Jonsmith0815 wrote on 2024-04-27, 19:33:
I think that an external VGA to dual link DVI / HDMI 1.3 adapter might be the best bet, as the VGA port seems to have some kind of support for higher refresh rates. I don’t know what the maximum of VGA on the GeForce 6 or 7 series is and if such an adapter for high refresh rates exists.
Unfortunately not. This is certainly the simplest option, but the quality is the worst. I've already tried 5 different converters, including GEFEN and OSSC, but with all of them, the image is, sorry, crappy (Not clear, not bright, with visible distortions and broken colors). Even the standard VGA input on the monitor itself has image quality issues. Only a digital connection gave the correct beautiful and clear image on my LCD monitors. VGA is good for CRT monitors (Very good). But for LCD better DVI Dual-Link \ DVI\HDMI or (Maybe) active DVI (DL\SL) to DP converter. At least that's what I see on the two LCD monitors I already have (from different companies).
I have already solved all the problems that concern me by flashing a different EDID to the DVI-DL port. However, I have so far abandoned the original goals outlined in the topic title. I looked at it thoroughly, tested it, and decided that 1920x1080 was still too much for my monitor, and I liked how everything looks better with a resolution of 1600x900@100Hz (For which SingleLink + PowerStrip is quite enough). I made it native in EDID (Instead of the previous 1920x1080) and flashed it. From now on, the driver in Win98 considers 1600x900 as native for this monitor, instead of the original 1920x1080. This helped solve all the problems with setting lower resolutions (Which are most often used under Win9x in older games), especially non-standard ones that arise due to the driver's attempts to scale some of them to 1920x1080, which, combined with a high refresh rate, gave a black screen (Exceeding the Single-Link bandwidth limit). Thanks to changing the native resolution to 1600x900, I now have all lower resolutions working correctly at 100hz (which is what was required). Since then, I have 1600x900@100hz on my desktop (although this is exactly the resolution I always used on my earlier 22-inch CRT monitor).
I described in detail all these problems that arise and the solutions I found that I had to deal with in another topic here (I'll try to find them if necessary).
Yes, this is not the result indicated in the topic title. But I didn't like these 1920x1080 images (at all). Even in XP, I now use the same 1600x900 (Although I can put 1920x1080 without any problems - I just don't like it, everything is too small). But at the same time, I do not give up the idea of further searching for a full-fledged solution, it's just that the ideas have already run out. Yes, and the result that I already have is completely satisfactory, because everything has become almost the same as it was on the old CRT monitor.
Jonsmith0815 wrote on 2024-04-27, 21:13:I don’t understand what exactly is working with the 185 drivers in XP that is not working in earlier versions for you. […]
Show full quote
I don’t understand what exactly is working with the 185 drivers in XP that is not working in earlier versions for you.
I have a 7900gs AGP that runs 1080p@144hz under XP over dual link cable on the BenQ XL2411 at driver version 93.71. Also a 7600gt at Version 84.44.
Both sadly only 60Hz in 98.
I don’t have any older GPU with dual link dvi that I could test.
What do the 185 drivers improve for you?
I do not exclude that in my particular case there was an additional error in the monitor's EDID itself (Maybe it was simply damaged), which was confusing and thus added additional difficulties in finding an acceptable solution. It led, so to speak, on the wrong track (Added sticks to the wheels). The specified driver version for XP can, however, circumvent this problem with EDID (that is, fully support DVI-DL, even despite the EDID curve). You may have a more correct EDID initially, an earlier implementation (Or a corrected later one) that doesn't have a similar problem. Most likely, if I flash your EDID, everything will also work for me under XP in the same way as you have now. This is good news! What happens if you try driver 77.72 (Or earlier) for Windows XP? Will 144Hz work? Or do you need exactly "93.71" and higher?
By the way, the 300 series drivers for Windows XP support on-the-fly EDID redefinition for nVidia Quadro video cards, which greatly simplifies testing (this feature does not work on GeForce cards).