Solved Trying to use the Intel HD custom resolution menu

So trying to figure out this custom resolution setting that's apart of the Intel HD graphics control Center. I want to switch the resolution on my HP 2009m monitor to a resolution that I think should work. While the max resolution is 1600x900 one of the other supported resolutions is 1280x1024 now even though it's not much I'd like to take advantage of the extra 124 pixels in height and set the monitor to the awkward resolution of 1600x1024. When I set this resolution in the Control Center it seems like it changed the monitor flickers and everything and the custom resolution panel says it's changed but the main area of the control center still says 1600x900 and so does Windows. so not sure what to believe I took a screenshot and opened it in gimp and selected that entire screen and it's still 1600x900 no change. I feel like I'm just missing something, or maybe I just wanted to work so bad that I refuse to accept that it won't. But there's also an advanced area in the custom resolution section with options I've never even heard of ... "front porch" "back porch" "sync width" "active" "sync polarity" "scan rate" and "total". and going my normal route of changing settings at random and observing the reaction could actually physically break something this time. Any type of search on the subject seem to lead nowhere.

It's rare that I find myself unable to figure out something for myself when it comes to Windows. One of those moments I realized that I may know a lot, but I don't know everything. So rather than my usual long crazy rant about nothing, I've decided I'm going to attempt to be a real human person and ask for help. so if anyone's got any insight on this subject let me know.

I used an HP 2105 for several years with resolution set at 1440x900 worked good with 4 different computers on a KVM Switch. Main thing I saw was to try to maintain a resolution of 16:9 or 16:10 or very close. A lot involves what the monitor supports and what the video card/adapter provides.

I'm currently using it as a vertical display that's why I don't really care if it's an awkward resolution it's already quite awkward as it is but it just seems like I should be able to use that resolution considering it's Max height is 1024 and it's Max Width is 1600. Although not at the same time. I'm just trying to figure out if anyone's use software like this before and if the reaction I got was normal.

The vertical part brings to mind a good number of years ago where newspaper publishers used them to get a good visual of how their pages were laid out. The program they used probably made a difference.

Zantetsuken said:

So trying to figure out this custom resolution setting that's apart of the Intel HD graphics control Center. I want to switch the resolution on my HP 2009m monitor to a resolution that I think should work. While the max resolution is 1600x900 one of the other supported resolutions is 1280x1024 now even though it's not much I'd like to take advantage of the extra 124 pixels in height and set the monitor to the awkward resolution of 1600x1024. When I set this resolution in the Control Center it seems like it changed the monitor flickers and everything and the custom resolution panel says it's changed but the main area of the control center still says 1600x900 and so does Windows. so not sure what to believe I took a screenshot and opened it in gimp and selected that entire screen and it's still 1600x900 no change. I feel like I'm just missing something, or maybe I just wanted to work so bad that I refuse to accept that it won't. But there's also an advanced area in the custom resolution section with options I've never even heard of ... "front porch" "back porch" "sync width" "active" "sync polarity" "scan rate" and "total". and going my normal route of changing settings at random and observing the reaction could actually physically break something this time. Any type of search on the subject seem to lead nowhere.

It's rare that I find myself unable to figure out something for myself when it comes to Windows. One of those moments I realized that I may know a lot, but I don't know everything. So rather than my usual long crazy rant about nothing, I've decided I'm going to attempt to be a real human person and ask for help. so if anyone's got any insight on this subject let me know.

Click to expand...

You kind answered you're own question there, The max res you're monitor supports according to you is 1600x900. You're trying to get 1600x1024 which is above. That'd be like be running 3840x2160 and wanting to make it 3840x2200. It cant, cause the max my monitor supports is 2160. You can OC certain monitors but im not even gonna go down the rabbit hole, You're trying to run a res higher than the monitor supports.

But the 900 in height isn't the max this monitor is capable of displaying 1024 is. I'm not trying to go out of range and exceed the maximum. I just want to use both the Max height and width together. But unfortunately by default don't get paired together because it's a strange aspect ratio somewhere between a standard TV and an HD.

And this can't be something that's totally impossible or why would Intel release this feature as a standard of their graphics driver and software package. There has to be monitors capable of displaying unlisted custom resolutions and I kind of had a feeling it was for situations exactly like this.

Zantetsuken said:

But the 900 in height isn't the max this monitor is capable of displaying 1024 is. I'm not trying to go out of range and exceed the maximum. I just want to use both the Max height and width together. But unfortunately by default don't get paired together because it's a strange aspect ratio somewhere between a standard TV and an HD.

And this can't be something that's totally impossible or why would Intel release this feature as a standard of their graphics driver and software package. There has to be monitors capable of displaying unlisted custom resolutions and I kind of had a feeling it was for situations exactly like this.

Click to expand...

There are 100% monitors that can display custom resolutions, But none that are higher than the max. 1600x1024 is higher than 1600x900.

Success it worked!! finally 1600x1024 achieved just took all day amount of research. Are you guys ready for the knowledge bomb I'm about to drop on you.

All the data I've been piecing together today pretty much pointed to this conclusion. when it comes to the "max" you want to be looking at Raw the numbers. The highest individual values are the displays Max. But all the pairing has been set for standard aspect ratios. So in some cases the two Max numbers might not have been designed to ever meet each other by default. So sometimes when you're looking at "max resolution" there are times when that might only be half right. It should be looked at more as the recommended resolution. This just happened to be one of those displays. Where one of the max numbers was used in 1600x900 but the other Max number was intended for 1280x1024
So this screen is perfectly capable of displaying a height of 1024 regardless of its horizontal counterpart. A better way to describe the maximum properties of a screen would be. the screen has a Max horizontal width of 1600 and a Max vertical height of 1024 with a recommended resolution of 1600X900. But who's got time for all that? it's just easier to say it has a max resolution is 1600x900. This just happened to be one of those screens where the max numbers weren't intended to be paired together because it create this oddball aspect ratio of 25:16. But can they be paired together? absolutely. It's totally within operational range.

You want to know what was stopping it from working it's stupid but apparently after you create the custom resolution you have to restart your machine. Would have been nice if it had just told me that like every other program.

now I've answered my own question. I just didn't feel like sitting here doing research all day. oh well it was worth it.
But now my split background is being pulled into this screen

All of a sudden what my brain knew about this subject just melted into nothing. but not for the reason you think. I was getting tired of this squish screen caused by this odd aspect ratio and even though you can't achieve a true 16:9 aspect ratio again until you reach 1920x1080 you can still get to the same basic shape percentage wise I ran the numbers and to get the screen back to its proper shape I would have to increase the width 220 pixels and set the resolution to 1820x1024. I figured there's no chance in hell this is going to work but I'll try it out anyways. the most it's going to do is tell me it can't do it but we'll this monitor blew my mind when it actually worked and is now running on a resolution of 1816x1,024 yeah It gave me four pixels less than I asked for but that's not the point the point is How in the hell did that work because It went 216 pixels past its actual Max horizontal limit. and it didn't care it acted like I did it all the time. so I don't know what to think anymore monitors are weird after that yes I did try to just go full board 1920 1080 and that it wouldn't do. But still I no longer know what to think on this subject I just watched all logic you completely fly out the window. who knows maybe HP just gave it a little bit of breathing room and didn't tell anybody about it I hope that's what it is. But now I have to know the exact top out resolution down to the pixel. its funny that someone here mentioned earlier going down the rabbit hole because all I seem to be thinking now is "Curiouser and Curiouser"

now I just wish I could rename this thread because it's become something else

Zantetsuken said:

All of a sudden what my brain knew about this subject just melted into nothing. but not for the reason you think. I was getting tired of this squish screen caused by this odd aspect ratio and even though you can't achieve a true 16:9 aspect ratio again until you reach 1920x1080 you can still get to the same basic shape percentage wise I ran the numbers and to get the screen back to its proper shape I would have to increase the width 220 pixels and set the resolution to 1820x1024. I figured there's no chance in hell this is going to work but I'll try it out anyways. the most it's going to do is tell me it can't do it but we'll this monitor blew my mind when it actually worked and is now running on a resolution of 1816x1,024 yeah It gave me four pixels less than I asked for but that's not the point the point is How in the hell did that work because It went 216 pixels past its actual Max horizontal limit. and it didn't care it acted like I did it all the time. so I don't know what to think anymore monitors are weird after that yes I did try to just go full board 1920 1080 and that it wouldn't do. But still I no longer know what to think on this subject I just watched all logic you completely fly out the window. who knows maybe HP just gave it a little bit of breathing room and didn't tell anybody about it I hope that's what it is. But now I have to know the exact top out resolution down to the pixel. its funny that someone here mentioned earlier going down the rabbit hole because all I seem to be thinking now is "Curiouser and Curiouser"

now I just wish I could rename this thread because it's become something else

Click to expand...

It is possible to overclock monitors too.

Then it would have to be the Intel control center itself doing that I can't think of any other explanation. I wish that include software like that for all there CPUs as well.

So I found the resolution that is the real top of the HP 2009m display capability's it 1070X1896 that's 170x296 over 900x1600.
I marking this a solved because what I've really leaned from this is that most people don't actually know much when it comes to monitors even me.
but worst of all is that people will answer a question about a subject without first hand knowledge, meaning they've never tried it there self.
to just repeat what you've only heard especially information from the manufacturer is something that should never be done.
manufacturers and developers have to cover themselves legally when answering anything making it sadly the least reliable information
and misinformation can spread like wildfire until everyone thinks something that's not true.

Zantetsuken said:

So I found the resolution that is the real top of the HP 2009m display capability's it 1070X1896 that's 170x296 over 900x1600.
I marking this a solved because what I've really leaned from this is that most people don't actually know much when it comes to monitors even me.
but worst of all is that people will answer a question about a subject without first hand knowledge, meaning they've never tried it there self.
to just repeat what you've only heard especially information from the manufacturer is something that should never be done.
manufacturers and developers have to cover themselves legally when answering anything making it sadly the least reliable information
and misinformation can spread like wildfire until everyone thinks something that's not true.

Click to expand...

I think you've read into things a little too much, Its a monitor from generations ago and you're claiming it can hit above 1440p when infact it just isn't. Then you try to attack anyone who tried to help. Enjoy the messed up res and the fact nothing is made for it due to it not being intended for use.

Im sure everyone will be bursting to help you in future seen as you're so lovely to those who try.

resolution doesn't matter its used a secondary Vertical utility monitor for displaying random items I want to stay in view but not in the way.
and 1440P? I never said that, 1896x1070 is under 1080P. and I totally did that, look at the setting and intel graphics menu read out in the screenshot below.

look Im sorry, its just seems everyone is always quick to help by saying "no you cant do that its impossible".
you started by mentioning overlocking but then it turned to "100% monitors that can display custom resolutions But none that are higher than the max". That type of thing could derail some peoples thinking processes causing them give up and forever think overclocking is to difficult to bother with if not completely impossible. That's was one of the factors that had me not even realize that I had overclocked it when i pushed it past 1600X1024. the first is intel never uses the word overclock to describe what its doing. and the second is that it was super easy. But based on what you said had me thinking that overclocking a screen is a difficult process to undertake. so I ruled that out as a possibility at first.
Words have power plus you've got the member credentials to back it up. so even though I was still trying despite your first 2 posts ((I have to acquire fist hand data, its kinda my thing)) what you said still stuck in my head.
just be careful not to inadvertently lead other down the wrong path to a false conclusion. There's enough of that going around, most tech company do it on purpose.

Zantetsuken said:

resolution doesn't matter its used a secondary Vertical utility monitor for displaying random items I want to stay in view but not in the way.
and 1440P? I never said that, 1896x1070 is under 1080P. and I totally did that, look at the setting and intel graphics menu read out in the screenshot below.

look Im sorry, its just seems everyone is always quick to help by saying "no you cant do that its impossible".
you started by mentioning overlocking but then it turned to "100% monitors that can display custom resolutions But none that are higher than the max". That type of thing could derail some peoples thinking processes causing them give up and forever think overclocking is to difficult to bother with if not completely impossible. That's was one of the factors that had me not even realize that I had overclocked it when i pushed it past 1600X1024. the first is intel never uses the word overclock to describe what its doing. and the second is that it was super easy. But based on what you said had me thinking that overclocking a screen is a difficult process to undertake. so I ruled that out as a possibility at first.
Words have power plus you've got the member credentials to back it up. so even though I was still trying despite your first 2 posts ((I have to acquire fist hand data, its kinda my thing)) what you said still stuck in my head.
just be careful not to inadvertently lead other down the wrong path to a false conclusion. There's enough of that going around, most tech company do it on purpose.
View attachment 47893

Click to expand...

Im sorry but at this point its not worth arguing against someone who's gonna use logic like that, Read what you wrote yourself, You've been getting numbers round the wrong way and everything thus making them entirely different(to what you probably actually meant). Im glad you got what you wanted anyway which is thing main thing.
But those wallpapers etc and the res all being off with black bar parts would fry my mind.
Peace

if using a split background that spans both screens and is designed to match both the screens resolutions and set positions perfectly and then one screen gets set to a higher resolution its going to pull the background of the other screen in to it. that just further shows the screen resolution went up. and 1896x1070 although its not true 16:9 it matches the shape of 16:9's dimensions. there would be no way to tell the difference if you didn't know the screens actual resolution already.

Zantetsuken said:

if using a split background that spans both screens and is designed to match both the screens resolutions and set positions perfectly and then one screen gets set to a higher resolution its going to pull the background of the other screen in to it. that just further shows the screen resolution went up. and 1896x1070 although its not true 16:9 it matches the shape of 16:9's dimensions. there would be no way to tell the difference if you didn't know the screens actual resolution already.

Click to expand...

Oh dear.
Have a good day dude.

I did just because I just crack the mystery the white blocky context menu wide open

Zantetsuken said:

I did just because I just crack the mystery the white blocky context menu wide open

Click to expand...

Yeah never had that so good luck to ya