A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

video card



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 10th 17, 07:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default video card

Well I have the new video card that's working. IDK what the name is.
I've googled device id 0x4752. That's what XP x64 tells me it is. I google
and don't get some of the things others get. IDK how to google or something.

The resolution with this thing si a problem. It's 1024x768. And 24
colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

I think I might try to exchange it. I can't find the resolution of my
old chip. ATI xpress 200 for AMD Athelon. Is there a database with this
stuff. I was taken to the wayack machine. No mention of resolution with that
graphics chip.

Any ideas where to look to find this?

Bill


  #2  
Old October 10th 17, 07:45 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default video card


"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
news
....

colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

....

Oh that can't be right. It must be 1900x something.

Bill


  #3  
Old October 10th 17, 08:46 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default video card


"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
news

"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
news
...

colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

...

Oh that can't be right. It must be 1900x something.


1600x900 .Whew. That's a good display. Better than 1024x760

Bill


  #4  
Old October 10th 17, 10:02 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default video card

Bill Cunningham wrote:
Well I have the new video card that's working. IDK what the name is.
I've googled device id 0x4752. That's what XP x64 tells me it is. I google
and don't get some of the things others get. IDK how to google or something.

The resolution with this thing si a problem. It's 1024x768. And 24
colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

I think I might try to exchange it. I can't find the resolution of my
old chip. ATI xpress 200 for AMD Athelon. Is there a database with this
stuff. I was taken to the wayack machine. No mention of resolution with that
graphics chip.

Any ideas where to look to find this?

Bill


Rly?

http://pciids.sourceforge.net/pci.ids

4752 Rage XL PCI

That's a fossil artifact. It's like, 20 years old.

Memory size: 8 MB
Memory type: SDRAM 83MHz 64bit wide
RAMDACs: 230 MHz
Launch date: August 1998

There's a table offered here, which shows some examples
of both RAMDAC frequency and resolution limit.

https://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/Mach641.html

Name RAMDAC BPP Resolution VideoRAM

Rage Pro 230MHz 8 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 16 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 32 1600x1200 8MB

Depending on how old and crusty the driver is,
back in those days, they'd never heard of
1440x900 or 1600x900. You would have instead
1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200. You will need
the very latest driver you can get. Back in those
days, they "liked" 4:3, 5:4, but had not heard
of 16:9 or similar.

Even back when I was a teenager, and using a CRT5027
to do a homebrew framebuffer, the register interface
was "fully programmable". Which means the X*Y, front porch,
back porch, refresh, everything was programmable within
some limitations. Horizontal had to be a number
divisible by 8. Vertical had to be a number divisible
by 2, even though the display might be progressive (LCD).

So if you were a driver writer, you could easily
pencil in a couple of settings for 1600x900, if
the card had a 1600x1200 limit.

You're going to need to find the absolutely
latest driver you can get, to have a chance
at 1600x900. If the control panel has the
custom resolution input box, you can try and
program it yourself, but the driver can still
stop you if it wants.

*******

One other limitation in video cards, is some early DVI
connectors (your Rage doesn't have one), they were limited
to a clock of 135MHz (1350Mbit/sec data). The Wikipedia
DVI article will tell you what the real clock should be
(probably 165MHz at the time). I think a single lane DVI
will do 1920x1200 with 165MHz cable clock, CRTRB, and 60Hz
refresh. A card limited by its silicon to 135MHz speed
will not have that resolution setting in the driver.
One dopey driver writer, even managed to get the
math wrong for that situation, and disallowed a
resolution that would have worked properly. That
was eventually fixed.

Paul
  #5  
Old October 11th 17, 05:12 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default video card


"Paul" wrote in message
news
Bill Cunningham wrote:
Well I have the new video card that's working. IDK what the name is.
I've googled device id 0x4752. That's what XP x64 tells me it is. I
google and don't get some of the things others get. IDK how to google or
something.

The resolution with this thing si a problem. It's 1024x768. And 24
colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

I think I might try to exchange it. I can't find the resolution of my
old chip. ATI xpress 200 for AMD Athelon. Is there a database with this
stuff. I was taken to the wayack machine. No mention of resolution with
that graphics chip.

Any ideas where to look to find this?

Bill


Rly?

http://pciids.sourceforge.net/pci.ids

4752 Rage XL PCI

That's a fossil artifact. It's like, 20 years old.

Memory size: 8 MB
Memory type: SDRAM 83MHz 64bit wide
RAMDACs: 230 MHz
Launch date: August 1998

There's a table offered here, which shows some examples
of both RAMDAC frequency and resolution limit.

https://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/Mach641.html

Name RAMDAC BPP Resolution VideoRAM

Rage Pro 230MHz 8 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 16 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 32 1600x1200 8MB

Depending on how old and crusty the driver is,
back in those days, they'd never heard of
1440x900 or 1600x900. You would have instead
1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200. You will need
the very latest driver you can get. Back in those
days, they "liked" 4:3, 5:4, but had not heard
of 16:9 or similar.

Even back when I was a teenager, and using a CRT5027
to do a homebrew framebuffer, the register interface
was "fully programmable". Which means the X*Y, front porch,
back porch, refresh, everything was programmable within
some limitations. Horizontal had to be a number
divisible by 8. Vertical had to be a number divisible
by 2, even though the display might be progressive (LCD).

So if you were a driver writer, you could easily
pencil in a couple of settings for 1600x900, if
the card had a 1600x1200 limit.

You're going to need to find the absolutely
latest driver you can get, to have a chance
at 1600x900. If the control panel has the
custom resolution input box, you can try and
program it yourself, but the driver can still
stop you if it wants.

*******

One other limitation in video cards, is some early DVI
connectors (your Rage doesn't have one), they were limited
to a clock of 135MHz (1350Mbit/sec data). The Wikipedia
DVI article will tell you what the real clock should be
(probably 165MHz at the time). I think a single lane DVI
will do 1920x1200 with 165MHz cable clock, CRTRB, and 60Hz
refresh. A card limited by its silicon to 135MHz speed
will not have that resolution setting in the driver.
One dopey driver writer, even managed to get the
math wrong for that situation, and disallowed a
resolution that would have worked properly. That
was eventually fixed.


They just hand out vards to people at this place. The card was actually
very "clean". Didn't look that old. but what was the resolution of the ATI
xpress 200? Much better I would think. That would be good enough for me.

Bill


  #6  
Old October 11th 17, 07:53 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul[_26_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default video card

Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
news
Bill Cunningham wrote:
Well I have the new video card that's working. IDK what the name is.
I've googled device id 0x4752. That's what XP x64 tells me it is. I
google and don't get some of the things others get. IDK how to google or
something.

The resolution with this thing si a problem. It's 1024x768. And 24
colors. My monitor displays 900x ...something.. I can't remember.

I think I might try to exchange it. I can't find the resolution of my
old chip. ATI xpress 200 for AMD Athelon. Is there a database with this
stuff. I was taken to the wayack machine. No mention of resolution with
that graphics chip.

Any ideas where to look to find this?

Bill

Rly?

http://pciids.sourceforge.net/pci.ids

4752 Rage XL PCI

That's a fossil artifact. It's like, 20 years old.

Memory size: 8 MB
Memory type: SDRAM 83MHz 64bit wide
RAMDACs: 230 MHz
Launch date: August 1998

There's a table offered here, which shows some examples
of both RAMDAC frequency and resolution limit.

https://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/Mach641.html

Name RAMDAC BPP Resolution VideoRAM

Rage Pro 230MHz 8 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 16 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 32 1600x1200 8MB

Depending on how old and crusty the driver is,
back in those days, they'd never heard of
1440x900 or 1600x900. You would have instead
1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200. You will need
the very latest driver you can get. Back in those
days, they "liked" 4:3, 5:4, but had not heard
of 16:9 or similar.

Even back when I was a teenager, and using a CRT5027
to do a homebrew framebuffer, the register interface
was "fully programmable". Which means the X*Y, front porch,
back porch, refresh, everything was programmable within
some limitations. Horizontal had to be a number
divisible by 8. Vertical had to be a number divisible
by 2, even though the display might be progressive (LCD).

So if you were a driver writer, you could easily
pencil in a couple of settings for 1600x900, if
the card had a 1600x1200 limit.

You're going to need to find the absolutely
latest driver you can get, to have a chance
at 1600x900. If the control panel has the
custom resolution input box, you can try and
program it yourself, but the driver can still
stop you if it wants.

*******

One other limitation in video cards, is some early DVI
connectors (your Rage doesn't have one), they were limited
to a clock of 135MHz (1350Mbit/sec data). The Wikipedia
DVI article will tell you what the real clock should be
(probably 165MHz at the time). I think a single lane DVI
will do 1920x1200 with 165MHz cable clock, CRTRB, and 60Hz
refresh. A card limited by its silicon to 135MHz speed
will not have that resolution setting in the driver.
One dopey driver writer, even managed to get the
math wrong for that situation, and disallowed a
resolution that would have worked properly. That
was eventually fixed.


They just hand out vards to people at this place. The card was actually
very "clean". Didn't look that old. but what was the resolution of the ATI
xpress 200? Much better I would think. That would be good enough for me.

Bill



This one says Win 2003 server, but inside the INF says WinXP.
The lack of 64-bit materials suggests it's a 32 bit driver.
That seems to be later than the ATI legacy (archived) driver.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/dow...5-30-10-2-zip-

https://downloadmirror.intel.com/101...j5.30.10.2.zip

I expect you're using your WinXP SP2 x64 OS ? Depending on when
that came out (mid-2005???), maybe the Rage XL driver is already in it.

I'm seeing warnings on the web, that it does 1600x1200 with 16 bit
color. I cannot find a reference to what it does with 24 bit color.
Maybe 1152*870 or so ? There was a card in the past, that ran 24 bit
color using 32 bit pixels (it wastes bits of memory, in order to
align the accesses), so needs double the memory. I have
a suspicion that Xfree86 table was *wrong*. It's probably
more like this, at a guess. And intermediate resolutions
would be by "custom resolution". The older version of PowerStrip might
work, but I don't think they're giving that away.

BPP Resolution GPU RAM

Rage Pro 230MHz 16 1600x1200 8MB
Rage Pro 230MHz 32 1152x870 8MB

And since you've had the machine open now, to put in the new
card, you must have a good idea what slot types are available.
Like, whether there is a long slot with a heel lock for a
more modern card or not. I have a machine like that, with
PCI Express video card, AGP video card slot, and PCI slots.
So all three types are present. The only caveat on mine,
was the PCI Express slot was x16 long, but only wired with
x4 lanes, which is too slow. so the machine always got an
AGP card instead, and the PCI Express slot stayed empty.

http://www.playtool.com/pages/vidslots/slots.html

If you do have a PCI Express x16 slot, as in the picture,
keep your eyes peeled for a discarded PC with one of those
kinds of cards in it :-)

*******

Powerstrip allowed defining custom resolutions. It used
to be available for a 30-day trial.

http://entechtaiwan.com/util/ps2.shtm

http://entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm

Since they no longer sell software to end users, I'm not
even sure you could pay for it if you wanted to.

I've run that before for the 30-day trial period. But
I didn't have a reason to buy it, as I was "just testing".
If you wanted 1600x900 or 1440x900 at 16BPP at 60Hz,
that's how you'd get it (barring discovering the
dialog box on the ATI panel that does the same thing).

Paul
  #7  
Old October 11th 17, 06:47 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default video card


"Paul" wrote in message
news I have a machine like that, with
PCI Express video card, AGP video card slot, and PCI slots.
So all three types are present. The only caveat on mine,
was the PCI Express slot was x16 long, but only wired with
x4 lanes, which is too slow. so the machine always got an
AGP card instead, and the PCI Express slot stayed empty.

http://www.playtool.com/pages/vidslots/slots.html

If you do have a PCI Express x16 slot, as in the picture,
keep your eyes peeled for a discarded PC with one of those
kinds of cards in it :-)

....

No PCI express didn't work. I have the white bridge PCIs. I think there's an
ISA slot in there too. Not used.

Bill


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My video looks like a slide show, processor speed or video card? mm Ati Videocards 7 December 8th 10 09:47 PM
Video Card for TV and Video Card for traditional display [email protected] Nvidia Videocards 2 March 22nd 07 09:12 PM
Xbox 360: how powerful the video hardware? What video card would it be comparable to? Doug Nvidia Videocards 1 June 24th 05 02:02 AM
Is losing video signal resulting from an overheated video card? [email protected] Ati Videocards 5 March 20th 05 07:39 PM
Need of a good video capture prog for a video capt card TooMuch Webcams 0 February 4th 05 04:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.