BFG 6800GT and DVI **EXPOSED**

[Leon]

Well, I am late to the party, but I can confirm that GT runs 1600 x 1200 perfectly ( Dell 2001fp ).

Leon

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: ss284

Originally posted by: Bar81
Well, looks like the intellectuals have stepped up and identified themselves.

And yet you still dont admit that you made incorrect statements and over generalized.

Have you ever been wrong on an internet forum?

Why?
Its easier to call a BFG card a POS and dog them and disagree with everything then to suck it up and go "ok I jumped the gun" when an old FAQ is updated.

So more or less it easier to blame someone other than yourself for a screw up.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: webmal

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: webmal
Hey Bar81,

Please post some links to show your card in your PC, I want to see proof you have one. BTW why did you get a gay WS lcd? I don't know of any game that natively supports WS lcd.

Webmal

Just so you know, saying stuff like that here may get you a vacation, as will calling people morons and trolling a thread.

Just a friendly warning before the mods wreak their modly wrath upon you.

When did I say Bar81 is gay? I said his WS lcd is gay - can't you read?

Bar81 is not gay, with absolutely no proof - he's a fraud.

Webmal

You're not allowed to make homophobic comments on here, whether they're directed at someone else or not.

 

[Zebo]

Gawd...what a waste of 10 minutes.

 

[sharkeeper]

6800GT-OC on the system I'm typing this on at 1600x1200 DVI, 213T display. Works great.

I dunno who started this "rumor" but it's obviously that. Sounds like the people at BFG misinformed you and were just giving you a scripted response of DVI spec.

I had no problems with the 5950 on the identical setup as well.

No need to resort to silly name calling folks!

Cheers!

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: webmal

Originally posted by: chsh1ca

Originally posted by: webmal
Hey Bar81,

Please post some links to show your card in your PC, I want to see proof you have one. BTW why did you get a gay WS lcd? I don't know of any game that natively supports WS lcd.

Webmal

Just so you know, saying stuff like that here may get you a vacation, as will calling people morons and trolling a thread.

Just a friendly warning before the mods wreak their modly wrath upon you.

When did I say Bar81 is gay? I said his WS lcd is gay - can't you read?

Bar81 is not gay, with absolutely no proof - he's a fraud.

Webmal

Regardless, one cannot use the word "gay" except when referring to (as an adjective or a noun) a homosexual.

I did that and got a week off.

 

[Howard]

Oh, and Desmond, that's a nice sig you're sporting.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This thread needs to die now. Nothin' to see here folks, move along, move along....

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: webmal
Bar81 is not gay, with absolutely no proof - he's a fraud.

Webmal

Go home.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Leon
It appears that PNY/EVGA/Gainward support 1600 x 1200 for their GT cards, some even higher.

BFG doesn't. :frown:

Repeat I will be testing this tomorrow, I'm getting a BFG GT and I have a 2001fp stay tuned.

Please do.

I haven't read all 8 pages on this topic yet, so please forgive me, but this all doesn't make sense. I thought (as described by a post in another thread) that the BFG 6800 cards were basically reference designs, as were nearly all of the others currently available on the market today, with the minor difference that the BFG model was supposedly slightly overclocked out of the box. Also, aren't the TMDS transmitters integrated into the GPU/VPU core these days? Or do they still require an additional external "PHY" chip like mobo chipset-integrated ethernet does?

I was thinking, why couldn't you simply flash the BIOS of one 6800 reference card, with the BIOS from another mfg, assuming that the RAM chips were compatible. (Often video cards have different BIOSes for different RAM speeds and vendors, and they are not always cross-compatible.)

I find this all rather surprising, since I believe that my "wimpy" (by comparison) Radeon 9200 card supports 16x12 via the DVI-I connector.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Again, there just isn't enough time for the HW sites to review cutting edge products. You ALWAYS take a risk with a new GPU core.

Did you forget the launch of the Radeon 8500? "Partial Abortion" would best describe it; yet iit turned out to be a damn fine card (in 6 months or so; it's real potential took a year).

No different, really, than the 6800's launch - still no support in the drivers for the claimed hardware video-accelleration features, and no support for component video-outputs, until the next GPU chip refresh.

That's not to say that I don't like the 6800, it looks like the design has a lot of potential, but ironically, NV owners are now in the same situation that ATI owners have been in the past - stuck with a freshly-released, only partially-working product, waiting on the mfg for updated drivers. Not to mention, the classic NV problem - lacking 2D quality (in this case, DVI resolution/refresh issues).

What I don't really understand here, is if the other mfg's 6800 cards support 16x12 via DVI, then why doesn't the BFG card? Did they expect people to notice the limitation, and use that fact to get them to purchase the next higher-end card for 16x12 DVI support? Or is this an indication that there are deeper problems, either with the 6800 GPU, or with the majority of cards, in that they cannot really support 16x12 via DVI *properly*, so that, because BFG cares about the end-user experience with their cards, forcibly disabled that DVI res. (Just throwing out some hypothetical scenarios here.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Bar81
I don't care about what you predict or the past. I buy a card to expect it to have hardware that functions properly at the least. Drivers are another story.

Perhaps you need to adjust your expectations to match reality.

:roll:

apoppin OUT

Meaning that...?

NV doesn't make their own cards for retail, so that...
they sell their GPU chips along with a reference design to a number of 3rd parties who actually mfg cards, and...
NV sells them the chips at a fairly fixed price, ensuring that they maximize their own profits, but also forcing their 3rd-party OEM mfgs to compete in a very price-sensitive market by *cutting costs elsewhere*, meaning...
that by the very nature of their market-structure, the vast majority of NV-based video cards, will suffer from quality problems, which...
has been clearly observed and noted in the past, and unless the market structure changes, it will probably continue well into the future, or as long as NV sells chips the way that they do.

That's my expectation of reality, at least. NV plays games fast, but looks like crap at higher res. If you want decent high-res 2D, look elsewhere, ATI (BBA) or Matrox, although you will pay an arm and a leg for generally sub-par performance with Matrox these days.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Leon
Update from BFG director of marketing ( HardOCP forum)

After discussing with NVIDIA, this is what we found:
1. The issue is in the EDID of the Samsung 240T and they specify 52Hz for both 1600x1200 and 1920x1200.
2. NVIDIA drivers have a 60 Hz limit
3. The limit will be removed in NVIDIA Rel. 65 drivers
4. A reg key is provided in NVIDIA's 61.74 web release

Cool, a solution! That's actually pretty interesting as well. I was going to post to this thread and inquire if everyone having the problem was running XP, but it looks, by that statement, that the problem is more related to NV's drivers than to Windows XP proper.

A friend of mine was setting up an older machine running WinXP SP1, trying to run a game (SWG), at 1024x768, except the monitor was so old, that it couldn't handle that res at 60Hz or maybe 75Hz, whatever the default DirectX refresh rate for that res was. Another thing that I've noticed, is that WinXP SP1, doesn't seem to want to let you choose a refresh rate under 60Hz (this was with a non-NV card), so I assumed that the limitation was one of WinXP's. What I suggested to my friend, was to explicitly set the monitor type to "SVGA 1024x768" or "SVGA 800x600", and then set the refresh rate to 56Hz, or 43Hz (interlaced). But even after changing the monitor type, neither of those refresh rates were available. (This was an NV card, with, I think, 56.64 drivers.) I thought that was rather strange, as I've set up other, older, systems before, using older monitors, and non-NV video cards, and had not had a problem setting a lower refresh rate like that for higher resolutions using older monitors. (Not that I would personally use any monitor running interlaced any more.) That note explains why this was so. I will tell him to update, once those patched drivers become available.

This limitation all makes perfect sense now (almost). The only thing is, what about those reports of people that were successfully running 16x12 on their LCDs via DVI? Or is it likely, that their LCD's EDID info specified a 60Hz refresh rate at that res, and therefore the NV drivers didn't freak out? I am assuming that must be the case.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Everything works fine on BFG 6800GT DVI. All of this was false alarm.

Well, not really, more like a compatibility problem that affects a small number of people (those who run 16x12 on an LCD via DVI output, and their EDID reports a refresh rate lower than 60Hz at those resolutions).

The "problem resolution" from BFG (PTP), makes sense though. It also helped me solve an indirectly-unrelated problem, that was also caused by the 60Hz limitation.

 

[sharkeeper]

Here is the truth folks

This works perfectly fine. 1920x1200 DVI no problems. The picture speaks for itself.

Carry on!

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: shuttleteam
Here is the truth folks

This works perfectly fine. 1920x1200 DVI no problems. The picture speaks for itself.

Carry on!

Why did you revive this thread?

 

[ColdBrew]

Thanks for reviving it. I didn't know about this problem but I'm glad I do now!

 

[ss284]

Originally posted by: shuttleteam
Here is the truth folks

This works perfectly fine. 1920x1200 DVI no problems. The picture speaks for itself.

Carry on!

What monitor is that? Its beautitful .

-Steve

 

[sharkeeper]

What monitor is that? Its beautitful

Samsung 243T.

As for reviving this thread, I wanted to check and make absolutely sure this worked in this mode and I didn't have a 6800GT in this system. Well it does, and I wanted to prove to the skeptics out there that it indeed is ok.

Cheers!