The Unofficial Sony GDM-FW900 thread - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 177 Old 01-20-2014, 06:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrslig100 View Post

Out of curiosity, whats the highest resolution anyones ever got one of these beasts too?
Ive got my w900 to 2560x1600 on VGA @59Hz
What can the fw900 go to?

The highest resolution I've used is 2560x1600@75Hz and it works great - very sharp! However, I generally always keep it at 1920x1200@96Hz since I like to play games at higher framerates and it scales well with film content.

EDIT: Using NVIDIA custom resolutions on GTX 470, GTX 660M, and GTX 670.
mrslig100 likes this.
nathanddrews is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 177 Old 01-20-2014, 11:07 AM
Member
 
mrslig100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why do people like high frame rates so much.
Loved the old 24fps at the pictures. nothing these digital projectors could ever replicate!
Displays Above 6Hz have always seem like a waste of time to me.
I know a bloke with a monitor that goes up to 200fps and I see no difference.
Whats the fuss? I feel like im missing out!
mrslig100 is offline  
post #153 of 177 Old 01-20-2014, 12:51 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
In 3D games, high framerates mean there is a higher game tick to the 3D world that is being simulated. This is an important factor especially to consider if you are playing against other people. In this instance, it means that the person with a faster 3D game world simulation literally has a faster potential response to any attack against him, be it evasion or counterattack. It also makes that particular opponent faster. If you are only getting updates on the world status 24 times per second, you are only able to adjust your position, your aim, etc. in the world at that rate. Someone updating at 60 or faster will clean your clock easily. This is why high framerates are always desirable to a gamer. It simply makes your games faster, smoother, easier to play and win, and a lower framerate, usually more due to slower game hardware, means you're handicapped.

This is entirely a different matter from "120Hz television," or even "240Hz television." Those are HDTVs which do not accept inputs at those rates; rather, they update their screens at this rate. This creates different problems for television, movies and such, because they are historically made to update at 60Hz. Because 120 and 240 are multiples of 60, processors can be placed in the HDTV to take two frames (or four, in the case of "240Hz television") and create an additional frame by interpolating video information from each frame, like creating a new image by mixing and matching interlocking puzzle pieces of two completely different images. This creates an effect of smoother motion but it harms the detail of the high definition image because it is literally only half of two (or four) separate frames, mashed together. This interpolation can be turned off, but by doing this you are left with a broadcast that is no different visually from a "normal" 60Hz television. The other method that is popularly used is one where both 120 and 240 are multiples of 24, the framerate standard for film. By holding 24 frames per second long enough to display the full images at 120Hz or 240Hz, you eliminate an age-old problem of 3:2 pulldown, the "judder" effect that you see when film is transferred to television/dvd. Similar effects have been achieved in the past with plasma screens and refresh rates of 48, 72, 96, etc., so again, the need for these rates in a television is questionable, and still has nothing to do with nathanandrews' preference for playing games at high sync rates.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #154 of 177 Old 01-20-2014, 02:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrslig100 View Post

Why do people like high frame rates so much.
Loved the old 24fps at the pictures. nothing these digital projectors could ever replicate!
Displays Above 6Hz have always seem like a waste of time to me.
I know a bloke with a monitor that goes up to 200fps and I see no difference.
Whats the fuss? I feel like im missing out!

For starters, if you can't tell the difference between 24Hz and 60Hz or 60Hz and 120Hz, then you clearly have no reason to buy anything capable of such refresh rates. To the point, computer games can be played (usually) at any frame rate that your hardware will allow (graphics power and display). Objectively, a faster frame rate will allow for faster reaction time and better control, which is a big advantage in competitive play. All action appears smoother which, subjectively, provides a more enjoyable experience.

What is good for some is not good for others. To that end, I prefer 24fps for movies, but it is terrible for games. 60fps isn't bad for games, but after being used to significantly higher rates it feels like a slideshow.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #155 of 177 Old 01-20-2014, 08:06 PM
Member
 
demo23019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrslig100 View Post

I know a bloke with a monitor that goes up to 200fps and I see no difference.

no such display will put out 200 FPS All you would be doing is throwing those frames out the window because anything over its refresh rate isnt being displayed properly and no such thing as 200hz monitor

All we have is up to 144hz
demo23019 is offline  
post #156 of 177 Old 01-21-2014, 04:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by demo23019 View Post

no such display will put out 200 FPS All you would be doing is throwing those frames out the window because anything over its refresh rate isnt being displayed properly and no such thing as 200hz monitor

All we have is up to 144hz

While can't verify the former statement, I can tell you for a fact that I had a CRT that could do 180hz. Keep in mind that this was at 640x480 or 800x600, but in the days of Q3 and UT, that was sufficient to kick some ass. wink.gif I believe it was either a Viewsonic or Iiyama, which are the only other brands I owned before my Sony. When dealing with any display interface (VGA, DP, DVI, HDMI) there's always a tradeoff that you make between refresh rate and resolution. Higher resolution = lower refresh, higher refresh = lower resolution. However, the FW900 is a very capable display in this regard, in addition to its other spectacular performance traits.

EDIT: A quick Google search confirms my recollection regarding max refresh rates of some monitors:

LG Flatron 915 FT plus 200hz
iiyama Pro vision master 514 200hz
iiyama Pro vision master 454 200hz
iiyama HM204D DT 200hz
Dell P1130 170hz
Dell P991 170hz
Sony GDM-F520 170hz
Sony GDM-C520 170hz
Sony GDM-E530 170hz
Sony CPD-G520 170hz
Viewsonic P90F 170hz
Ibm P275 170hz
Samsung SyncMaster 9xxnf 160hz
Philips Brilliance 202P4 160hz
NEC Multisync FE992 160hz
mitsubishi diamond pro 2070sb 160hz
nathanddrews is offline  
post #157 of 177 Old 01-23-2014, 07:09 AM
Member
 
mrslig100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
no such display will put out 200 FPS
Nope!
mrslig100 is offline  
post #158 of 177 Old 02-03-2014, 11:19 AM
Member
 
demo23019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

While can't verify the former statement, I can tell you for a fact that I had a CRT that could do 180hz. Keep in mind that this was at 640x480 or 800x600, but in the days of Q3 and UT, that was sufficient to kick some ass. wink.gif I believe it was either a Viewsonic or Iiyama, which are the only other brands I owned before my Sony. When dealing with any display interface (VGA, DP, DVI, HDMI) there's always a tradeoff that you make between refresh rate and resolution. Higher resolution = lower refresh, higher refresh = lower resolution. However, the FW900 is a very capable display in this regard, in addition to its other spectacular performance traits.

EDIT: A quick Google search confirms my recollection regarding max refresh rates of some monitors:

LG Flatron 915 FT plus 200hz
iiyama Pro vision master 514 200hz
iiyama Pro vision master 454 200hz
iiyama HM204D DT 200hz
Dell P1130 170hz
Dell P991 170hz
Sony GDM-F520 170hz
Sony GDM-C520 170hz
Sony GDM-E530 170hz
Sony CPD-G520 170hz
Viewsonic P90F 170hz
Ibm P275 170hz
Samsung SyncMaster 9xxnf 160hz
Philips Brilliance 202P4 160hz
NEC Multisync FE992 160hz
mitsubishi diamond pro 2070sb 160hz
I stand corrected smile.gif
demo23019 is offline  
post #159 of 177 Old 02-24-2014, 03:23 PM
Senior Member
 
icor1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by demo23019 View Post

no such display will put out 200 FPS All you would be doing is throwing those frames out the window because anything over its refresh rate isnt being displayed properly and no such thing as 200hz monitor

All we have is up to 144hz

My FE2111SB manual says that I can get 160Hz.
icor1031 is offline  
post #160 of 177 Old 02-25-2014, 03:53 PM
Member
 
mrslig100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE REFRESH RATE CONTEST THREAD!!!
MAY THE BLOODBATH BEGIN!
mrslig100 is offline  
post #161 of 177 Old 02-26-2014, 12:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
And tried 160 hz @ 800x600 on a Mitsubishi 2070SB monitor and it works.
Elix is offline  
post #162 of 177 Old 03-24-2014, 04:04 PM
Member
 
superchad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

posted my question in its own topic, please ignore or delete this post

superchad is offline  
post #163 of 177 Old 04-07-2014, 02:07 AM
Newbie
 
jocap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Hey guys, I've been looking to buy a GDM-FW900 for gaming. I love the 16:10 aspect ratio, and I'd like to get some decent colors and be able to use different resolutions. Today, I have a 1920*1200 LCD monitor.

 

I'm wondering: Is there anything I should know before getting my hands on one? How big are issues like eye strain? I haven't used CRT monitors for a long time. Thanks!

jocap is offline  
post #164 of 177 Old 04-07-2014, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Still the best monitor around, imo.
Elix is offline  
post #165 of 177 Old 04-08-2014, 01:09 AM
Newbie
 
jocap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Kind of related question. I haven't found an FW900 near me, or even in my country (I live in Sweden). Neither have I found an FW900 that ships to Sweden. I have come across some other monitors though:

 

ViewSonic Graphic G810 21"

Sony Artisan GDM-C520K 21" FD Color Reference Monitor

NEC P1250 Plus CRT 21"

Dell Trinitron 21" (This is the only one available in Sweden.)

 

What are the difference between these and the FW900?

jocap is offline  
post #166 of 177 Old 04-08-2014, 07:25 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Viewsonic Graphic G810 21": http://www.cnet.com/products/viewsonic-g810/
Sony Artisan GDM-C520K 21": http://www.cnet.com/products/sony-artisan-color-reference-system-gdm-c520k-crt-monitor-21/specs/
NEC P1250 Plus CRT 21" http://www.cnet.com/products/nec-multisync-p1250-plus-crt-monitor-21-series/specs/
Dell Trinitron 21" . . . could be several different models.

The FW900 has a 16.10 ratio glass face. The other monitors you listed, including the Dell, have a 4.3 glass face. You can still use different ratios of resolutions with all of them, you just might have to live with blank space or with stretching the image if you do so, just know that only the FW900 from your list has a widescreen ratio. The Artisan and the FW900 use a Trinitron screen. This means the face of the glass is completely flat, and stabilizer wires hold the trinitron wires in place. When using various resolutions, you might notice the stabilizer wires more or less, they might also become more or less visible when viewing images or video of a certain brightness. Viewsonic makes excellent monitors, many of which are Trinitrons, but the model you listed is not a Trinitron, and from the brief reading I've done, seems to be one of their cheaper (crappier) models made.

Some very good CRT monitors that I know personally, from my own use, are the LaCie Electron 22 Blue IV, which is identical in every way but the outer molding to the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB (LaCie is a strange sort of Navy Blue colour, the Mitsubishi is black). Each of these are Trinitron-alikes and two stabilizer wires fit across the screen horizontally. At the top of my personal list of computer monitors is the Viewsonic p225fb, the p225f is identical except for its white casing instead of the p225fb's black. My Viewsonic is particularly sharp given its age, phosphors are still very bright and colourful as well. Possibly this is due to my having shelved it for a number of years before coming back to it, but this touches on the biggest caution point about acquiring a CRT in the modern age: a lot of CRTs were created somewhat close to equal, but they have not all aged the same. The more use a CRT has seen, the more likely it is to be worn. You can always just order something and see how it goes, but there is really no substitute for viewing this kind of vintage hardware before buying because you have no way of telling what the tube has been subjected to or how it was used before it fell into your hands. If you can at all take a look at the thing working, do so before buying, so you're at least aware of its condition and how it affects the image.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #167 of 177 Old 04-09-2014, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I can sign under this. Very good advice and a list of monitors suggested by LiquidSnake.
Elix is offline  
post #168 of 177 Old 05-14-2014, 07:38 AM
Newbie
 
Neil Boulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Hi there...

After some help if I may... I've owned a Sony GDM-FW900 for a number of years now, and its still working perfectly, and, well, I love it...

 

However, I have a problem. My work laptop has been replaced to an HP Elitebook 840. After a lot of messing about with HP Support, it transpires that this Elitebook will *NOT* support 1920x1080 above 60hz...  - not so Elite eh!

Anyway, because of this its a bit of a nightmare because with the FW900 at 60hz the screen is so flickery I think im going give myself a migraine...

 

I have tried all sorts of things, the Intel Custom Resolution options, the Powerstrip software etc etc, to try and force it into 1920x1080@85, but it just wont go...

The maximum I can get it to run at is 1280x1024 @ 85hz, but it just drives me crazy... 

I have tried using VGA, BNC and a Displaycable to VGA but nothing will get it to go above 60hz at 1920x1080

 

Anyone got any ideas on how I can resolve this??

 

Gutted to be honest...

Cheers, Neil.

Neil Boulton is offline  
post #169 of 177 Old 05-14-2014, 09:38 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Unfortunately, your problem is one of hardware, and not your monitor. You will need a better video chip to drive the kind of sync rate at the resolution that you want to use, i.e. your laptop sucks.

It could be a lot worse. Your laptop can actually run at that resolution. Most laptops have video chips so crappy they can't even get close to that.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #170 of 177 Old 05-14-2014, 01:21 PM
Newbie
 
Neil Boulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Thx for your reply...

I guessed that to be honest... Whats really frustrating is that two other OLDER HP laptops (NC4400 and 6710b) can both output to the FW900 perfectly fine, and they will happily output at 1920x1080@85hz without a problem... This Elitebook is just frustration after frustration...

AND..., all THREE laptops use a Intel chip which I just find unbelievable that this brand new laptop just simply cannot do it...

 

Anyhow, let me see what happens as this wonderful Elitebook is having its system board changed due to another unrelated issue and maybe, just maybe it will decide to start working...

I can only hope...

 

If anyone else has any ideas i would be pleased to hear them though!

 

Cheers, Neil. 

Neil Boulton is offline  
post #171 of 177 Old 05-14-2014, 01:35 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Assuming the motherboard swap is like for like, it won't just start to function. These are predefined resolutions/rates of support by the driver of the video chip. If it can't draw that resolution that quickly, it will not magically start doing it if it is replaced by a clone. If this were a desktop, the solution would be simple, upgrade your video card. But laptops can't do that ordinarily, so you need to get a different laptop entirely.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #172 of 177 Old 05-24-2014, 06:11 AM
Newbie
 
haka3l's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Hello

 

Anyone know if that display port to vga would work Link . I have recently bought r290 card and its only Dvi-d,Hdmi,Displayport so my CRT wont fit any of those without some kind of adapter.

There is also Hdfury but it lacks in Ramdac, i need  at least 300Mhz for 1600x1200@100hz.

haka3l is offline  
post #173 of 177 Old 06-05-2014, 05:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Boulton View Post

Hi there...
After some help if I may... I've owned a Sony GDM-FW900 for a number of years now, and its still working perfectly, and, well, I love it...

However, I have a problem. My work laptop has been replaced to an HP Elitebook 840. After a lot of messing about with HP Support, it transpires that this Elitebook will *NOT* support 1920x1080 above 60hz...  - not so Elite eh!
Anyway, because of this its a bit of a nightmare because with the FW900 at 60hz the screen is so flickery I think im going give myself a migraine...

I have tried all sorts of things, the Intel Custom Resolution options, the Powerstrip software etc etc, to try and force it into 1920x1080@85, but it just wont go...
The maximum I can get it to run at is 1280x1024 @ 85hz, but it just drives me crazy... 
I have tried using VGA, BNC and a Displaycable to VGA but nothing will get it to go above 60hz at 1920x1080

Anyone got any ideas on how I can resolve this??

Gutted to be honest...
Cheers, Neil.

That's very strange. I've been able (on my Lenovo i7 3610QM/GTX660M) to output 1920x1200@96Hz from both the Intel IGP and NVIDIA dGPU. I've been able to do it on my desktop IGP as well (i5 3570K). Are you using the HP-specific driver or the latest driver directly from Intel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by haka3l View Post

Hello

Anyone know if that display port to vga would work Link . I have recently bought r290 card and its only Dvi-d,Hdmi,Displayport so my CRT wont fit any of those without some kind of adapter.
There is also Hdfury but it lacks in Ramdac, i need  at least 300Mhz for 1600x1200@100hz.

Yeah, it's incredibly disappointing! From my research, external DACs can't do what you want. I bought an R9 290 as well, not realizing that starting with Hawaii, AMD no longer supports DAC. Digital output ONLY. I returned it and am debating between a 780OC, 780Ti, or just waiting for Big Maxwell. NVIDIA is still showing DVI-I love, but AMD apparently saw it as a cost-cutting measure. The cost difference between the 290 and 780OC is essentially nothing when factoring the cost of an external DVI-D/VGA adapter.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #174 of 177 Old 06-06-2014, 08:51 PM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

That's very strange. I've been able (on my Lenovo i7 3610QM/GTX660M) to output 1920x1200@96Hz from both the Intel IGP and NVIDIA dGPU. I've been able to do it on my desktop IGP as well (i5 3570K). Are you using the HP-specific driver or the latest driver directly from Intel?

Not so strange, really. Not all Intel IGPs are created equal, just like not all Intel CPUs are created equal.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #175 of 177 Old 06-10-2014, 09:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

Not so strange, really. Not all Intel IGPs are created equal, just like not all Intel CPUs are created equal.

To the contrary, Intel IGPs are very similar across SNB, IVB, and Haswell. Intel has hundreds of CPU SKUs, but only 3-4 IGP SKUs that vary by number of EUs and clock speed. The reason I said that his results are strange is that I have successfully used my FW900 on these Intel IGPs:

X3100 (Pentium T4400)
X3000 (C2Q Q6600)
HD 2000 (i3-2100)
HD 3000 (i3-2105)
HD 2500 (i5-3340)
HD 4000 (i7-3610QM)
HD 4000 (i5-3570K)
HD 4400 (i3-4010U)

The only thing I can think of is that either the unit is defective or HP has used their own slower DAC. Maybe the OP is trying to run mirror mode instead of using the FW900 as extended or primary? From my experience, his results are anecdotally atypical.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #176 of 177 Old 06-10-2014, 09:26 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
At least two of the processors you listed do not have any integrated graphics at all. Those that do, don't always capture the same memory as others, and they are generally low end graphics solutions in the first place.

You can be surprised, but I'm really not shocked at all to hear he isn't getting the resolutions/rates he wants with that hardware.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #177 of 177 Old 06-10-2014, 12:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

At least two of the processors you listed do not have any integrated graphics at all.

The IGP is on the motherboard (965 chipset).
nathanddrews is offline  
Reply Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

User Tag List



Forum Jump: 

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off