Refresh rate

[kgyqlwerrmemd]

I have an NEC FE991SB monitor and Nvidia GeForce FX5600 running the latest drivers. I'm having two issues:

1. At my desired resolution (1280x960), I can only select 60 or 85Hz in the Nvidia control panel. 60 is unbearable, and 85 shows shimmering in one corner, because the monitor is old. In Windows I use the Nvidia control panel to force the maximum refresh rate that the monitor can do, 96Hz. This has enabled me to limp along on this old monitor with no shimmering, and I'd like to do the same in Linux.

I've edited xorg.conf to include "Modeline "1280x960" 205.76 1280 1384 1632 2104 960 960 964 1018" in the "Monitor" section (taken from an online modeline generator), and under the default depth of 24 in the "Screen" section, I've changed "1280x960" to read "1280x960_96.00". After restarting X with CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE, I still can only choose 60 or 85 (in fact I HAVE to select 85 every time I boot Linux, as X always starts @ 60Hz).

These edits appear to be doing nothing. Is xorg.conf not being used because I have Nvidia drivers installed? If so, what should I edit?

2. At 1280x960, the screen appears vertically stretched. Text appears too tall, and things that I know are perfectly square, such as icons, are rectangular (the tall way). All other 4:3 resolutions appear normal. The suggested res for this monitor is 1280x1024, but that is a ridiculous suggestion which I have never followed -- the screen size is physically 4:3 (I've measured!), not 5:4. Indeed, 1280x1024 appears "squashed," as you might expect it should on this monitor, but apparent vertical stretching of a 4:3 ratio is completely nonsensical and baffling.

I'd use a larger res, but the lower refresh rates are annoying. In Windows, everything appears normal at this res.

Any ideas for how I might fix these issues will be greatly appreciated.

[SheeEttin]

Re: Refresh rate

What you might want to do is to run "sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg", specifying only the resolution you want and also manually specifying the refresh rates of your monitor. (You say it's an old monitor, so it's probably printed on the back.) Of course, if you've already done this, never mind.

[kgyqlwerrmemd]

Re: Refresh rate

Thanks, but no dice.

I did discover that what Windows calls 96Hz is actually 95.xxHz (very close to 96Hz), so I tried a modeline with 95Hz (which the modeline generator also reports as amounting to nearly 96Hz); this caused 95Hz to be an option in the nvidia-settings refresh drop-down. The only problem was that when using the monitor's OSM to resize/adjust the screen to fit, I am left with nearly two inch windowbox bars on both sides, even at maximum width. I tried working down from 95Hz but got windowboxes at everything above 85Hz. Apparently X can't properly display refresh rates higher than that.

I'm stumped.

Another problem is that as an FPS gamer I prefer to run well over 100Hz while playing, for obvious reasons, but even at my gaming resolution (800x600) I can't run above 85Hz without the windowboxes. In Windows I run 140Hz at that resolution with no problems.

It would appear that X sucks.

[SheeEttin]

Re: Refresh rate

Well, to be honest, there's not much hardware that supports refresh rates so high.

What you might consider is configuring your monitor in System Settings > Monitor & Display > Administrator Mode > Hardware.
Failing that, I guess the best thing to do would be to get a new monitor.
CRTs are pretty affordable these days, even the higher-end ones.

[kgyqlwerrmemd]

Re: Refresh rate

Well, to be honest, there's not much hardware that supports refresh rates so high.

Most CRTs can reach quite high refresh rates, depending on the resolution. But if I understand your point, that there's no widespread need for X to support uber-high-Hz, then I have to agree. Sadly, I'm one of the minority who does like to have that option if my hardware supports it.

What you might consider is configuring your monitor in System Settings > Monitor & Display > Administrator Mode > Hardware.

I've done that, but essentially it just fills in the proper vendor name in xorg.conf.

Failing that, I guess the best thing to do would be to get a new monitor.
CRTs are pretty affordable these days, even the higher-end ones.

But that won't fix the issue of X not allowing me to go higher than 85Hz. If you meant to say LCD, I'll kindly decline your suggestion and leave it at that, lest this turn into another CRT vs LCD debate (CRT FTW BTW).

[SheeEttin]

Re: Refresh rate

No, I meant CRT. The popularity of LCD monitors is driving down the prices of CRTs. The larger, higher-end ones can get pretty expensive. (The lower prices is true for LCDs too, though.)

I myself prefer CRTs, though they require more power and are generally less efficient than LCDs. The only reasons I have an LCD monitor on this computer are because it's newer, I got it as a present, and the CRT is used for the family computer.

[lyall]

Re: Refresh rate

the higher the refresh rate the shorter the life of the CRT
CRT's life span can be up to 9 years plus running 24/7, if the refresh rate is not above 75 hz.
The reason why people really like the LCD's is that that are light weight and they have more desk space.
A 21'' CRT will weight about 85 lbs. At work our CADD units have two 21" monitors and they do take up a lot of desk space.
CRT's are better and they will last longer the LCD's.
CRT monitors do have a higher pixel than LCDs.
CRTs are better for high end CADD and Graphics PCs.
The down side to using CRTs is that sitting in front of them for 8 hours a day they do strain your eyes.
I have heard from eye doctors that you should not drive for two or three hours after being in front of CRTs for 8 hours a day. LCDs do not strain your eyes like CRTs.
I know I sat in front for CRT for 8 hours a day for 8 years before I join the IT department.

Good Luck and long live the CRTs