radeon supported resolutions?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2008/12/27 23:07 (GMT+0200) Nikos Chantziaras composed:
> 
>> Felix Miata wrote:
> 
>>> I have DVI cards and
>>> displays and cables, but have never found reason to try them.
> 
>> Better picture quality.  Many people can't make out a difference though. 
> 
> Exactly. How does any normal person find an opportunity to see any
> difference? Most of the internet is extreme lowfi designed for 1024x768 or below.

It's only visible to me in "extreme" cases, like a red box on white 
background; there's a bit of red "running in" the black (I think that's 
called ghosting) or the default X background (this one always made my 
eyes cry with my old CRT).  Nothing serious though.

But since my monitor *is* digital (TFT) and my graphics card is also 
digital, it makes more sense to use DVI-D.  With VGA, the graphics card 
converts its digital signal to an analog VGA signal and sends it over 
the cable.  The monitor picks it up, and since it's a TFT monitor (they 
need a digital signal to display) it converts the analog signal back to 
a digital one.

With DVI-D, the signal is just sent though the cable with no conversions 
and cable quality doesn't matter the least since it's digital.  It makes 
more sense to me to use it that way rather than doing a totally useless 
and unneeded conversion from digital to analog and then back again.

If you don't have a TFT monitor but a CRT instead, then this in not an 
issue at all.  CRTs are analog (there's a few modern digital CRTs too, 
but you would know if you had one).  It's only an issue with TFTs.