![]() |
Quote:
which is an effective 2400 x1800 pixels equivalent. Each monitor is doing 480,000 pixels X 3 = 1,440,000 pixels which is nowhere near low resolution for one video card. |
I give up.
You can't fix stupid... |
Quote:
Go back and take some basic math courses. Or if you like I could teach you how to multiply. Heres one 800x600= ???? Answer 480,000 Now multiply that by 3 (3 monitors) gives 1,440,000. Now if we try and extrapolate that to approximate a single screen with a ratio (16:9 widescreen) that give roughly 1600X900 effective screen resolution. This is by no means "low" as normal high definition is about 1024x760 (720P). |
Quote:
He only runs it at 3x480,000 = 1,440,000 pixels RGDS, Athos |
Quote:
Quote:
Now do 2400*1800. Does it make 1,440,000? Or is it 3x that much? Have you asked yourself why? (I'm off to sign a petition to give all teachers a raise. I know they deserve it) |
Quote:
|
I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...
Sorry Odlschool, but neuro is correct. Your calculation of 3 x (800 x 600), which totals 1 440 000, is correct, but is not equal to (3 x 800) x (3 x 600) which totals 4 320 000 pixels, which equals 9 x (800 x 600). This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels). Hope this helps :) |
Quote:
3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned, |
Quote:
But anyway, I get your point. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.