For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum The Computer Forum topic #564530
View in linear mode

Subject: "i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution" Previous topic | Next topic
therubeFri Sep-22-17 07:22 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
Fri Sep-22-17 09:16 PM by therube

  

          

i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution

(Onboard video, HD Graphics 4000) appears to be 2560x1600?
(I had always thought it was 1920x1080.)


I do need a new monitor (or TV as monitor) & thought I was limited to 1920x1080 (by my CPU video).

Had been using an LG TV, 32" 1080p (most likely at < 1920x1080).


When I check (Win7) Display Properties, I'm only afforded a max resolution of 1920x1080.

Why is that?
Is what I'm offered based upon the monitor I have hooked up?
So if I hook up something with higher resolution, will I be offered something higher then 1920x1080?


If I can go higher resolution, up to 2560x1600, I'll look into that.
QHD is 2560x1440. (Wonder why Intel includes that extra 160?)

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Sep 22nd 2017
1
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Nov 29th 2017
2
      RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Nov 30th 2017
3
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
4
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
5
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
6
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
7
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
8
      RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 01st 2017
9
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 03rd 2017
10
RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution
Dec 03rd 2017
11

TtechFri Sep-22-17 10:02 PM
Member since Aug 06th 2002
10412 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 0)


  

          

Quote:
Is what I'm offered based upon the monitor I have hooked up?

Yes.
Quote:
So if I hook up something with higher resolution, will I be offered something higher then 1920x1080?

Yes, if the graphics controller will support a higher resolution.

Behind every good computer... is a jumble of wires 'n stuff.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
therubeWed Nov-29-17 05:34 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#2. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to Ttech (Reply # 1)


  

          

Quote:
Yes, if the graphics controller will support a higher resolution.

So it turns out its a little bit more then that.

Supposedly Intel HD 4000 graphics (which I have) only supports up to 1920x1200 over HDMI (or DVI), while DisplayPort would have handled 2560x1440.


Unfortunately, my M/B does not have DP.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157293


And then, for whatever reason, I just can't get the thing to look good (text mainly), no matter which buttons I've pushed. Either bolded where it shouldn't be, or washed out where you wouldn't want it to be, along with jaggies. Tried different resolutions, different "modes", bright & contrast & ...

https://www.costco.com/HP-Omen-32%22-QHD-Monitor.product.100312359.html


I'll figure something out.
I could get a video card?
Maybe I can pickup another LG 32" TV (which is what I was using before & worked fine) on the cheap?
Thankfully Costco has easy returns if I go that route.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
SidThu Nov-30-17 04:28 PM
Charter member
5385 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 2)


          

Steve, take a look at the newer 4K screens. They have far denser resolution than the older 1080p models. Please let us know how this plays out. Thanx!

PS: I'm talking about tv screens

.
Onward & Upward !
Sid

WINDOWS 10
ASUS P8Z77-V Pro MB
Intel i5 3750K CPU
8g Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM
Corsair Neutron 250g SSD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

therubeFri Dec-01-17 06:56 AM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#4. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 0)


  

          

So I bring this little Dell desktop home from work, hoping that it will work at native resolution.

It has Intel HD 530 graphics on it.
I hook it up to the monitor (via HDMI), & it comes up 2560x1440, so that worked.

And overall, everything looks better (then when hooked up to my computer), but still it is not "right", well, at least doesn't look right to me.

(Mainly talking about, text...)

Some place, some sites, look just fine.

Some, it looks washed out.

Some sites can be made to look better, but adjusting the page zoom.
Sometimes a page goes from "just not right" at 1 zoom level, to being "dark & bold" at the very next level. So you might have; gradual, gradual, gradual, them BAM, as you adjust the (browser) page zoom level.

Native resolution can work for some programs, others, it is just too small.

This board looks basically OK, but the font in this reply window is extremely fine (like a fine point pen).

When native resolution doesn't work, then we're back to changing from native, adjust in particular programs, when available, or using Windows (display) "Zoom" features.


As I'm testing, I'm using a "foreign" computer so that makes things more difficult, as "my" stuff isn't there. (And it has Win10, which seems like utter crap. Maybe crap in the way we the user is "treated", things forced upon us, rather then actual failings of the OS itself.)


So all in all, I'm not particularly pleased with what I'm seeing, even when the monitor is able to reach its potential.

I kind of expected more, like "really stunning", oh, I don't know what, but if you played a movie, something where you'd say, "wow, that looks really nice". But instead its more, "oh, its a monitor, & its OK.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
therubeFri Dec-01-17 07:14 AM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 4)
Fri Dec-01-17 07:17 AM by therube

  

          

(I've purposely broken the links, better opened in individual
tabs, I'd think. So copy & paste.)


Tiny desktop icons
https://s25.postimg.org/fpq7ls2vx/qhd-1-desktop.png


Tiny reply, fine point reply text
https://s25.postimg.org/3nutrn1d9/qhd-2-reply.png


A shot of this thread, native resolution, not bad
Note that my screen capture is not working correctly
& not sure why? The machine/graphics, the resolution?
Never saw anything like this on my machine.
https://s25.postimg.org/5fnsmjsfx/qhd-3-thread-native_resolution.png


A shot of this thread, native resolution, Windows Zoom @ 125%
https://s25.postimg.org/dl5ukpoel/qhd-4-thread-native-zoomed-125.png


A shot of this thread, 1920x1080, Windows Zoom back at 100%
https://s25.postimg.org/n5ph7llgd/qhd-5-1920-1080-no_zoom.png

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
therubeFri Dec-01-17 07:18 AM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 5)


  

          

The first shot, again, hotlinked.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
therubeFri Dec-01-17 07:26 AM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#7. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 5)
Fri Dec-01-17 07:27 AM by therube

  

          

Ah, I screwed them all up.
In all cases, above, my browser was (already) set to 133% zoom & I didn't realize.

So one more.
Native resolution, 2560x1440, no Windows Zoom, no browser zoom.
And, this particular screenshot got really screwed up.

h ttps://s25.postimg.org/4q50a8271/qhd-6-native-no_zoom-anywhere.png

Anyhow, like this, things are quite small.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
therubeFri Dec-01-17 02:36 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 4)
Fri Dec-01-17 02:37 PM by therube

  

          

One other thing I forgot to mention, is that the look of a
site may change markedly depending on whether I allow
JavaScript to run on a site or whether I block it.

URL:
http://www.marylandgasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D&area=Westminster&dl=Y&intro=Y

https://s25.postimg.org/4qe71aojx/qhd-7-javascript_OFF_vs_ON.png

On the left, I have blocked JavaScript, & it looks pretty
decent.
On the right, JavaScript is allowed, & it looks washed
out?

I certainly can understand some change based on the allowance
or blockage of JavaScript, but here its to an extreme?


(I'll check later, on a different machine, to confirm that
there is either no or only very little difference outside of
the machine I'm on now.  I have never seen such a change like
that on my computer, not this work computer, when running a
1920x1080 monitor.)

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
therubeFri Dec-01-17 03:51 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#9. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 8)


  

          

This is on a 1280x1024 "square" monitor.

There is some difference with JavaScript Off / On, but not
nearly to the extent as with the 2560x1440 monitor.

https://s25.postimg.org/6jh3pwk3x/qhd-8-_JS_on_vs_off-1280-1024-square.png

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

therubeSun Dec-03-17 01:58 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 0)


  

          

A good article.

Confused about HiDPI and Retina display? ― Understanding pixel density in the age of 4K


I say that as I'm back on my 27 @ 1920x1080 - that ordinarily I'd be running at 1600x900.

I'll switch back to the 32, later.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

therubeSun Dec-03-17 04:28 PM
Member since Jan 22nd 2003
16604 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#11. "RE: i5-3570k CPU, Graphics Max Resolution"
In response to therube (Reply # 0)


  

          

So they say you can go into (Intel) HD Graphics Control Panel & override the allowed settings, so you can set up a 2560x1440 aspect ratio (over HDMI).

And you can.
But that did not seem to make any difference... at first.
I could select that ratio within Intel's utility, but 2560x1440 did not show up on Windows Screen Resolution nor did selecting it within Intel's utility cause any change.

So I thought that was a no-go.

After switch back to my 27, & now back to 32, for whatever reason 2560x1440 does now show up in Windows Screen Resolution. (I have not restarted my computer or even logged out, in all this time.)

Anyhow, at 2560x1440 the screen real estate is "huge", icons & all else are tiny.

Can it be used this way, yes.
Would you want to, I don't think so.
You can fit two, say browser windows, side by side, & if adjust the browser zoom level, they can be made to look OK.
If there were a need to "get something done" where you needed the size, you can do it.


PS:

Intel's utility warns you that by overriding you can... damage or lessen life, kind of thing.
Refresh rate matters - not that I know why you'd set one rate vs. another? Anyhow, I set up both 30 & 40 Hz. When I (saw &) selected 2560x1440, monitor came up at 40 Hz. So (now) I figured I'd try 30 Hz & see what might happen with that. Monitor said something like "not compatible", going to "shut down". And I thought that would suck. So I just kept hitting ESC & luckily the monitor did not shut down, but instead stayed at 40 Hz. Suppose I could try other Hz, 60 or whatever, but at least if 40 works, I don't see any reason to push it any more.

Windows "Zoom". (... wait a minute, I've got to drop down to 1920x1080 ... ah, better)
Windows Zoom in Win7 gives you choices of 100, 125 & 150%.
Windows Zoom in Win10... I'm thinking gave you up to 200%
Big difference is that in Win7 you have to log out (meaning closing all application) & log back in before the zoom level takes effect. In Win10, most applications zoom interactively as you change the slider, so you can see the effects in real time.
In that respect Win10 makes it easier to pick & choose, easier to play monitor aspect ratio's against Windows zoom levels.
Thinking in Win7, you're more apt to change screen resolution rather then adjusting zoom (unless you regularly log out).


When I first put in 32, the resolution defaulted (recommended) 1920x1200.

After switching back to 27 & back to 32, 2560x1440 now shows as defaulted (recommended).
And 1920x1200 is now "unassigned", with 1920x1080 being the next highlighted resolution shown.
Maybe it only shows like because I've forced the 2560x1440 resolution in there.
Guessing it will default to picking/recommending the highest available resolution when the monitor start up. Originally, it only saw 1920x1200, so it picked that. Now that 2560x1440 is available, its showing that.


"How much" fits on a screen depends on the resolution chosen, not by the monitor size.
1920x1080 shows the same "stuff" regardless of whether its on a 24" monitor or on a 32" monitor.
Only difference is that the "stuff" is larger on the 32, but still uses the same real estate.

When you change the resolution, that is where you can adjust how much stuff fits on the screen.
1920x1080 vs 1920x1200, gives you a little more height, so you can see more of a page, top to bottom.
Width is unchanged, so you cannot see more, left to right.
2560x1440 gives you a lot more in both width & height, but by the same token, everything is much smaller.

--------------------------------------
BANK OF AMERICA.COM ONLINE BANKING SUCKS IN THE HUGEST WAY IMAGINABLE

Newegg.com's new image gallery layout sucks in the hugest way imaginable too !
And now they're using JavaScript to "turn" pages to boot ! SUCKS

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum The Computer Forum topic #564530 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.