77 replies to this topic

[R_L]

Here are my results for what they are worth.

PC:
Windows 7 X64 ULT
ATI 5870 1 GB
Ram 6GB
Core i7 Extreme OC 4 GHZ

VP Settings:
VP Version 912
Resolution - Full Screen 1920x1080 32
Alpha Ramp slider in middle
Hardware Render - enabled
Textures- unlimited
Draw Ball Shadows - enabled
Draw Ball Decals - enabled
Antialis Ball - enabled

Results wtih blank table:
Ball sitting in outlane waiting - 6457 FPS
Ball moving around table - 7357FPS

Any yes, I too found it strange that the FPS were better with the ball moving rather than just sitting there waiting to be hit with the plunger.

Results wtih JP Flintstones 1.0.2 FS:
Ball sitting in outlane waiting - 678 FPS
Ball moving around table - 592FPS

I tell ya, the ball moves like silk at 7000 FPS on blank table... Maybe in 5 years all tables will play at 7000 FPS ..one can dream...

What Catalyst driver do you use gear323?

I have a similar setup and having problem running the tables at 32-bit colour depth.

My spec

Catalyst ver. 11.6
2D Driver Version 8.01.01.1162
Direct3D Version 7.14.10.0841
AMD Radeon HD 6970 with 2048 MB GDDR5
CPU Intel® Core™ i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz, 2668 Mhz, 4 core, 8 logic cpus
I get approx. 620 FPS sitting in the lane on JP´s Flintstone ver 1,02 at 1920x1200. There is no change in fps if you compare 16 or 32 bit but the 32 looks funny. Here is a description of the problem I have running 32bit colour depth. http://www.vpforums....mp;#entry104055

Only workaround to the 32 bit col problem I have found, are change to 16 save table exit and then fire it up again and it works fine but in 16 col depth ofc...

I'm surprised you even tried 16 bit. That's something that was a low setting on Windows 3. Hehe.

It may fix part of the problem, but I just don't think 'bit depth' is the cause of the actual problem. And the only thing I can suspect is the video drivers for your card. Maybe someone else has more ideas.

Doh! It´s 16k but it’s called 16 and 32 in the VP Video option.

One of the more famous table creators on this forum wrote that VP doesn’t utilize more the 16k anyway so accordingly to him I don’t miss out much.
Can’t find the damn post….

[FDSystems]

I´ve read this too !

[Flying Dutchman]

Never had any different than NVIDIA Cards .. Never had any problems whatsoever .. configuration / drivers / stuttering and god only knows what people are talkin' about.

Used it without any issues in 1-, 2- and 3 screens setups with one- or two cards.

Just my 2 cents ..

Cheers,
FD.

[R_L]

Here are my results for what they are worth.

PC:
Windows 7 X64 ULT
ATI 5870 1 GB
Ram 6GB
Core i7 Extreme OC 4 GHZ

VP Settings:
VP Version 912
Resolution - Full Screen 1920x1080 32
Alpha Ramp slider in middle
Hardware Render - enabled
Textures- unlimited
Draw Ball Shadows - enabled
Draw Ball Decals - enabled
Antialis Ball - enabled

Results wtih blank table:
Ball sitting in outlane waiting - 6457 FPS
Ball moving around table - 7357FPS

Any yes, I too found it strange that the FPS were better with the ball moving rather than just sitting there waiting to be hit with the plunger.

Results wtih JP Flintstones 1.0.2 FS:
Ball sitting in outlane waiting - 678 FPS
Ball moving around table - 592FPS

I tell ya, the ball moves like silk at 7000 FPS on blank table... Maybe in 5 years all tables will play at 7000 FPS ..one can dream...

What Catalyst driver do you use gear323?

I have a similar setup and having problem running the tables at 32-bit colour depth.

My spec

Catalyst ver. 11.6
2D Driver Version 8.01.01.1162
Direct3D Version 7.14.10.0841
AMD Radeon HD 6970 with 2048 MB GDDR5
CPU Intel® Core™ i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz, 2668 Mhz, 4 core, 8 logic cpus
I get approx. 620 FPS sitting in the lane on JP´s Flintstone ver 1,02 at 1920x1200. There is no change in fps if you compare 16 or 32 bit but the 32 looks funny. Here is a description of the problem I have running 32bit colour depth. http://www.vpforums....mp;#entry104055

Only workaround to the 32 bit col problem I have found, are change to 16 save table exit and then fire it up again and it works fine but in 16 col depth ofc...

I'm surprised you even tried 16 bit. That's something that was a low setting on Windows 3. Hehe.

It may fix part of the problem, but I just don't think 'bit depth' is the cause of the actual problem. And the only thing I can suspect is the video drivers for your card. Maybe someone else has more ideas.

It looks like it´s not 16k lol its more like 65k

From wiki
16-bit direct color

In 16-bit direct color, there can 4 bits (16 possible levels) for each of the R, G, and B components, plus optionally 4 bits for alpha (transparency), enabling 4,096 (16 × 16 × 16) different colors with 16 levels of transparency. Or in some systems there can be 5 bits per color component and 1 bit of alpha (32768 colors, just fully transparent or not); or there can be 5 bits for red, 6 bits for green, and 5 bits for blue, for 65536 colors with no transparency.[1] These color depths are sometimes used in small devices with a color display, such as mobile telephones.

Variants with 5 or more bits per color component are sometimes called high color,[2] which is sometimes considered sufficient to display photographic images.[3]

Edited by R_L, 30 June 2011 - 07:23 AM.

[Centaur Machine]

Yeah, it's 16 bit color, then there's 24 bit, and 32 bit. I think 24 bit is high color and 32 is true color.

16 bit is just a smaller color palette. So if the table image was saved in a low bit like 16, then some colors may be merged with other colors, so it looses some color. Some colors may be slightly altered to fit into the limited color palette.

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would save a playfield image in 16 bit, so the table probably won't look right if you play it at 16 bit.

The reason that setting is there is for low powered computers and displays - essentially compatibility. If you were playing a really old 16 bit game - like Earthworm Jim, or Doom II, it might only use 256 colors. Now, this can look mighty colorful if the game was designed with a 256 color palette, you understand. But it's just the selection of colors is much smaller: the palette.

I'm not really a grand computer artist, but I've been messing with programming and such since before home computers had color, and so I [may or may not] sort of know what I'm talking about.

You shouldn't have to use 16 bit color anymore on a desktop computer unless the game won't play without it (for example a compatibility setting). (like playing a MS DOS or Windows '95 game)

I think it may true however, that .GIF images (like the animated lighting some authors use in VP) in particular have a limited color palette. EDIT: yep, 256 colors

If someone has more accurate information, I beg to be corrected, as always.

Have you tried the latest drivers like I suggested? A killer card like the AMD 6970 should never have to use a color setting from the early 1990's. That's really a shame to hear. (I wanted one since they were like $700, but ultimately waited forever and got something else).

Edited by Centaur Machine, 02 July 2011 - 11:20 AM.

[Zablon]

Yeah, it's 16 bit color, then there's 24 bit, and 32 bit. I think 24 bit is high color and 32 is true color.

16 bit is just a smaller color palette. So if the table image was saved in a low bit like 16, then some colors may be merged with other colors, so it looses some color. Some colors may be slightly altered to fit into the limited color palette.

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would save a playfield image in 16 bit, so the table probably won't look right if you play it at 16 bit.
).

I've ran both, and on both PC monitors and cabinet TV's I noticed no visual difference. The range of colors on tables are not that broad. The most difference you will see is in light blending not looking quite as natural (or reflections which VP doesn't have anyway). I am sure there may be some off colors that change a hair here or there, but most people are not going to notice the difference.

Edited by Zablon, 02 July 2011 - 07:13 PM.

[Centaur Machine]

Yeah, it's 16 bit color, then there's 24 bit, and 32 bit. I think 24 bit is high color and 32 is true color.

16 bit is just a smaller color palette. So if the table image was saved in a low bit like 16, then some colors may be merged with other colors, so it looses some color. Some colors may be slightly altered to fit into the limited color palette.

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would save a playfield image in 16 bit, so the table probably won't look right if you play it at 16 bit.
).

I've ran both, and on both PC monitors and cabinet TV's I noticed no visual difference. The range of colors on tables are not that broad. The most difference you will see is in light blending not looking quite as natural (or reflections which VP doesn't have anyway). I am sure there may be some off colors that change a hair here or there, but most people are not going to notice the difference.

I'm trying to understand this as much as anyone, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Color_depth


"In 16-bit direct color, there can 4 bits (16 possible levels) for each of the R, G, and B components, plus optionally 4 bits for alpha (transparency), enabling 4,096 (16 × 16 × 16) different colors with 16 levels of transparency. Or in some systems there can be 5 bits per color component and 1 bit of alpha (32768 colors, just fully transparent or not);"

"The human eye is popularly believed to be capable of discriminating among as many as ten million colors."

"Many modern desktop systems (Mac OS X, GNOME, KDE, Windows XP/Vista/7, etc.) offer a 32-bit color option (given a suitably modern video card), but in that context, 32-bit color refers to 24-bit TrueColor with 8 bits for an alpha channel. When switching to an 8/16/24-bit color option in those systems, generally transparency/translucency effects are disabled, and the only reduction in color depth is seen when going to 8/16-bit color."


So you lose transparency? I remember long ago when my video card was really crap and I was doing whatever it takes to get better performance; when I set it to 16 bit, the special effects (like explosions) looked broken. Now I understand that's because they relied on transparencies.

So how does running in -- for example -- 1920 x 1080 x 16 effect VP's transparencies, if at all? And color reproduction would depend on the table in question, I'm sure.

I may try 16 bit myself and see what the frame rate difference could be, and see if I notice any difference in the color. Seeing is believing.

Edited by Centaur Machine, 03 July 2011 - 02:20 AM.

[R_L]

Yeah, it's 16 bit color, then there's 24 bit, and 32 bit. I think 24 bit is high color and 32 is true color.

16 bit is just a smaller color palette. So if the table image was saved in a low bit like 16, then some colors may be merged with other colors, so it looses some color. Some colors may be slightly altered to fit into the limited color palette.

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would save a playfield image in 16 bit, so the table probably won't look right if you play it at 16 bit.
).

I've ran both, and on both PC monitors and cabinet TV's I noticed no visual difference. The range of colors on tables are not that broad. The most difference you will see is in light blending not looking quite as natural (or reflections which VP doesn't have anyway). I am sure there may be some off colors that change a hair here or there, but most people are not going to notice the difference.

I'm trying to understand this as much as anyone, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Color_depth


"In 16-bit direct color, there can 4 bits (16 possible levels) for each of the R, G, and B components, plus optionally 4 bits for alpha (transparency), enabling 4,096 (16 × 16 × 16) different colors with 16 levels of transparency. Or in some systems there can be 5 bits per color component and 1 bit of alpha (32768 colors, just fully transparent or not);"

"The human eye is popularly believed to be capable of discriminating among as many as ten million colors."

"Many modern desktop systems (Mac OS X, GNOME, KDE, Windows XP/Vista/7, etc.) offer a 32-bit color option (given a suitably modern video card), but in that context, 32-bit color refers to 24-bit TrueColor with 8 bits for an alpha channel. When switching to an 8/16/24-bit color option in those systems, generally transparency/translucency effects are disabled, and the only reduction in color depth is seen when going to 8/16-bit color."


So you lose transparency? I remember long ago when my video card was really crap and I was doing whatever it takes to get better performance; when I set it to 16 bit, the special effects (like explosions) looked broken. Now I understand that's because they relied on transparencies.

So how does running in -- for example -- 1920 x 1080 x 16 effect VP's transparencies, if at all? And color reproduction would depend on the table in question, I'm sure.

I may try 16 bit myself and see what the frame rate difference could be, and see if I notice any difference in the color. Seeing is believing.

You won’t!
Switching to 16 is a common fix for ATI cards. Use search if you like to dig some more…

[dokworm]

If VP only uses 2D features on the cards, then it is interesting.

A nice article here http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2539.html
on comparing 2D performance between various cards.

Part 2 is here. Interestingly, in their testing ,opening up programs in the background also sped up performance temporarily.

http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2547.html

Edited by dokworm, 04 July 2011 - 06:29 AM.

[dokworm]

Yeah, it's 16 bit color, then there's 24 bit, and 32 bit. I think 24 bit is high color and 32 is true color.

16 bit is just a smaller color palette. So if the table image was saved in a low bit like 16, then some colors may be merged with other colors, so it looses some color. Some colors may be slightly altered to fit into the limited color palette.

For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would save a playfield image in 16 bit, so the table probably won't look right if you play it at 16 bit.

The reason that setting is there is for low powered computers and displays - essentially compatibility. If you were playing a really old 16 bit game - like Earthworm Jim, or Doom II, it might only use 256 colors. Now, this can look mighty colorful if the game was designed with a 256 color palette, you understand. But it's just the selection of colors is much smaller: the palette.

I'm not really a grand computer artist, but I've been messing with programming and such since before home computers had color, and so I [may or may not] sort of know what I'm talking about.

You shouldn't have to use 16 bit color anymore on a desktop computer unless the game won't play without it (for example a compatibility setting). (like playing a MS DOS or Windows '95 game)

I think it may true however, that .GIF images (like the animated lighting some authors use in VP) in particular have a limited color palette. EDIT: yep, 256 colors

If someone has more accurate information, I beg to be corrected, as always.

Have you tried the latest drivers like I suggested? A killer card like the AMD 6970 should never have to use a color setting from the early 1990's. That's really a shame to hear. (I wanted one since they were like $700, but ultimately waited forever and got something else).

As far as computer graphics go:
8 bit =256 colours
16 bit = 65,536 colours
24 bit - 16.7million colours
32bit = 16.7million colours, plus 256 levels of transparency (.i.e. 24 bit colour + 8 bit alpha)

So 16 bit colour usually will show a bit of dithering and banding, especially in colour gradients and shaded areas.

24 bit and 32 bit are identical, except in 24 bit you lose transparency due to no alpha channel.

.GIF files are restricted to 8bit, so 256 colours only.

Edited by dokworm, 04 July 2011 - 06:36 AM.

[Centaur Machine]

If VP only uses 2D features on the cards, then it is interesting.

A nice article here http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2539.html
on comparing 2D performance between various cards.

Part 2 is here. Interestingly, in their testing ,opening up programs in the background also sped up performance temporarily.

http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2547.html

Very interesting, controversial, damning, sad, etc. Thanks for posting.

So does VP use Direct3D, Open GL, GDI, or what? Because Rob#'s reported getting thousands more FPS with AMD 5800 series, which really doesn't match up if VP is 2D.

I did notice horrid 2D performance with my old ATI card in Windows 7, with the window contents leaving a huge mess on screen when they are dragged. That's something they talked about early on.

I wonder how my 460 GTX will compare. I downloaded the 2D benchmark utility. I'm glad I switched to the green team, I'll say that much. Every time he mentioned opening another window temporarily improved 2D performance made me think back to what Rob#'s was reporting with [ATI/AMD] MS Messenger and VP.

Edited by Centaur Machine, 04 July 2011 - 03:32 PM.

[Zablon]

Thanks dokworm - you explained it much better than I did. I was really trying to point out you notice it most on gradients.

GTX460 is great for VP. The only time issues seem to arise is with UVP on. It only seems to be a few tables that cause issues, and it is temporary(like first time big sounds are played). It's been talked about a lot on this board and hyperspin board. I believe it has more to do with something with the PinMame sound emulation's interaction with UVP, but I don't know for sure. I have found that it acts the same whether you run the backglass on a second card or the same card as the playfield, so it's not a card issue (unless its a driver issue) using identical cards.

[bladexdsl]

i also had problems with UVP and using a gtx 460 the worst being CV as soon as i launched the ball there was like a 1 sec delay of lagg. other tables that were jittery were johnny N, indy (minor) and a few others. some tables would play fine like TZ others had it really bad i've disabled UVP.

Edited by bladexdsl, 04 July 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[Centaur Machine]

Large stuttering and delays, this can be caused by not enough Video RAM.

Assuming you are using Windows 7, have you tried disabling Aero for the VP.exe?

EDIT: I haven't used either, but I assume you'd have to do this for Hyperspin and UVP exe's as well.

Image:


Let us know if that fixes it.

Edited by Centaur Machine, 04 July 2011 - 08:30 PM.

[bladexdsl]

i disabled everything it just wouldn't work running the dmd and backglass off a 550 TI. this is it's specs and it still wasn't good enough
951 MHz GPU
192 CUDA Cores
400 MHz RAMDAC
Memory
1024 MB, 192 bit GDDR5
4356 MHz (effective)
104.5 GB/s Memory Bandwidth
Interface
PCI-E 2.0 16x
DVI-I, DVI-I, Mini-HDMI
SLI Capable
Resolution & Refresh
240Hz Max Refresh Rate
2048x1536 Max Analog
2560x1600 Max Digital

in case your wondering why dont i have the bg on the gtx 460? it's not possible i was never able to get the tv as display 1 doing this no matter what settings i tried or swapping plugs. the tv always came in as display 2.

Edited by bladexdsl, 04 July 2011 - 09:41 PM.

[dokworm]

If VP only uses 2D features on the cards, then it is interesting.

A nice article here http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2539.html
on comparing 2D performance between various cards.

Part 2 is here. Interestingly, in their testing ,opening up programs in the background also sped up performance temporarily.

http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2547.html

Very interesting, controversial, damning, sad, etc. Thanks for posting.

So does VP use Direct3D, Open GL, GDI, or what? Because Rob#'s reported getting thousands more FPS with AMD 5800 series, which really doesn't match up if VP is 2D.

I did notice horrid 2D performance with my old ATI card in Windows 7, with the window contents leaving a huge mess on screen when they are dragged. That's something they talked about early on.

I wonder how my 460 GTX will compare. I downloaded the 2D benchmark utility. I'm glad I switched to the green team, I'll say that much. Every time he mentioned opening another window temporarily improved 2D performance made me think back to what Rob#'s was reporting with [ATI/AMD] MS Messenger and VP.

This is what I'm trying to find out at the moment, what graphics API does VP use, is it DirectX, Open GL, GDI etc. and which version.

Yeah, that is why I found the bit about opening a window increasing performance, as people have also reported that here, and I'm intrigued as to what happens in that situation. It sounds like the background window enables some kind of operation on the card which is faster/more efficient, but I can't work out how. If we could toggle that setting when VP loads then things might get faster all round.

[R_L]

If VP only uses 2D features on the cards, then it is interesting.

A nice article here http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2539.html
on comparing 2D performance between various cards.

Part 2 is here. Interestingly, in their testing ,opening up programs in the background also sped up performance temporarily.

http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2547.html

Very interesting, controversial, damning, sad, etc. Thanks for posting.

So does VP use Direct3D, Open GL, GDI, or what? Because Rob#'s reported getting thousands more FPS with AMD 5800 series, which really doesn't match up if VP is 2D.

I did notice horrid 2D performance with my old ATI card in Windows 7, with the window contents leaving a huge mess on screen when they are dragged. That's something they talked about early on.

I wonder how my 460 GTX will compare. I downloaded the 2D benchmark utility. I'm glad I switched to the green team, I'll say that much. Every time he mentioned opening another window temporarily improved 2D performance made me think back to what Rob#'s was reporting with [ATI/AMD] MS Messenger and VP.

This is what I'm trying to find out at the moment, what graphics API does VP use, is it DirectX, Open GL, GDI etc. and which version.

Yeah, that is why I found the bit about opening a window increasing performance, as people have also reported that here, and I'm intrigued as to what happens in that situation. It sounds like the background window enables some kind of operation on the card which is faster/more efficient, but I can't work out how. If we could toggle that setting when VP loads then things might get faster all round.

I would say direct 3d but not 100%. I have tried to change to different direct 3d versions with no luck but I could be surprised if it used Open GL or any other.

Slightly off topic.
Funny thing is I had a XFX 5770 ATI card and it runs fine I put my new 6970 in the very same machine I get the problems with 32-bit. Swap back and it runs fine. This tells me it lies within the actual hardware or the combination hw/driver.

Here are my exact specifications.
Manufacrurer: Asus
Primary Adapter
Graphics Card Manufacturer Powered by AMD
Graphics Chipset: AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
Graphics Bus Capability PCI Express 2.0
Maximum Bus Setting PCI Express 2.0 x16
BIOS Version 013.008.000.009
BIOS Part Number 113-C2000100-107
BIOS Date 2010/12/03
Memory Size 2048 MB
Memory Type GDDR5
Core Clock in MHz 890 MHz
Memory Clock in MHz 1375 MHz
Total Memory Bandwidth in GByte/s 176,0 GByte/s
Driver Packaging Version 8.861-110524a-119606C-ATI
Catalyst Version 11.6
Provider ATI Technologies Inc.
2D Driver Version 8.01.01.1162
Direct3D Version 7.14.10.0841
OpenGL Version 6.14.10.10834
Catalyst Control Center Version 2011.0524.2352.41027
OS win7 64 bit

If someone with a working combo can post the exact same data from Catalyst Control Center It would be great. That way I could test if it’s in the HW, that is what I’m starting to suspect. Of course I have tested a lot of different drivers but it’s a no go on any of them.

[zebulon]

If VP only uses 2D features on the cards, then it is interesting.

A nice article here http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2539.html
on comparing 2D performance between various cards.

Part 2 is here. Interestingly, in their testing ,opening up programs in the background also sped up performance temporarily.

http://www.tomshardw...s-gdi,2547.html

Very interesting, controversial, damning, sad, etc. Thanks for posting.

So does VP use Direct3D, Open GL, GDI, or what? Because Rob#'s reported getting thousands more FPS with AMD 5800 series, which really doesn't match up if VP is 2D.

I did notice horrid 2D performance with my old ATI card in Windows 7, with the window contents leaving a huge mess on screen when they are dragged. That's something they talked about early on.

I wonder how my 460 GTX will compare. I downloaded the 2D benchmark utility. I'm glad I switched to the green team, I'll say that much. Every time he mentioned opening another window temporarily improved 2D performance made me think back to what Rob#'s was reporting with [ATI/AMD] MS Messenger and VP.

This is what I'm trying to find out at the moment, what graphics API does VP use, is it DirectX, Open GL, GDI etc. and which version.

Yeah, that is why I found the bit about opening a window increasing performance, as people have also reported that here, and I'm intrigued as to what happens in that situation. It sounds like the background window enables some kind of operation on the card which is faster/more efficient, but I can't work out how. If we could toggle that setting when VP loads then things might get faster all round.

I would say direct 3d but not 100%. I have tried to change to different direct 3d versions with no luck but I could be surprised if it used Open GL or any other.

Slightly off topic.
Funny thing is I had a XFX 5770 ATI card and it runs fine I put my new 6970 in the very same machine I get the problems with 32-bit. Swap back and it runs fine. This tells me it lies within the actual hardware or the combination hw/driver.

Here are my exact specifications.
Manufacrurer: Asus
Primary Adapter
Graphics Card Manufacturer Powered by AMD
Graphics Chipset: AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series
Graphics Bus Capability PCI Express 2.0
Maximum Bus Setting PCI Express 2.0 x16
BIOS Version 013.008.000.009
BIOS Part Number 113-C2000100-107
BIOS Date 2010/12/03
Memory Size 2048 MB
Memory Type GDDR5
Core Clock in MHz 890 MHz
Memory Clock in MHz 1375 MHz
Total Memory Bandwidth in GByte/s 176,0 GByte/s
Driver Packaging Version 8.861-110524a-119606C-ATI
Catalyst Version 11.6
Provider ATI Technologies Inc.
2D Driver Version 8.01.01.1162
Direct3D Version 7.14.10.0841
OpenGL Version 6.14.10.10834
Catalyst Control Center Version 2011.0524.2352.41027
OS win7 64 bit

If someone with a working combo can post the exact same data from Catalyst Control Center It would be great. That way I could test if it’s in the HW, that is what I’m starting to suspect. Of course I have tested a lot of different drivers but it’s a no go on any of them.

Probably has to do with the new AMD cpu/gpu interface they've released. They're moving to a new pipeline design (on chip, multi-threaded processing rather than serial data processing) and as such, the newer cards are most likely backwards compatible rather than optimized for the standard board architecture. Just my theory, no proof, but it's a pretty standard tactic.

I liked the performance of my 5770, unfortunately, my monitor didn't.