VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

A while back, I bought a laptop (Hewlett Packard G6 1331) which has a Radeon GPU, and it turned out to stretch *every* game that wasn't running at the laptop's full native resolution (1366x768) to fullscreen. Meaning that, say, if I ran a game that used 640x480 (which is 4:3 aspect ratio) then the game screen was stretched on the laptop to cover the full 1366x768 9:6 widescreen display.

Obviously the aspect ratio setting of the GFX card (AMD Radeon HD 6620G + 7450M Dual GPU) needed adjusting, but, er, the setting was greyed out. Don't you just love it when software treats you like an idiot and won't let you set things up as you like?

Anyway, Google showed this was a common problem when Windows 7 was run with an AMD/ATI GFX card, as for some reason unimaginable to every disgruntled user who complained of the problem, the writers of the AMD/ATI driver software had decided to not allow the user to set the GPU Scaling options, as long as THE CURRENT GRAPHICAL RESOLUTION WAS THE SAME AS THE NATIVE GRAPHICAL RESOLUTION OF THE MONITOR (be it a laptop monitor or an external monitor connected to a desktop). Seriously, for some reason that would baffle Sherlock Holmes, they restricted you from altering the GPU Scaling options if your current resolution was set at the optimal resolution as dictated by the hardware!!!

I've found two working solutions, both from the same forum thread ( http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=312794 ). If you don't want to read them, then skip ahead, the point is that they both worked, but now don't (well, solution 2 does still work to a degree, though for how long is anyone's guess).

Solution 1

Use the program that is linked to in that thread, although the link itself is dead, but I found it at http://media.mymtw.com/downloads/ATIGPUScalingFix-Win7/ (to find other links, google "ATIGPUScalingFix"). You have to keep this program running in the background, but it does stop the G6 1331 from setting everything to full widescreen.


Solution 2

[Quoted from that web page]

"ATI's solution as far as I've read about it was to have it grayed out unless a resolution lower than native was used, later on the ability to enable and disable scaling was added back but the modes remain locked, lowering resolution, altering the options and then setting it back should work although it'll gray out again, main issue with this for me is for older titles using lower resolutions, no way to set scaling mode with that method although ATI's solution is fine for desktop usage and similar.

(I can't remember where I read this but I think it was a post on ATI's forum from a moderator, fairly certain I've seen it explained on that Catalystmaker tweet as well.)"

I've just done this, and it worked. For some reason, the first time didn't take, so I did it again, and it worked. What I did was


a) Take the laptop's screen resolution down from 1366 x 768 to the next lowest (1360 x 768, I don't know why they bothered adding a resolution that was so extremely slightly lower than the next one up, but still...).

b) Go to the AMD Vision Engine Control Center > My Built in Displays > Properties (Built in Display). The scaling options are no linger greyed out (as they are when the laptop is at it's normal, maximum , resolution), and in fact there's a new option, Centered. I selected Centered, and of course applied the setting.

c) Then I changed the screen resolution back to 1366 x 768. The scaling options in the AMD Vision Engine Control Center are now greyed out again (and wrongly show full screen mode as being set, strangely), but the laptop no longer streches everything to full screen, and so far, every game I've tried has kept to it's native aspect ratio.

These two solutions worked for me, but not on a mate's laptop (different model, but also a Hewlett Packard with a Radeon card). He had Windows 8 on it, but neither solution 1 nor 2 worked on it, so I formatted it, put Windows 7 on, and solution 1 above worked fine on his laptop (I don't think I tried solution 2, there was no need), so Windows 8 apparently doesn't work with either of the solutions. The trouble is, recently something (I'm 99.9% sure it was a Windows update) has altered things, and solution 1 (the ATIGPUScalingFix program) is now useless, as it has no effect at all. Solution 2 does sort of work, but of the three options it gives you to choose from, only the bottom two (stretch to full wide-screen regardless of how badly it messes up the aspect ration, and show with the proper aspect ratio but with no stretching as all so it's a strict one to one pixel to screen ratio) work, the top option, the one we want (stretch everything but keep the aspect ratio, so that say a 640x480 game is stretched to full screen vertically, but has black bars on either side of the screen, and is 4:3) can be selected, but when you Apply or OK it, it reverts back to whatever it was set to before. The quick mess about I had with the registry before I gave up in the "I hate PCs/Windows/Microsoft" mood that so often bogs down us Windows users did nothing to help.

This is the same on three laptops (all Hewlett Packard, all with Windows 7 with updates turned on, all with Radeon GPUs) that I know of.So can anyone suggest any solutions or workarounds, please. And what are the experiences of anyone else with a laptop with a Radeon card and Windows 7 (especially if the words Hewlett Packard are involved 😠 ).

And who's fault is this ridiculous problem; Microsoft's, Hewlett Packard, or AMD/ATI?

If I can't find a fix for this problem, it might well be that a future Windows 7 update will remove even the one to one pixel mode, leaving only the stretch-everything-to-full-widescreen.

Reply 2 of 13, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Davros wrote:

I know nvidia dont allow gpu scaling if your connected via dsub but on dvi they do, maybe ati are the same

That wouldn't apply to laptops, would it? All three of the machines I can confirm this problem on are laptops. Anyway, this problem didn't exist (or rather it did, but could be bypassed via the two solutions I listed) on Windows 7 up until a few weeks or months ago, when some update or other removed the ability for the solutions to work.

Reply 3 of 13, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Yea I know about this one 😀

Easiest is to just set the resolution to 1024 x 768 (by the way cheap 1366 x 768 screens are PERFECT for retro gaming as all the games support 1024 x 768) on the desktop, then go into the AMD control panel and enable display scaling.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 4 of 13, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Yea I know about this one 😀

Easiest is to just set the resolution to 1024 x 768 (by the way cheap 1366 x 768 screens are PERFECT for retro gaming as all the games support 1024 x 768) on the desktop, then go into the AMD control panel and enable display scaling.

Sorry, I thought I'd replied to this already. I can't get display scaling to work any more, some time in the past few months it's been disabled (disallowed, or whatever), presumably by a Windows update.

I can, as you suggest, take the resolution down to 1024x768, or 800x600, or whatever, and then go to the AMD Vision Control Centre (which is what I take it you mean by the AMD control panel?) and there are three options relating to this problem;

Preserve Aspect Ration,
Full Screen,
Centred

Full Screen and Centred both work as you'd imagine (Full Screen stretches whatever is onscreen, regardless of resolution or aspect ratio, to the laptop's native resolution of 1366x768, and Centred draws the games output in the centre of the screen on a one game pixel equals one screen pixel (which keeps the aspect ration correctly, of course) with black borders where the game screen is less than the laptop's native resolution), but Preserve Aspect Ratio hasn't worked since the Windows update (or whatever it was that disabled the option).

If I select Preserve Aspect Ratio (which used to do what I wanted, i.e. if the game was 800x600 4:3 then the laptop would display it scaled up to the screen but still with the 4:3 ration, so that the game screen would use the full vertical height of the laptop's screen, but have black bars on the left and right of the screen) then when I click OK or Apply then the on screen setting (the three menu items I list above, where you can select one of them by highlighting the selection circle/box) just goes back to Full Screen or Centred, whichever was selected before I selected Preserve Aspect Ratio. Selecting Preserve Aspect Ratio does not on it's on cause the screen to go to Preserve Aspect Ratio mode (or else I'd do that, and not click OK or Apply), you have to click OK or Apply for the setting to take effect, but when you do click OK or Apply then the screen mode doesn't change, the on-screen setting menu just goes back to showing that the last (well, current) setting is selected.

By the way, what system do you use this method on? Is it a laptop with Windows 7, with Windows updates turned on, and with an ATI card? If so, then perhaps it's not Windows update that's removed the ability to Preserve Aspect Ration.

Reply 5 of 13, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I have two notebooks. Both have an AMD APU. E-300 in one case and E-450 in the other. All the Windows update + I update the AMD driver every now and then...

These APUs are quite weak, but fantastic for old games and gaming on a budget 😀

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 8 of 13, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

These APUs are on the level of the Intel Atom. Very basic netbook performance. BUT also very cheap. I have this 11" notebook, I think it's a HP, and for the money (it was around $350) it's awesome. Yes the CPU is very slow, but the GPU has great compatibility (all the 3D games work) and plenty of grunt for older games.

It does struggle with anything recent though.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 9 of 13, by d1stortion

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Could be, although I would think that the E-350 would be competitive with a 2500+ or something like that (with all other processes running on the second core). Still I recall that it went sub-30 FPS at times...

On the other hand UT2004 runs quite well on Sandy Bridge integrated graphics.

Reply 10 of 13, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Kerr Avon I had another look and installed the very latest driver.

What's happening now is that only "centered" sticks. The "Preserve Aspect Ratio" setting doesn't stick anymore.

So what's the solution? Play only at 1024 x 768 because with "centered" this works fine. Remember you have to set the desktop resolution to 1024 x 768 and only then can you change the setting to "centered".

Might want to tell AMD about this because I'm sure this worked in the past, but I doubt that this is a priority for them.

Regarding performance of my E-300 notebook. I just ran Aquamark 3 and what I noticed is that firstly it took a very long time for the benchmark to load. The score I got is:

24691 (3342 for GFX and 4730 for CPU). 24.69 fps.

In comparison a similar priced 14" notebook with Intel Celeron (Celeron B820 1.7 GHz):

Loaded a LOT faster for starters and the results are:

38574 (6285 for GFX and 4992 for CPU). 38.57 fps

Maybe this helps comparing it to other...

For gaming I think it's much smarter to get a model up with an AMD A6 or something like that. Now there are A4s as well but they might just be same netbook chips rebranded as they are clocked also very low at around 1GHz.

My website with reviews, demos, drivers, tutorials and more...
My YouTube channel

Reply 11 of 13, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Kerr Avon I had another look and installed the very latest driver.

What's happening now is that only "centered" sticks. The "Preserve Aspect Ratio" setting doesn't stick anymore.

So it's the graphics driver? That's strange, as I've not deliberately upgrade it, does Windows update install graphics drivers?

Anyway, where can I download older drivers for the ATI Radeon please, as I'll try an older driver, see if that fixes the problem. I hope Radeon drivers aren't like DIrectX, in that DirectX is a lot of trouble to downgrade to an earlier version.

So what's the solution? Play only at 1024 x 768 because with "centered" this works fine. Remember you have to set the desktop resolution to 1024 x 768 and only then can you change the setting to "centered".

That's what I've been doing (well, the desktop is set to 1366x768, and the setting in the AMD Vision Control Center is 'Centered'), and for most (of the few non-widescreen) games it's great, I set the in-game resolution to 1024x768, which results in the correct 4:3 aspect ratio, with black borders on either side of the screen.

But for a few games my laptop isn't fast enough for 1024x768; these are DOSBox based games (System Shock and Carmageddon) which will only run at full speed in 800x600, which of course results in black borders at the top and bottom of the screen. Not a major problem, though it does make the text in System Shock harder to read (my eyesight isn't great, sadly).

Might want to tell AMD about this because I'm sure this worked in the past, but I doubt that this is a priority for them.

They know about this, it's a problem reported (and complained about) on the 'net for some time now, I found that out when I first googled the problem and discovered a lot of disgruntled gamers on official and unofficial forums. The problem doesn't seem to effect desktop PCs, from what I've read, which is a little strange. Why would such a book effect laptops specifically and not desktops?

Regarding performance of my E-300 notebook. I just ran Aquamark 3 and what I noticed is that firstly it took a very long time fo […]
Show full quote

Regarding performance of my E-300 notebook. I just ran Aquamark 3 and what I noticed is that firstly it took a very long time for the benchmark to load. The score I got is:

24691 (3342 for GFX and 4730 for CPU). 24.69 fps.

In comparison a similar priced 14" notebook with Intel Celeron (Celeron B820 1.7 GHz):

Loaded a LOT faster for starters and the results are:

38574 (6285 for GFX and 4992 for CPU). 38.57 fps

Maybe this helps comparing it to other...

For gaming I think it's much smarter to get a model up with an AMD A6 or something like that. Now there are A4s as well but they might just be same netbook chips rebranded as they are clocked also very low at around 1GHz.

I know. Unless you're prepared to pay a premium (relatively speaking) then it does seem with laptops that you have to choose between a good CPU and a good GPU, at least in Britain. I need a laptop for work (well, I don't need one, so much, but it's convenient if I can type when I'm commuting, plus I often have to work away from home), but my wages aren't great, plus I have to balance the high likely-hood of the laptop getting stolen (or lost, I am forgetful) so I more or less have to choose between either an Intel CPU + Intel graphics, or an AMD CPU + ATI graphics, the former being a better processor with an inferior GPU, the latter being an inferior CPU with a better GPU. And since 3D games rely more on the GPU, and I tend to play older games anyway (Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament 1999/2004, No One Lives Forever 1 and 2, Half-Life + mods, etc) which don't need today's ultra-fast CPUs, I tend to choose a laptop with a better GPU than CPU. And of course, any laptop you can buy can handle office software, so that isn't even a consideration.

On the other hand, emulators mostly need a more powerful CPU than a good GPU. If you're only going to emulate anything from the fourth console generation or lower (SNES/Megadrive and older) then a cheap CPU should be more than enough, but if you want to emulate the sixth generation consoles (PS2/Gamecube/etc) then you need a much better CPU. Fifth generation emulators depend on the emulator itself - most N64 emulators are fine on a lesser CPU, but the upcoming cycle accurate N64 emulators (CEN64, and the MESS N64 emulator) will need very good CPUs to run at full speed, though neither of these emulators is available at present. Current N64 emulators, though lacking in compatibility (and using hacks to enable some games to run) work fine on older CPUs.

There is also at least one cycle accurate SNES emulator, and I think also one for the Megadrive (Genesis), and these need much better CPUs than the other SNES/Megadrive emulators require, but I don't know if a cheap laptop would run them fast enough.

Reply 12 of 13, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

On ebay earlier this year I bought a HP DV6-7000 which is a 15.6" Core i7 with a GT 650M, Bluray, and 1080p! The Intel HD 4000 is also active since it uses NV Optimus, which significantly extends battery life. It was new open box for $750.

If you are willing to look at used machines you can find better deals. Lots of factory refurbished on eBay too.

Reply 13 of 13, by mr_bigmouth_502

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kerr Avon wrote:
So it's the graphics driver? That's strange, as I've not deliberately upgrade it, does Windows update install graphics drivers? […]
Show full quote
Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Kerr Avon I had another look and installed the very latest driver.

What's happening now is that only "centered" sticks. The "Preserve Aspect Ratio" setting doesn't stick anymore.

So it's the graphics driver? That's strange, as I've not deliberately upgrade it, does Windows update install graphics drivers?

Anyway, where can I download older drivers for the ATI Radeon please, as I'll try an older driver, see if that fixes the problem. I hope Radeon drivers aren't like DIrectX, in that DirectX is a lot of trouble to downgrade to an earlier version.

So what's the solution? Play only at 1024 x 768 because with "centered" this works fine. Remember you have to set the desktop resolution to 1024 x 768 and only then can you change the setting to "centered".

That's what I've been doing (well, the desktop is set to 1366x768, and the setting in the AMD Vision Control Center is 'Centered'), and for most (of the few non-widescreen) games it's great, I set the in-game resolution to 1024x768, which results in the correct 4:3 aspect ratio, with black borders on either side of the screen.

But for a few games my laptop isn't fast enough for 1024x768; these are DOSBox based games (System Shock and Carmageddon) which will only run at full speed in 800x600, which of course results in black borders at the top and bottom of the screen. Not a major problem, though it does make the text in System Shock harder to read (my eyesight isn't great, sadly).

Might want to tell AMD about this because I'm sure this worked in the past, but I doubt that this is a priority for them.

They know about this, it's a problem reported (and complained about) on the 'net for some time now, I found that out when I first googled the problem and discovered a lot of disgruntled gamers on official and unofficial forums. The problem doesn't seem to effect desktop PCs, from what I've read, which is a little strange. Why would such a book effect laptops specifically and not desktops?

Regarding performance of my E-300 notebook. I just ran Aquamark 3 and what I noticed is that firstly it took a very long time fo […]
Show full quote

Regarding performance of my E-300 notebook. I just ran Aquamark 3 and what I noticed is that firstly it took a very long time for the benchmark to load. The score I got is:

24691 (3342 for GFX and 4730 for CPU). 24.69 fps.

In comparison a similar priced 14" notebook with Intel Celeron (Celeron B820 1.7 GHz):

Loaded a LOT faster for starters and the results are:

38574 (6285 for GFX and 4992 for CPU). 38.57 fps

Maybe this helps comparing it to other...

For gaming I think it's much smarter to get a model up with an AMD A6 or something like that. Now there are A4s as well but they might just be same netbook chips rebranded as they are clocked also very low at around 1GHz.

I know. Unless you're prepared to pay a premium (relatively speaking) then it does seem with laptops that you have to choose between a good CPU and a good GPU, at least in Britain. I need a laptop for work (well, I don't need one, so much, but it's convenient if I can type when I'm commuting, plus I often have to work away from home), but my wages aren't great, plus I have to balance the high likely-hood of the laptop getting stolen (or lost, I am forgetful) so I more or less have to choose between either an Intel CPU + Intel graphics, or an AMD CPU + ATI graphics, the former being a better processor with an inferior GPU, the latter being an inferior CPU with a better GPU. And since 3D games rely more on the GPU, and I tend to play older games anyway (Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament 1999/2004, No One Lives Forever 1 and 2, Half-Life + mods, etc) which don't need today's ultra-fast CPUs, I tend to choose a laptop with a better GPU than CPU. And of course, any laptop you can buy can handle office software, so that isn't even a consideration.

On the other hand, emulators mostly need a more powerful CPU than a good GPU. If you're only going to emulate anything from the fourth console generation or lower (SNES/Megadrive and older) then a cheap CPU should be more than enough, but if you want to emulate the sixth generation consoles (PS2/Gamecube/etc) then you need a much better CPU. Fifth generation emulators depend on the emulator itself - most N64 emulators are fine on a lesser CPU, but the upcoming cycle accurate N64 emulators (CEN64, and the MESS N64 emulator) will need very good CPUs to run at full speed, though neither of these emulators is available at present. Current N64 emulators, though lacking in compatibility (and using hacks to enable some games to run) work fine on older CPUs.

There is also at least one cycle accurate SNES emulator, and I think also one for the Megadrive (Genesis), and these need much better CPUs than the other SNES/Megadrive emulators require, but I don't know if a cheap laptop would run them fast enough.

The cycle-accurate SNES emulator you're probably referring to is Higan, though it used to go by the name BSNES. I can actually run it at full speed in the accuracy profile on my desktop, which sports a Pentium Dual Core E6300 overclocked to 4GHz. Even though that may sound like a high clock speed, I have no doubts that even a modern Core i3 could outperform it at a lower clockspeed.