First of all, I know that the card is capable of 1152 x 864 (as is pretty much every other video card ever made in the past 15 years), because if I don't install any drivers, I have 1152 x 864 available in display settings, and I can switch to it and it looks perfect. However, if I install the drivers (I've tried 3 different versions), the 1152 x 864 option no longer exists. This makes no sense whatsoever. Who ever heard of having an available resolution without drivers that you don't have with drivers? And it is not as if 1152 x 864 is some oddball resolution; it has been a common PC resolution for ages.
Originally posted by: black_zion XGA+ is not a common resolution in 2013, as very few people use CRTs or 4 : 3 LCD's. You could use programs such as Powerstrip to create such an oddball resolution.
Except, it is not an oddball resolution, regardless of what year it is. It is no more "oddball" than 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1360x1024, 1400x1050, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, or 1920x1440; all of which are available after installing the Catalyst drivers. Conspicuous by its absence however, is 1152x864 (which is the only one I want). And like I said, the card is perfectly capable of it, because it is selectable if you uninstall the drivers (or boot into safe mode).
And here's something else that's funny:
That's with the Catalyst drivers installed. 1152x864 is selectable on the nonexistant #2 monitor, but not on the existing #1 monitor.
I already tried Powerstrip, and while I was able to add the 1152x864, it looked like crap (text was blurry and such), which is in contrast to 1152x864 looking perfect if I uninstall the drivers or boot into safe mode and then select it.
Yes, those are the first ones I installed. Then I uninstalled them and installed the ones from the CD that came with the card. Then I uninstalled those and I installed drivers from the website of a different manufacturer of an HD 5450. Same results with all of them.
By the way, this is from a manual for a Radeon HD 5450:
Page 33 5. Appendix 5.1. Resolutions and Color Depth Tables RadeonHD5450 Series 2D Single Display Modes TM Display Screen Resolution 640 x 480 800 x 600 1024 x 768 1152 x 864 1280 x 768 1280 x 960 1280 x 1024 1440 x 900 1600 x 1200 1680 x 1050 1792 x 1344 1800 x 1440 1856 x 1392 1920 x 1080 1920 x 1200 1920 x 1400 2048 x 1536
You could try forcing it as a custom resolution from CCC. It was probably removed from the list to make it shorter as some resolutions are very rarely used such as 640x480 is basically dead making 800x600 the minimum in most settings.
Intel I7 3770K @ 4.5ghz, Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, Gigabyte HD7970 ghz edition, 4x4gb Kingston HyperX Beast 2133mhz, Seasonic Platinum 860, OCZ Vertex 4 128gb, WD Black 1TB, WD Green 3TB+1.5TB, ASUS Xonar Essence ST, ASUS VE278Q, Windows 3.11
Originally posted by: zipsi You could try forcing it as a custom resolution from CCC. It was probably removed from the list to make it shorter as some resolutions are very rarely used such as 640x480 is basically dead making 800x600 the minimum in most settings.
I don't believe it has been removed intentionally. Like I said, it shows up on the nonexistent #2 monitor (see screenshot above), plus it has resolutions like 1792x1344 and 1856x1392 which I've never heard of anyone using before. 640x480 being removed from the main slider options, but still available under the "List all modes" option, is a Windows XP (and newer versions of Windows) thing, not a video card thing. Install the same video card and drivers on e.g. Windows 2000, and 640x480 would show up on the main slider. Note that 1152x864 doesn't even show up in "List all modes" section when the Catalyst drivers are installed.
Additionally, for years I've used a small standalone command line .exe application to quickly change resolutions. This is what it tells me when I try to change to 1152x864:
And when I add the -force switch:
The first thing I did when I ran into this issue was look for an option to force a specific resolution in CCC, but I didn't find anything. So, how is it done?
I found some instructions to edit the registry to add custom resolutions (http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1605511), which worked, but like with Powerstrip, 1152x864@75Hz is blurry. Changing it to 60Hz makes it clear, but 60Hz bothers my eyes.
This is the most ridiculous and infuriating problem I've ever had with a piece of hardware. Practically every resolution imaginable is available, from 640x480, 256 colors, 60Hz; to 1920 x 1440, 32-bit color, 85 Hz; except for the one resolution that I want. And to add insult to injury, it will do 1152x864@75Hz with perfect clarity ... if you uninstall the Catalyst drivers!
In other words, the default VGA driver that Windows has, can do something that the Catalyst drivers can't, which is bizarre, not to mention, asinine. Of course, running on default Windows VGA drivers isn't a good option, because obviously most of the functions of the GPU don't work without the Catalyst drivers.
ATI has long been known for having good hardware and bad drivers. I guess that hasn't changed. I suspect I'm going to have to return this video card and get another Nvidia card (like I should have done in the first place). I don't ask much from a video card, because I'm not a gamer, and 1152x864@75Hz is not too much to ask, considering that every PC video card ever made with at least 4 MB of RAM can do it ... you know, except for this one, which inexplicably gets hobbled by its own display driver.
Does anyone else here have a Radeon HD 5450? If so, is 1152x864 an available resolution for you, and if so, what driver version are you using?
In this YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUGNGlk33lo) the description says he has an HD 5450 (XFX, same manufacturer as mine) and is running 1152x864 resolution. He is running Windows 7 rather than XP, though I don't see why that would make a difference.
Originally posted by: Slayerx That is weird, that 1152x864 res shows up on both my pc's. My main rig runs two 5850's with Win 7 and the second one runs a 4650 with windows 8.
Thanks for the information, and I agree that it is weird. I wonder if it has something to do with the drivers for Win7 or Win8 vs. the drivers for XP (assuming the drivers are different). I have a 17 GB empty partition on one of my HDDs; I might install Windows 7 on it to test that out.
This may sound silly but have you tried using the other port?
Are you referring to the slot? If so, I only have one full-length PCIe slot on my motherboard. If you're referring to the video-output port, I've tried both the VGA port and the DVI port (with a VGA adapter; my monitor only has a VGA port). The results were the same in both cases. I don't have any way to try the HDMI port.
Originally posted by: MaximRecoilI have a 17 GB empty partition on one of my HDDs; I might install Windows 7 on it to test that out.
Okay, I installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on that empty partition. Just as with XP, with just the default Windows VGA drivers (i.e., without the Catalyst drivers installed), 1152x864 was available, and it was nice and clear, no problems with it:
After installing the latest Catalyst drivers from AMD/ATI's site (12.10), 1152x864 once again came up among the missing, just as in XP:
As you can see, it jumps from 1024x768 to 1280x720, the same as in XP.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Microsoft can write a generic VGA driver (from 2006 no less) that has the resolution I need, but ATI can't?
Disabling "use EDID" in CCC did the trick. Inexplicably, the Catalyst drivers apparently "thought" that my monitor didn't support 1152x864, even though no other video card has ever "thought" such a thing about this monitor, and as if there is even any such thing as a CRT that supports 1920x1440 but not the much lower 1152x864 resolution.
In any event, 1152x864@75Hz is working now, and perfectly clear, so I'm happy. It would have been a pain to return the card.
The information presented in this document is for informational purposes only and may contain technical inaccuracies, omissions and typographical errors. Links to third party sites are for convenience only, and no endorsement is implied