Korean Monitors

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
I want to purchase this monitor or something similar.

I am planning on connecting it to the onboard video of my motherboard.

The Micro Center website says I can only get full resolution using DVI-D or Display Port, however the Gigabyte website says that the max resolution of the DVI-D port is 1920x1200. Is there any chance I can drive this monitor without buying a new video card?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
You can look at the pin arrangement on the port to figure out if it's dual link or not. For all I know they could be copying and pasting the same crap from who-knows-where. I do note that both MSI and Asus also say their H87 DVI ports are 1920x1200 though.

 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,132
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
Be careful, a lot of companies will use DVI-I (dual link) connectors even on single link devices. (AGP cards and early PCIe cards suffered from this). Also, while the GPU/CPU support dual link, if the motherboard is missing the second TDMS link, it'll limit the whole setup to single link operation. (Case in point, the NV30 and NV40 GPU was capable of DVI dual link operation, however nVidia only made the dual link available on the Quadro line of cards with these GPUs, whilst the consumer GeForceFX/GeForce6 series was stuck with single link DVI - 1600x1200 - (with some late exceptions to this)).
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Be careful, a lot of companies will use DVI-I (dual link) connectors even on single link devices. (AGP cards and early PCIe cards suffered from this).
It sort of makes sense though. It makes it compatible with the largest percentage of cables. You can use a dual link cable if you have one. If you have a single link connector you're slightly more limited in the cable you can use.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,132
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
It sort of makes sense though. It makes it compatible with the largest percentage of cables. You can use a dual link cable if you have one. If you have a single link connector you're slightly more limited in the cable you can use.
Not to mention it's also cheaper to purchase (per unit) 30,000 of a single connector than it is to purchase 15,000 of one type and 15,000 of another type. Makes inventory management easier as well if you only have to stock and use 1 connector in place of many different types.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
It's a DVI-D dual link connector. I might buy the monitor from Micro Center and just see if it works. If necessary, I'll buy a video card.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
I purchased the monitor from Micro Center today. I haven't been able to get it to run at it's native resolution yet. Trying to determine if it's a Linux configuration problem or a hardware issue.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Just an FYI, this monitor came with a dual link DVI-D cable. The guy at the store told me it didn't, so I bought one (didn't want to wait for shipping). Now I have to return the cable.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
So, using an old nVidia video card seems to cause problems at this resolution depending on what I'm doing. Browsing image heavy websites with animations will cause the video to completely lock up for extended periods of time. I'd like to replace the video card with something a little more modern. If I can spend less than $100 that would be preferred. I don't play games very often, so that's not really a consideration. Good Linux compatibility and DVI-D are requirements. Recommendations?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
GT630s are about $65 and have respectable specs and purportedly good Linux drives. And also fans that will fail at the drop of a hat, but you already know that.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
GT630s are about $65 and have respectable specs and purportedly good Linux drives. And also fans that will fail at the drop of a hat, but you already know that.
IIRC, the GT630 is just a rebadged GT430. Same for the GT640 DDR3 edition (the GT640 with DDR5 is based on an updated GPU architecture).

I have a GT440 in my main computer and it handles 1080p just fine with the DVI link.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Does anyone have any experience with AMD Radeon cards in Linux? Seems that the most bang for the buck under $100 is the Radeon HD 7770.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
From what I read, AMD's drivers aren't as stable as Nvidia's under Linux.
Yeah, I read a bit more about it and that sounds accurate. It's too bad because AMD has been spending a lot of effort making their open source driver better and nVidia has done nothing.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
My understanding is that if you are a stickler for OSS-only installs, AMD is the better option. But if you are willing to hold your nose and install a non-OSS blob nVidia will give you the better experience.
 

CityK

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
1,719
Does anyone have any experience with AMD Radeon cards in Linux?
Yes

Seems that the most bang for the buck under $100 is the Radeon HD 7770.
The gpu on that should be a Southern Islands (SI / GCN) arch.

From what I read, AMD's drivers aren't as stable as Nvidia's under Linux.
This is in regards to the prop. drivers. OSS drivers are a different discussion.

In any regard, I think much of that "perception" is a lot of crap that continues to perpetuate (no different than any other case that you may think of where some "common knowledge" that is passed off as true, but is actually flat out incorrect). No doubt there are issues with the Catalyst/fglrx drivers. But the same is true with the Nvidia drivers. I wouldn't expect either one to provide most of the folks around here (i.e. technically oriented and willing/patient enough to understand the underlying mechanics) any sort of fits. I think that much of the mythos surrounding the prop. drivers comes from the impatient and clueless who import there expectations derived from Windows experiences/uses into Linux.

Yeah, I read a bit more about it and that sounds accurate.
see above

It's too bad because AMD has been spending a lot of effort making their open source driver better and nVidia has done nothing.
What do the OSS drivers have anything to do with the discussion of the prop. drivers? I believe you are confusing the issue.

My understanding is that if you are a stickler for OSS-only installs, AMD is the better option.
in general the OSS drivers for AMD hardware are currently better then that for Nvidia hardware. But not all hardware will have great performing drivers yet.

But if you are willing to hold your nose and install a non-OSS blob nVidia will give you the better experience.
I actually do believe that, however, my comments about the blobs above still stands.

And now some brief, generalized comments

Catalyst/fglrx stack

  • the mainline (i.e. non-legacy) currently supports HD5000 and up hardware on up to about 3.10 kernels, and I forget what top end of the X server ver
  • has poor 2D in comparison to that provided by OSS drivers for most hardware
  • generally good GL performance

for recent AMD hardware from the past (r300 and above), the OSS stack looks like:

  • components include the DRM/KMS kernel driver (radeon.ko), the DDX (device dependent Xcode ... i.e. the Xorg driver ... radeon_drv.so), and the Mesa/3D driver (there are a couple and it depends what class of hardware you are using ... i.e. r300g, r600g, radeonsi ... these are all gallium class Mesa drivers)
  • 2D (xorg driver) performance is generally better then prop.drivers ... note: SI class of hardware don't actually have hardware specific code within the DDX -- so no 2D accel via traditional route .. instead it uses the Glamor accel method (which essentially leverages 3D/GL to provide 2D)
  • with kernel 3.11 (and activating the DPM code (dynamic power mgmt, that allows for reclocking) and using the shader optimization backends, like sb ...<-- neither of which are on by default yet, and hence why you have to manually evoke them) most r600 class hardware have pretty good GL performance, generally 80% of prop. drivers (better then prop in some cases; more worse in others)
  • radeonsi is still maturing ... currently lower GL support then what is found for the r600g ... consequently, r600 class hardware is currently a better 3D performer then the SI stuff ...


So, if you were to go for that 7700 device, I'd advise using the prop. catalyst for now .. in the future you'd be able to switch over to the OSS stack and would likely be better served.
 

timwhit

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
5,278
Location
Chicago, IL
Thanks for all the recommendations. I ended up going with a slightly more expensive card (had an Amazon.com gift card).

EVGA GeForce GTX650Ti Boost 2GB

It barely fit in my Antec P180. I didn't realize these things were larger than small motherboards now.
 
Top