3 Replies Latest reply on Jun 6, 2016 7:37 AM by atlasminor

    3200x1800 VSR unavailable on 1920x1080 @60 despite what support page says


      There's no mention of 3200x1800 being limited in the same way as 3840x2160. And yet on my native 1920x1080 (@60) monitor, VSR enables only 1920x1200, 2048x1536 and 2560x1440, and 3200x1800 does not show on my 280x.


      This is particularly distressing to see in the context of information from several sources that downsampling modes above 1440p are technically possible with 280x hardware, they're merely locked by the driver (in some cases even after previously working with hacks subsequently disabled by a new driver).


      Just in case, I want to be crystal clear on one thing: if the locks are implemented for safety reasons, then okay; if the list is simply inaccurate, then okay also, but it should be fixed in order to not be misleading; but if the locks are simply a method of imposing software limits on the utility of cheaper cards in order to make higher-end cards appear more necessary, then I won't buy a 380 or 480 or 290x to resolve the issue, I'll simply switch to nVidia instead for my next card.


      I don't buy the whole 'not all modes are supported on all products' kind of talk. If a mode isn't supported, it should be omitted from a 'Supported Modes' list rather than covered by a disclaimer. Or the limitation should be disclosed and properly described just like with 3840x2160.



      What's the deal with this?



      Supported Modes:

      Target Display TimingSupported VSR Modes
      1366 X 768 @ 60Hz1600 X 900
      1920 X 1080
      1600 X 900 @ 60Hz1920 X 1080
      1920 X 1080 @ 60Hz2560 X 1440
      3200 X 1800
      3840 X 2160 (AMD Radeon™ R9 285, AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury Series)
      1920 X 1200 @ 60Hz2048 X 1536
      2560 X 1600
      3840 X 2400 (AMD Radeon™ R9 285, AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury Series)
      2560 X 1440 @ 60Hz3200 X 1800

      What Is Virtual Super Resolution and How Does It Work?


      Wiadomość była edytowana przez: Lukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz

        • Re: 3200x1080 VSR unavailable on 1920x1080 @60 despite what support page says

          Check this diagram, i have been using it to double check on VSR safe Aspect Ratio's....


          File:Vector Video Standards8.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


          and this one for were im thinking the res your wanting falls in between 1.9 and 2.3 or better known as 19:10 / 21:9


          File:Vector Video Standards2.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


          Safty reasons i would say yes becuase although there is driver locks some OEM's try to enforce, there is also Manufacture locks that are hard coded into screens before market sales during manufacturing.....


          So either its a resolution your screen wont display correctly without some form of adapter or third party software or itsjust not supported on the screen. You say its a 1

          1080p native screen correct?




          That means your scaling is based on 16:9 and pretty sure VSR only see's aspects that are known to work through that line. Yes you can list all modes a screen can display, doesnt mean they should be used.


          There are dangerous resolutions for screens and it not only can harm the screen, it will alo do harm to your hardware, via the actual apdater connecting the screen. If you find this untrue, just know that you did read this first when the lights go out and your stuck troubleshooting dead cables,screens and hardware.


          Hope my links help you some.

          • Re: 3200x1800 VSR unavailable on 1920x1080 @60 despite what support page says

            Sorry, typo in title. I meant 3200x1800, which has the correct ratio.


            According to some information I've seen online 280x may be locked at 2560x1440, either in hardware or as a driver limitation. However, 2720x1530 works with regedit.


            The cable is DVI.

              • Re: 3200x1800 VSR unavailable on 1920x1080 @60 despite what support page says



                eh, im online still looking for it as well, lol


                it is a odd resolution i have to say, never ran across, but i did find info that confirm 2 known products that allow the format


                referance from link

                WQXGA+ (Wide Quad Extended Graphics Array Plus), also referred to as QHD[14] and QHD+,[15] is a resolution of 3200x1800 in a 16:9 aspect ratio. It has four times as many pixels as the 1600x900 HD+ resolution.

                The first products announced to use this resolution were the 2013 HP Envy 14 TouchSmart Ultrabook[16] and the 13.3 in Samsung Ativ Q.[17]


                and link with the info

                Graphics display resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


                looks like they might be locking that to small touch screens.... ithis is as far in the research i got with it, and since i picked up my new notebook i have been all about researching monitors and TV's, it would be my first real 1080p native monitor, and its done by Asus, and its beutiful n they known to have the highest Nytes count, is a tad brite though, have to dim it to 40% to look cool


                It shouldnt be to much of a lose if you cant get the resolution 2560x1440 is true QHD and thats super if not reproducing 4k