Resolutions above 1280x1024 unsupported?

[jim]

I'm working with a couple of desktops at the moment - one has an Intel 965 chipset and the other has Radeon Xpress 1150 graphics.

Neither will do 1920x1080 properly. The 965 recognises it, but if you set it to 1920x1080 then it misses off part of the screen and goes really fuzzy and pixellated, whilst the Xpress 1150 just think the maximum resolution is 1280x1024. The second could be an EDID fault I guess, but looking in Rivatuner it seems to be reading the EDID fine, although the information it picks up is wrong.

Maybe it's my fault for trying to use 22" panels with old computers, but surely it should work better than this?

[Pob255]

no they will run happly on 22" panels, running at 1920x1080 resolution is another matter.
how much memory do they have access to?

[watercooled]

Make sure the drivers are up to date and you have the correct refresh rates set. Also is the monitor VGA or DVI? You may need to adjust the monitor to get the image properly centred i.e. x/y position and clock/phase using something like this: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/clock_phase.php. Go fullscreen, click the image to centre it and run the monitor's auto-adjust but note this only applies to VGA monitors, it's not necessary for DVI.

[shaithis]

I would guess it's the cable. Try a different DVI cable and a dual link DVI if you have one to hand.

[jim]

no they will run happly on 22" panels, running at 1920x1080 resolution is another matter.
how much memory do they have access to?

Not a lot I'd imagine... I haven't had much time with them at all because I just don't get the opportunity. I'll have to check later on.

Make sure the drivers are up to date and you have the correct refresh rates set. Also is the monitor VGA or DVI? You may need to adjust the monitor to get the image properly centred i.e. x/y position and clock/phase using something like this: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/clock_phase.php. Go fullscreen, click the image to centre it and run the monitor's auto-adjust but note this only applies to VGA monitors, it's not necessary for DVI.

Yeah forgot to mention that - I hoped drivers were the answer but neither made a difference. I'll give that a go later on.

I would guess it's the cable. Try a different DVI cable and a dual link DVI if you have one to hand.

Hmm, not sure if they've got DVI outputs, but I'll have a look later on.

[Pob255]

You're going to need at least 64mb of vga card memory to run a desktop at 1920x1080
You could try lowering the colour depth.

If you're using d-sub not dvi then you're pushing the limits of it (actually might be past it's limmits).

[mac124]

You're going to need at least 64mb of vga card memory to run a desktop at 1920x1080
You could try lowering the colour depth.

If you're using d-sub not dvi then you're pushing the limits of it (actually might be past it's limmits).

Dunno about that i use d-sub on my 24" screen from one of my pc's and its fine, mind you thats from a gts250 so some what more poke than onboard 1150.

I would try new drivers and if that doesn't sort it, better cables, make sure the cables aren't too long too.

[Pob255]

It's not size it's resolution, there is a limit to how much data can be feed down a cable.
The maximum value is also dependent on the quality and length of cable as well.
Eventually you hit the point where the cable just cannot transmit that much data without errors.

[mac124]

@ pob Sorry i didn't make my post clear, what i meant was i am using a 24" screen, at its native res of 1920x1200, over a dsub connection and it works perfectly, tbh theres not a massive improvement in picture quality, a little bit sharper, using my other pc which is plugged into the dvi connection on the same screen.

As everyone said its probably cable quality / length causing the op's problem.