.]

.:mike:. wrote:

The monitor's native resolution is actually 1680x1050, not 1600x1050. I
can't see that Asus has made a card called the A2950, but if it is a
128-bit Asus A9250/TD/128 or A9250/GE/TD/256, then it should be able to
do 2048x1536. As to whether it's powerful enough to do what you need at
that resolution is a different matter altogether. My advice would be to
install the latest drivers and run it on your current monitor at
1680x1050 to see if you get problems in your average useage.

Thanks for the reply.

The card is listing a maximum resolution of 2048 x 1536. In the list the
closest resolution listed to the one I need is 1600 x 1200 but there's not
specifically a 1680 x 1050 setting.

Mike.

 

[Cuzman]

..:mike:. wrote:

" In the list the closest resolution listed to the one I need is 1600 x
1200 but there's not specifically a 1680 x 1050 setting. "


The latest drivers may give support for further resolutions, but I don't
think you'll be able to use 1600x1200 on a monitor that only supports
1680x1050. I'm pretty sure that you will need both the X and Y axis to
come in under that which the monitor supports. Don't take that as
gospel though, I don't even use an LCD.

 

[Brian Dickens]

The card is listing a maximum resolution of 2048 x 1536. In the list
the closest resolution listed to the one I need is 1600 x 1200 but
there's not specifically a 1680 x 1050 setting.

You can always add a custom resolution. Although I doubt it's worth working
in a widescreen 1680x1050 environment with a Radeon 9250 card.

=- Brian Dickens

 

[.:mike:.]

.:mike:. wrote:

You can always add a custom resolution. Although I doubt it's worth working
in a widescreen 1680x1050 environment with a Radeon 9250 card.

=- Brian Dickens

Hi Brian.

What do you mean by that - is the card not up to the job? If it's not, can
you recommend any other ATI cards to go for.

As I said, I'm not really interested in gaming. I will be using it mainly
for graphics and web design work.

Mike.

 

[Augustus]

I know it can do 1600 x 1200

but can it display 1600 x 1050 specifically, or will I need to purchase a
new ATI card, and if so, what do you recommend (I use mainly Photoshop and
Dreamweaver, very little gaming)?

If I were working primarily with Photoshop and Dreamweaver, where color
fidelity and quality is critical, I would avoid the lowest level bottom
feeder cards by ATI and Nvidia. Get a decent card. The FireGL and QuadroFX
reference lines are designed for this type of professional level work
specifically. They're pricey though. You don't need a high powered gaming
card for this. I guess my point is to avoid the very bottom of the pack if
fidelity and quality output is desirable. Just because a $60 9250 card can
support the resolution doesn't mean it's what you should use.

 

[Brian Dickens]

What do you mean by that - is the card not up to the job? If it's
not, can you recommend any other ATI cards to go for.

Well, as you say you're not interested in gaming there won't really be any
problems. However, I'd still prefer a "heavier" card. Let's just call it
personal preference, your card might perform well under the conditions you
put it in.

By the way, a CRT will still give the best visual quality as it can displays
more colors than LCD screens. Although LCD screens have caught up a lot,
they're still not quite on the same level as CRTs.

=- Brian Dickens

 

[patrickp]

Well, as you say you're not interested in gaming there won't really be any
problems. However, I'd still prefer a "heavier" card. Let's just call it
personal preference, your card might perform well under the conditions you
put it in.

By the way, a CRT will still give the best visual quality as it can displays
more colors than LCD screens. Although LCD screens have caught up a lot,
they're still not quite on the same level as CRTs.

=- Brian Dickens

Running at 1680x1050 with a Radeon 9250 shouldn't be a problem if you
can add that as a custom resolution. I ran a Rage 128 Pro and still
run a Radeon 7200 at 1600 x 1200; the only problem I've had is that I
overheated the Rage 128 Pro. But that card had no fan and only a
small heatsink - wish I'd been a bit more clued up on video card
cooling then; it was a good card. Image quality has been excellent.

Of course they're not high end gaming cards but, as the OP pointed
out, that's not what he wants. A 9250 should be fine, although I'm
not sure about ASUS: I had an ASUS 9600XT and was very unimpressed
with the 2D quality. I replaced it with a Sapphire 9600 Pro and was
much happier.

Just my 2p worth. Patrick



<[email protected]> - take five to email me...