Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trash80toHP_Mini

1920x1200 Capable Video Cards?

Recommended Posts

I'd love to find one for mid-late 90's Macs, kinda need one for running under Win98 on Pentium alongside the QS'02 and I'd like to run a current rev ubuntuBos on the KVM as well.

 

I've already got the card for the IIfx, but that's going to take some research on timing inputs.

 

Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. Was 1920x1200 the resolution run by that Widescreen Sony CRT that was the hot item back in the day? What model was that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Was 1920x1200 the resolution run by that Widescreen Sony CRT that was the hot item back in the day? What model was that?

Are you talking about the GDM-FW900? In which case, yes, 1920x1200 was probably about the optimum resolution for it. (It was technically capable of going higher, something like 2304x1440, but it was apparently hard to find video cards with DACs up to the challenge.) Do note of course that monitor didn't come out until 2000.

(This is the oldest widescreen monitor I can actually think of, circa 1998. Undoubtedly there were ones before that but, yeah. Exotic.)

By "late 90's Mac" do you mean something with a PCI slot? In which case I think any Radeon or GeForce card that has a DVI port should be able to do 1920x1200. It's the highest resolution supported by single-link DVI. (Google suggests that VGA-equipped Rage 128 cards can handle it as well. Frankly I'd *guess* most higher-end late 90's video cards would be technically capable of the resolution, but you may have issues with drivers having no clue about widescreen resolutions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SGI made some of the most beautiful/whackiest looking stuff. Imagine how cool the TAM might have been if their crew had designed it?

But 1600x1024 isn't W---I---D---E screen it's a letterboxed s-h-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n format that looks like an excuse for using lopped off LCDs that had too many bad pixels at top or bottom edge. [}:)]

 

That Sonata card's pretty interesting, but dollars to doughnuts its RAMDAC won't support 1920x1200, they're pretty much set in stone to support only "standard" resolutions. It's interesting to see HD1080 AKA "1080p" on a NuBus card and that 2432x1712 top end is crazy cool for a NuBus card with only analog Mac and VGA outputs! Anazing stuff even limited to 16bit by the 4MB VRAM Ceiling.

 

That Sony FW-900 was all the rage in PC-addict for building PC based home theater precursors post-Y2K.

 

One day I'll get my 1988 SuperMac card with its amorphous RAMDAC setup to run some widescreen resolutions, but it's 2MB VRAM limited.

 

HRMMM? I wonder if there's a PC-addict or MAC-addict repository?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

But 1600x1024 isn't W---I---D---E screen it's a letterboxed s-h-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n format that looks like an excuse for using lopped off LCDs that had too many bad pixels at top or bottom edge. [}:)]

Uhm, no. We get that you think anything less than 1600x1200 is a periscope, but really, in the 1990's that was a pretty high-end resolution even on "Workstation" hardware. SGI's contemporary workstations typically ran at 1280x1024, and last I checked 1600 is wider than 1280. Also, when this monitor came out an LCD panel with a resolution higher than 1024x768 was a (rare, practically unobtanium, and very expensive) novelty. So, yes, in context it certainly was *widescreen*.
 

15 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

That Sonata card's pretty interesting, but dollars to doughnuts its RAMDAC won't support 1920x1200

Why do you think the RAMDAC would be the problem here? It looks to me as if that card would have *plenty* of performance overhead to handle 1920x1200. As a refresher: What the RAMDAC does is read the VRAM at a rate accordant with the current set of video timings and convert the data into analog signals which get pushed out to the monitor. Or, in other words, what the RAMDAC limits is your *pixel clock*. That datasheet says the card has a 200mhz RAMDAC. So, how much performance do we need to do 1920x1200@60hz?

1920x1200x60=138,240,000

 

So, there you go, its 200mhz RAMDAC should *easily* do the needful. (Note that this is a really crude oversimplification.) The datasheet says it supports 1920x1080@69hz, which would have a pixel clock *very* close to 1920x1200. It also claims to support ridiculously much higher resolutions like 2432x1712, which would have way higher pixel clocks. What I do find something of a headscratcher is that it claims to support that resolution in "thousands" of colors, IE, 16 bit, which I call foul on because the card only has 4MB of RAM. 2432x1712=4,163,584. So doing that resolution in *8 bit color* requires just barely under the 4,194,304 bytes you get in 4MB. Someone made a boo boo...

 

And, actually, doing that math points out the *real* problem with 1920x1200 verses 1920x1080. The latter is just barely under two megapixels, while the former is closer to 2.3. So... even though I would assert that the Sonnet card would be perfectly capable of running at 1920x1200 assuming the driver could be convinced to program the hardware to do it, it *would* be limited to doing so at 8 bit color depth instead of the 16 bit it supports with 1080i.
 

15 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

One day I'll get my 1988 SuperMac card with its amorphous RAMDAC setup to run some widescreen resolutions, but it's 2MB VRAM limited.

Yeah, so that same calculation applies again. With 2MB you theoretically might be able to convince it to do 1080i at 8-bit color, but you don't even have enough RAM for that with 1920x1200. I guess old versions of MacOS do support 4 bit modes, you've got enough for that assuming the RAMDAC is actually fast enough.

Is this the card where you've talked about swapping crystals to make it do weird resolutions? Again, remember, on newer video cards (almost anything made since, I dunno, 1993 or so) that's not a thing. Almost everything uses PLL clock generators to generate sync and pixel clocks. The primary limitations are the range of the PLL, the speed of the RAMDAC hardware, and the bandwidth of the VRAM. (Remember, even running at 8 bit color a 1080i display requires the hardware to push over 120MB a second from RAM out the monitor port. I believe that's about four times faster than the RAM->CPU bus in a Macintosh SE/30.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original post isn't particularly clear to me. Are you looking for a 1920x1200 video card for... what machine?

 

I agree though that 1920x1200 is a pretty tall order for most '90s hardware. I think, ultimately, that it will be outright impossible on any NuBus based Mac, until someone does something like build a modern replacement video card, if someone thinks that's worth doing.

 

There was an older version of Sony's 24-inch widescreen Trinitron display that SGI was advertising in the mid '90s for its higher end ONYX and Octane systems, but I believe the resolution on that was around 1600x1000, I don't know what the exact pixel dimensions were. There was also this thing. The article suggests it was a collab between SGI and Intergraph, but I've never seen one wearing an SGI badge.

 

But, as the article mentions, this kind of thing was extremely uncommon at the time. I bet the most common UNIX workstation resolution until the end of the genre was 1280x1024. Most UNIX machines were essentially single-purpose boxes that got used to do a particular aspect of a job and they usually existed alongside a regular Mac or Windows machine, which was used to do regular office tasks (email, documents, etc.)

 

Idly, regarding 1600x1024 being widescreen, it was still sold as that when Apple released the original Cinema Display in 1999.

 

Ultimately: a QS'02's stock card should do 1920x1200. For a Windows 98 machine, a Rage128 or an early Radeon should do 1920x1200. I have heard reports that Rage128s also work in older PCI Power Macs, although I don't know if they require newer OS releases or if they work fine on like system 7.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

There was an older version of Sony's 24-inch widescreen Trinitron display that SGI was advertising in the mid '90s for its higher end ONYX and Octane systems, but I believe the resolution on that was around 1600x1000, I don't know what the exact pixel dimensions were. There was also this thing. The article suggests it was a collab between SGI and Intergraph, but I've never seen one wearing an SGI badge.

When checking to see what sort of machine you'd typically use a 1600sw with I did stumble across a list of supported resolutions for the SGI Octane's video system and looks like support for "2k-ish" monitors like that Intergraph was there (1080p is apparently its "optimal" resolution; it can go a little higher), but if I was parsing it correctly it needed one of the higher-than-base video options. The entry-level O2 was basically maxed out by the 1600sw's 1600x1024. So, yeah, a monitor that big would definitely count as "exotic hardware" in the mid-90's.
 

1 hour ago, Cory5412 said:

The original post isn't particularly clear to me. Are you looking for a 1920x1200 video card for... what machine?

I was unclear on that too. Most of the cards I'd definitely vouch for supporting that resolution are of early 'aughts vintage, but I'm *fairly* confident that a Rage 128 of the sort included with the original B&W should be able to handle that resolution. It *might* even be possible on one of the higher-end Mach64/Rage Pro cards (on the PC side) from a strict pixel clock standpoint, but most cards of that era don't have enough VRAM to do it at more than 8 or 16 bit color depth. There are other higher-end PC cards like the Matrox Millennium series or various Number Nine Visual products that could probably do the needful in a Windows 9x machine as well, I'd be more concerned about driver limitations than physical ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorgonops said:

Uhm, no. We get that you think anything less than 1600x1200 is a periscope, but really, in the 1990's that was a pretty high-end resolution even on "Workstation" hardware.

Only the SE was dubbed the "Periscope," but I jumped straight to TPD in B&W from there. For color along the way 640x480 was a little too close to Periscope, but once I'd started with 600x400 on the PB100 and Duo230 and color at 1280x1024x24bit at work, I was settle down so working within 800x600 on the PC and 16" on the DuoDock was fine.

 

I think I like 1920x1200 better in the extra pixels on the left side of the display than using a second display for my palettes & toolbars in AI.

 

Gotta run, I'll get back later on the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gorgonops said:

When checking to see what sort of machine you'd typically use a 1600sw with I did stumble across a list of supported resolutions for the SGI Octane's video system

In addition, you needed an add-on card for the Octane. I believe base model O2 also didn't ship with the 1600SW's special digital video connector onboard, so until the PCI cards that could use it showed up (which was several years after the 1600sw became available) you were looking at, I'd estimate, at least $7000 for an O2 configuration where it would be reasonable for it, and I believe ultra-baseline Octane is $30,000 through ~1997 or so.

 

So, yeah, you're definitely looking a few steps above Mac hardware until ~1999, and at that point a Rage128 can do those resolutions "without trouble".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found on old thread about setting up a Win98se to run the Sony GDM-FW900 by searching those terms, so thanks, o! I'll poke around the web some more and see what else I can come up with.

 

One target machine is the Dell Dimension 4100, nicely appointed, thin generic case I learned was shared by Mac Clone makerss. Figures, I bought it for its looks and a case hack, but never bothered with it. Some flavor of PIII or other's in there with AGPv2.0@66MHz and a 512MB RAM ceiling. Should be plenty to run PADS, my ROM Burner and Missile Command. Had Win95 and seemed to run fine, we'll see.

 

June 2010 - Best Graphics Card With Win98SE Drivers?  11page discussion! Mostly gamer POV, but it should be a good timeslice reference.October 2001 Autodesk community forums topic The Ideal CAD Computer skimmed it, nice high end workstation POV, interesting to me anyway.

Can't relocate the forums discussion I found at work, but I may have printed it out?

 

QS'02 has a GeForce4MX/64MB running the big wide HP display swimmingly at 24bit. Bought that for a Dual Head 1600x1200 setup, but it would only do 1280x1024 on the second display. Now it's not a disappointment at all! [:D]

 

If I can find a PCI card for the Mac that'll do 1920x1200@24bit under OS9 I'll be delighted. Suggestions?

 

ubuntuBox is a moving target, I've no idea what I'll want to put together, be able to afford or be in any way compatible  .  .  .  no worries!

 

LOVING this resolution. No wonder that BIG/WideAss 24" Sony CRT was such a hit back in the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gorgonops said:

Is this the card where you've talked about swapping crystals to make it do weird resolutions? Again, remember, on newer video cards (almost anything made since, I dunno, 1993 or so) that's not a thing. Almost everything uses PLL clock generators to generate sync and pixel clocks. The primary limitations are the range of the PLL, the speed of the RAMDAC hardware, and the bandwidth of the VRAM. (Remember, even running at 8 bit color a 1080i display requires the hardware to push over 120MB a second from RAM out the monitor port. I believe that's about four times faster than the RAM->CPU bus in a Macintosh SE/30.)

That'd be the one, It supports CRAZY BIG resolutions in pan-n-zoom, especially in 1bit mode. That should mean the pixels are in the frame buffer, but not necessarily that the RAMDAC can squirt 'em out the back and down the cable I guess? Pretty sure all the research/work I did on that project is in one of my disappeared threads. :-/

 

The ASSuMEd limitations of RAMDAC limitations/capabilities came from experiments with swapping ROMs on Radius Vidcards, trying to jailbreak an 8bit card into doing something silly. Getting a higher resolution that ought to have worked, given the VRAM onboard, rings a bell. Dunno, there's a thread about it somewhere  .  .  .  maybe.

 

So it's the availability of the drivers that's the limiting factor, given pixel clock rate support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Around 2005 had a Sony FW900 on my desk at work for a while. It was huge, heavy, and gorgeous!

I was running it off a first-gen stock G5.

Later I got a flat panel so I moved the FW to the lab and run it off a MDD G4 with the GF4MX card.

It was great for watching movies while I was testing parts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's as I've been saying for, gosh, a few months' worth of these threads? The ATi Rage128 appears to do it just fine. That card works in earlier PCI power macs, although I'm not 100% on what OS compatibility is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a proponent of the much maligned "stock" ATI Rage 128 Pro/16MB in the AGP slot of my DA/466. So far NVIDIA GFMX has been the answer to any challenge I've faced. Looks like I'll be wanting to acquire the Rage128 in PCI, what's the model number of the card you're suggesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

I've always been a proponent of the much maligned "stock" ATI Rage 128 Pro/16MB in the AGP slot of my DA/466.

The reasons it's "maligned" mostly revolve around OS X. It's a perfectly fine card for OS 9-or-less.

 

3 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Looks like I'll be wanting to acquire the Rage128 in PCI, what's the model number of the card you're suggesting?

Here's an ebay link for the stock card in a B&W:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-ATI-Rage-128-Graphics-Card-16-MB-for-Blue-White-G3-66-MHZ-PCI-VGA/183075020133

 

Here's a page of old ATI drivers. Looks like in theory at least you can run the 128 on OSes as old at 7.5.5.

https://gona.mactar.hu/ATI_Mac/

 

If you really want one of these cards maybe I should go dig in the garage and see if I still have my B&W's stock card. I pulled it and replaced it with a Radeon 7000, I have no use for it.
 

15 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

QS'02 has a GeForce4MX/64MB running the big wide HP display swimmingly at 24bit. Bought that for a Dual Head 1600x1200 setup, but it would only do 1280x1024 on the second display. Now it's not a disappointment at all! [:D]

I remember once getting really t-eed off with a Geforce MX card, I can't remember if it was a 2MX or 4MX, because of some limitations it had with the second video port on it. It's been a long time, but I vaguely recall it had a really lame RAMDAC that couldn't run the resolution I wanted (it might have been as low as 1280x1024) at any higher than a 60hz refresh rate, which my eyes can't tolerate on a CRT. It seemed like it was really gimped for such a late-model card; my several-years-older dual-head Matrox G400 could do the job it couldn't.

 

15 hours ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

One target machine is the Dell Dimension 4100, nicely appointed, thin generic case I learned was shared by Mac Clone makerss. Figures, I bought it for its looks and a case hack, but never bothered with it. Some flavor of PIII or other's in there with AGPv2.0@66MHz and a 512MB RAM ceiling. Should be plenty to run PADS, my ROM Burner and Missile Command. Had Win95 and seemed to run fine, we'll see.

What kind of video card does it have in it now? I did a search for the specs of a 4100 and it looks like at least some of them came with Rage 128s stock. (Which would match up with the vintage of their 815 motherboard chipsets.) You're probably good to go out of the box with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Rage 128s...since I added a DVD drive to my B&W I wanted to upgrade the video card to a Rage 128 with the DVD daughterboard...the only thing is, I don't really know what one of those looks like with the daughter board attached.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ATI-TECHNOLOGIES-INC-RAGE-128-109-57400-00-VIDEO-CARD/150953255098?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D48419%26meid%3D0d42bdc4c86a4fa5b83b75aa194a774c%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D183075020133%26itm%3D150953255098&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

I found this but it says nothing about Macs so maybe it's the wrong card...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, itsvince725 said:

I found this but it says nothing about Macs so maybe it's the wrong card...

Well, it looks a lot like this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-Power-Mac-G3-Tower-Original-ATI-Rage128-630-2858-video-card-w-DVD-decoder/142687887366

 

so it could very well be the right one. Unfortunately the part numbers live on the back so you can't be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, forgot I've got a couple of those cards in my 6400/6500/G3 drawers that I can test in the QS'02 and then back down the food chain! [:)]

 

Dell/98se PC version will likely be a crap shoot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a Radeon 7000 in my G3DT and it offers 1900x1200/60hz via VGA. The card is a modified PC card that requires driver installation before use, but once its installed it is quite good. 

 

The OEM Mac card came with half the vram and is rarer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've flashed the 64MB PC version? Lots of 32MB versions (presumably PC for the most part) are available pretty inexpensively in NOS/Never Used/Sealed condition so I'm wondering what's on yours?

 

It'll be fine in the Dell's AGP2 slot and drivers for Win98se appear easy to come by. [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought mine from howfunkel two years ago for $30 shipped via eBay. The cards he was using at the time were Sapphire ones.

 

If you want to flash your own, here is the guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I wanna use it in the Dell, pretty sure my Rage 128/DVD cards will work in Macs at least as far as the ClearPlexiBG3DTbuild. IIRC, they run in 6360/6400/6500 so they should work in the 9500 and 8600 boards as well I'd think.

 

Haven't answered my question: is your card the 32MB or 64MB version? [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64MB! :D It is the one that can do 1900x1200, the 32mb does not go that high. 

 

The 128s if I recall can't do more than 1600x1200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×