Talk:RAMDAC

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Electronics

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A faster RAMDAC allows for a faster refresh rate? -- Frap 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the faster the ramdac, the faster the possible refresh rate, and the bigger the possible resolution. In newer than a few years PCs the Ramdac is fast enough for really all purpose. 87.234.229.209 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the upper limit of a 400 MHz ramdac? If you use DVI, it still use ramdac?

The upper limit is 2048x1536 analog (at 88Hz in Win XP when using default sync-settings) and 2560x1600 digital (when using dual-link DVI). --MrBurns (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the formula?[edit]

How is the MHz rating for the RAMDAC calculated? I thought it was H x W x Hz x bit-depth, but that's not right. ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually color depth has nothing to do with the (analogue) bandwidth rating of the RAMDAC. It's more like H (plus blanking clocks) x W (plus blanking clocks) x Hz x 2. Zac67 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: got that mixed up with the sampling theorem - cut the "x 2" part above. Zac67 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add formula to article. -- Frap (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Display calibration, look-up tables[edit]

I was under the impression that the (C)LUT (look-up table) in the RAMDAC is used today for display calibration.
Display calibration can range from simple, fairly mainstream software calibration routines like Adobe Gamma, to hardware solutions used mainly by photographers and designers. Since every computer display (and I mean every unique unit shipped) has a certain deviation from an ideal colour balance, display calibration involves measuring (profiling) this deviation when displaying known coloured patches, and using the measured values to compensate. This allows for a decent match between displays.

The actual compensating is done by placing the correct values in the video card's LUT (look-up table).

I'm not sure whether the LUT I just mentioned is indeed part of the RAMDAC, but if it is, the following section (and possibly other sections) of the article will need modification:

The SRAM can usually be bypassed and the DACs can be fed directly by display data, for Truecolor modes. In fact this has become very much the normal mode of operation of a RAMDAC since the mid-1990s, so the programmable palette is mostly retained only as a legacy feature to ensure compatibility with old software. In many newer graphics cards, the RAMDAC can be clocked much faster in true color modes, when the SRAM is not used.

--Lennartgoosens (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]