• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1680x1050 - Minimum needed?

Gym Rat said:
Like I said before, Im running a 22" monitor and a 9600 GT for God's sake and Im running Dead Space, Left 4 Dead and Bioshock at well over 60-70 FPS with the graphics at max!! So yeah, if a $70, 3 year old, midrange GPU can play 90% of the games out there with max graphics, a $450 5870 is going to be overkill.

With Crysis, I set everything to Medium, Shaders on High and no AA or AF and I can get a little over 30 FPS in DX10 and over 40 in DX9. For Crysis and Crysis Warhead, I agree, a 5870 would be great to get all the eye candy and great frame rates from these games on a 22" and if you can afford a $450 video card then God bless. BUT, Im not sure how many people wouldnt rather turn off AA and AF and set Water to Medium and enjoy 50 FPS with a $130 5750.

I dont judge what is or isnt overkill by a game that you need a $600 video card to get 60 FPS with max graphics. I judge that by the other 99% of games.
Click to expand...

In relative terms these are what I was considering as older games "Dead Space, Left 4 Dead and Bioshock", go ahead and try out Stalker COP or Dirt 2, or even GTA. With titles predating DX11 implimentation like teslation sure the a 5870 is overkill for a 22" monitor, but for newer DX11 titles coming out right around the corner it is a different story entirely, and because of this I would not feel wrong by suggesting a 5870 for 22" monitor, I highly doubt by the end of this year it will be considered overkill...future proofing.

I admit Crysis is a bad example, btw I have both vanilla and warhead, not much difference......anyway.

I'am going to buy a 5970 soon, Ill be posting a 5870 with a DD water block soon for sale for less then this $450 you speak of, I only paid $367 the first week of launch from Newegg btw, one of the few times I haven't gotten burned for being an early adopter and beating the price gouging that ensued ....hehe
 
Last edited:
Tabasco69 said:
Not trying to pestimistic here, BUT.....older games maxed out at that resolution sure no problem, but try a newer DX11 game with say an oced 5870 and an 920 runing at 4ghz and it is going to be choppy, I bought into the suggestions given here that a 5870 was overkill for 1680x1050 and it could push 1920x1200 in say Crysis maxed out....20-45 fps is what I got though in reality, I would have to say at least a 5870 for 1680x1050....it barely cuts it at 1920x1200, and in some case doesn't cut it at all.

I would really like to know what these people's ideals are that formed thier opinions AKA" 5870 over kill", I would really like to know what is thier exact definition of acceptability, just being able to run the game, maxed out yet choppy, a lot of these people are still runing older hardware besides a 5xxx card who are making these claims, was it blessed by god to run better then later hardeware? What is the secret?
Honestly with no ill intentions intended I think some of this opinion are over exagerations in the very least.
Click to expand...
Good point there

Up till now, I always assume that most people are still judging its performance in games that are DX9/DX10, which I think its true.

It will be interesting to see how these DX11 cards really performs in DX11 games that takes advantage of DX11 features. Right now I'm just waiting to see more benchmark done to see how these cards perform in DX11 games
 
Tabasco69 said:
In relative terms these are what I was considering as older games "Dead Space, Left 4 Dead and Bioshock", go ahead and try out Stalker COP or Dirt 2, or even GTA. With titles predating DX11 implimentation like teslation sure the a 5870 is overkill for a 22" monitor, but for newer DX11 titles coming out right around the corner it is a different story entirely, and because of this I would not feel wrong by suggesting a 5870 for 22" monitor, I highly doubt by the end of this year it will be considered overkill...future proofing.

I admit Crysis is a bad example, btw I have both vanilla and warhead, not much difference......anyway.

I'am going to buy a 5970 soon, Ill be posting a 5870 with a DD water block soon for sale for less then this $450 you speak of, I only paid $367 the first week of launch from Newegg btw, one of the few times I haven't gotten burned for being an early adopter and beating the price gouging that ensued ....hehe
Click to expand...

That is true, all my experience is with older games. I havent tried anything DX11 yet. But I wonder how much of a difference DX11 will actually make. From what Ive seen in Crysis for example, I cant tell a difference between DX9 and DX10. Im sure if you set 2 identical screen shots next to each other I could pick out the difference but Im not sure its really much. And if the difference with DX11 is going to be tiny, is it really worth spending $100 extra on a video card?

And I hear ya on lousy timing with Newegg prices. It wasnt but a couple months ago GTX260's were going for $150. I talked myself out of getting one. "Nah, Ill just wait. In a couple months theyll be down even further." Now theyre $200. :(
 
You need to grab atleast a demo of Stalker COP as soon as you get a dx11 card, you have the options of enabling dx9/dx10 or dx11, at I would say setting the graphics between high and ultra high with dx11 I really think you will be surpised in the overall difference of fps you will get,
Stalker-COP-DirectX-11-01a.jpg


this isn't a must have setting, but hey if you want to use it you should be able....right?!.....at the basic resolution of most 22" you'll be just getting by with a 5870, there are not a lot of games out right now using DX11, but like I said there are quite a few slated for release this year with DX11 features and maybe the ones that do come out might be better optimised and perform better IDK, but I 'am using what is availible to determine a base line of what to expect.

from $160- $200 is a sign of limited availibility cause the card is officailly at it's END OF LIFE status, look at how much a 256mb dim of old single data rate ram cost...$50-$65
 
Last edited:
med1kl said:
To max out all new games @ 1680x1050 you will need 2gb's especially if you use AA. I'd say get a 5850 at the minimum.
Click to expand...

Dude, by your logic I'd have to resort to running everything at low settings at 2560x1600 res, yet I am able to max the vast majority of games at 60FPS+.
 
I guess my eyesight is going. Those screen shots on that website I linked to show a difference but not that much at least not much that I can see.
 
FWIW since Im only at 1680x1050 myself I only went for the 5770 as on everything except Crysis Im more than fine
 
Tabasco69 said:
You need to grab atleast a demo of Stalker COP as soon as you get a dx11 card, you have the options of enabling dx9/dx10 or dx11, at I would say setting the graphics between high and ultra high with dx11 I really think you will be surpised in the overall difference of fps you will get,
Stalker-COP-DirectX-11-01a.jpg


this isn't a must have setting, but hey if you want to use it you should be able....right?!.....at the basic resolution of most 22" you'll be just getting by with a 5870, there are not a lot of games out right now using DX11, but like I said there are quite a few slated for release this year with DX11 features and maybe the ones that do come out might be better optimised and perform better IDK, but I 'am using what is availible to determine a base line of what to expect.

from $160- $200 is a sign of limited availibility cause the card is officailly at it's END OF LIFE status, look at how much a 256mb dim of old single data rate ram cost...$50-$65
Click to expand...

The lighting looks nice, but look at the "round" air intakes on the gas mask. They are obviously of a higher polygon count on the DX11 version. Are they really trying to pass off higher polygon count as a DX11 feature? :p
 
Hey you have audophiles and you have videophiles.....people who demand cutting edge, then you have people witha more reasonable expectations...I' am inbetween the 2 somewhere...when I used to do clan meet fps...been a long time ago though...og rainbow six and ghostrecon matches I always bought the fastest cards out (NV300 and Ati 9800 pro) and turned the graphic to the lowest settings, grass, bushes and trees get in the way...only turned the details up on sp.
There is quite a difference between 9 and 11, 10 whats that anyway, early adopting developers aren't using it full tilt yet, you will notice that the body armor is exacly the same in appearance, they evidently only coded it to effect the helmet and mask, teslation is what is used to round the air canister and give more volume and realistic lighting to the helmet....full DX11 lighting effects will bring a 5870 to it's knees at times, confirmed that myself, but the xray engine is known to be buggie as hell, it had problems before dx11 and it may still be having ongoing issues that hamper performance, we just have to wait for other titles using different engine before coming to any concrete conclusions.
 
x3sphere said:
Dude, by your logic I'd have to resort to running everything at low settings at 2560x1600 res, yet I am able to max the vast majority of games at 60FPS+.
Click to expand...
60fps is shit. 120hz or go home. Me and my 120hz monitor.
 
fdiaz78 said:
1680x1050 not going obsolete.
Click to expand...

people used to say that about 1024x768. Only those unable to afford a $150 monitor still game at that resolution.

My main monitor is a 22" with 1680x1050 and while I like it, I have the urge for bigger as the prices come down.
 
robble said:
people used to say that about 1024x768. Only those unable to afford a $150 monitor still game at that resolution.

My main monitor is a 22" with 1680x1050 and while I like it, I have the urge for bigger as the prices come down.
Click to expand...

Or those that can afford a $150 monitor but are content with a ~22"
 
friend'scatdied said:
The most popular gaming resolution is 1280*1024.
Click to expand...

and before that was 1024x768....
before that 800x600..
before that 640x480..

The bottom line for resolutions is going to keep going up.

in ten years we'll all have 3000x2000+ resolution if not some type of organic thingy that doesn't even use pixels.
 
robble said:
sorry, but i haven't seen a 22" monitor that runs at 1024x768. I wouldn't want one either.
Click to expand...

Misunderstanding on my part. I thought you were saying only people who can't afford $150 still game at 16x10
 
Elios said:
most popular GPU is intel IGP800 or what ever its called doesnt mean its good
Click to expand...

If you include all the soccer-moms who only play flash games =)

Otherwise steam says intel gpu's comprise 3.61% of steams user base.

be nice if it broke the stats down to model numbers. Maybe it does. I'll go check.

edit: It does break it down but it's a lot of data http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
 
These are from the steam hardware survey. 1024x768 still has a decent size following although it has the strongest negative trend.
1280x1024 barely edges out 1680x1050 as the number one spot. notice though that it has a negative trend where 1680 has a slight positive trend. 1920x1080 looks to be the fastest growing resolution.


1024 x 768(-1.26%) 12.93%
1152 x 864(-0.24%) 2.23%
1280 x 720(-0.03%) 0.72%
1280 x 768(-0.05%) 0.85%
1280 x 800(-0.38%) 6.61%
1280 x 960(-0.13%) 1.59%
1280 x 1024(-0.47%) 19.31%
1360 x 768(+0.02%) 1.13%
1366 x 768(+0.09%) 3.98%
1440 x 900(-0.04%) 10.75%
1600 x 900(+0.18%) 2.15%
1600 x 1200(-0.05%) 0.97%
1680 x 1050(+0.50%) 18.43%
1920 x 1080(+1.39%) 9.03%
1920 x 1200(+0.39%) 5.86%
 
robble said:
These are from the steam hardware survey. 1024x768 still has a decent size following although it has the strongest negative trend.
1280x1024 barely edges out 1680x1050 as the number one spot. notice though that it has a negative trend where 1680 has a slight positive trend. 1920x1080 looks to be the fastest growing resolution.


1024 x 768(-1.26%) 12.93%
1152 x 864(-0.24%) 2.23%
1280 x 720(-0.03%) 0.72%
1280 x 768(-0.05%) 0.85%
1280 x 800(-0.38%) 6.61%
1280 x 960(-0.13%) 1.59%
1280 x 1024(-0.47%) 19.31%
1360 x 768(+0.02%) 1.13%
1366 x 768(+0.09%) 3.98%
1440 x 900(-0.04%) 10.75%
1600 x 900(+0.18%) 2.15%
1600 x 1200(-0.05%) 0.97%
1680 x 1050(+0.50%) 18.43%
1920 x 1080(+1.39%) 9.03%
1920 x 1200(+0.39%) 5.86%
Click to expand...

thats becouse thats all you can get at retail any more been in a bestbuy lately?
its all 1920x1080
 
Yeah, honestly you should just lump the 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 numbers together if you're gonna do any kind of comparison... Since the difference in pixels isn't much, and the displays are usually priced the same, 16:9 is just more popular right now (God knows why...).
 
Impulse said:
Yeah, honestly you should just lump the 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 numbers together if you're gonna do any kind of comparison... Since the difference in pixels isn't much, and the displays are usually priced the same, 16:9 is just more popular right now (God knows why...).
Click to expand...

if you do that you have to lump 1600x900 in with 1680x1050
also 16:9 is popular becouse of the marketing its "TrueHD" or some bullshit so to have that check box every in best buy in all 1920x1080 >.<
 
Yeah I realize that, it's silly... I think the manufacturing costs are probably lower for 16:9 displays too tho, otherwise we wouldn't have seen this massive shift so fast (I don't think the market for desktop displays is quite that large these days, laptops accounting for most new system sales and all...). Makes sense to me to lump 1600x900 and 1680x105 together as well tho, at 'least for the purpose of this type of discussion.

I used to prefer 16:10 just because of the vertical space for docs... But if I move up to an Eyefinity setup I'd definitely rather have 16:10 displays even more for more vertical space in between bezels, unfortunately it seems if I don't do this soon I'm not gonna have any choice at all in the matter ('least not locally)... Ugh. I bought my 2243BWX for such a decent price ($200), should've gotten two, heh.
 
I run 1680x1050 with my signature machine. Everything on high in all games (including Crysis, all high to very high settings), no troubles. A decent 512mb video card IS enough for this resolution, however anything higher than 1680 might be pushing it.
 
Elios said:
if you do that you have to lump 1600x900 in with 1680x1050
also 16:9 is popular becouse of the marketing its "TrueHD" or some bullshit so to have that check box every in best buy in all 1920x1080 >.<
Click to expand...
Yeah, It wouldn't make much sense to put 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 into the same category. I think the reason why 16:9 is so popular is because of the TVs being 16:9 and your average joe wants something that they're used to, in this case, a 16:9 display. You've got to realize that a lot of people using computers are probably more accustomed to saying 1080p than 1920x1080 meaning they probably have no idea what res they're running. With that being said, most technologically challenged people will believe any BS you tell them so in the end so many 16:9 monitors probably just has to do with cheaper production costs.
 
My vote goes for the 5770. I'm running a 4850 and it still holds up fine with a majority of my games at 1680 x 1050.
 
Impulse said:
Yeah, honestly you should just lump the 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 numbers together if you're gonna do any kind of comparison... Since the difference in pixels isn't much, and the displays are usually priced the same, 16:9 is just more popular right now (God knows why...).
Click to expand...

While 1920x1200 is a bigger resolution then 1920x1080. The aspect ratio is however smaller. So you actually see less since 16:9 is a wider horizontal picture.

Example
http://mysite.verizon.net/dion250/169.png

As you can see the 16:10 aspect ratio is cut off about 1 inch on each side. So you see less. So to answer your God knows why question. There ya go.

Again its not much. But everyone on the same page is better wouldn't you agree.
 
Huh?

That is odd. How is for example 1920x1200 narrower than 1920x1080.
headexplode.gif
 
Koko56 said:
Huh?

That is odd. How is for example 1920x1200 narrower than 1920x1080.
headexplode.gif
Click to expand...

he is right if the monitors had the same vertical height ie say both were 13" tall
the 16:9 screen would be longer

but imo ill give up some of that for the larger vertical pixel space for doing real work
larger screen space is better for gaming and movies etc
but larger pixel space is better for office work
also fun fact 3x 16:10 in portrait mode for eyefinity is wider then 16:9 but 3x 16:9 the same way is narrower then then 16:10
so if you want to run 3x portrait mode 16:10 monitors give you more pixel and screen space :D
 
event_horizon said:
I run 1680x1050 with my signature machine. Everything on high in all games (including Crysis, all high to very high settings), no troubles. A decent 512mb video card IS enough for this resolution, however anything higher than 1680 might be pushing it.
Click to expand...

512MB is NOT ENOUGH for this resolution unless you don't play to crank up the settings, and especially to the newer title...

especially Crysis you have no way to run very high settings, high is hard enough to make it run smooth. and if you crank up AA it will be game over..

I find lots of game with max 2xAA on that resolution on 512VRAM in order to run smooth, most of them will run into a stutter during either grid transaction or while streaming the textures..

that is a big reason why I jump from 4870 512VRAM to a 1GB one... it solve all those stutter issue...
 
Dion said:
While 1920x1200 is a bigger resolution then 1920x1080. The aspect ratio is however smaller. So you actually see less since 16:9 is a wider horizontal picture.

Example
http://mysite.verizon.net/dion250/169.png

As you can see the 16:10 aspect ratio is cut off about 1 inch on each side. So you see less. So to answer your God knows why question. There ya go. Again its not much. But everyone on the same page is better wouldn't you agree.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't... Some might prefer 16:10 for gaming because of this (tho that can also vary from game to game AFAIK, depending on FoV, zoom, how the game handles aspect ratios, etc), but for productivity I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 any damn day of the week, I'd rather have more lines of text on screen at any given time... Also, for using displays in portrait mode within an Eyefinity setup I'd gamble that most people would prefer 16:10 over 16:9 since it gives 'em more space in between bezels.

Either way, the reason why 16:9 is so popular now has absolutely nothing to do w/any of this, it's just a matter of marketing and/or costs. I seriously doubt manufacturers of cheap TN displays have PC gamers anywhere on their list of priorities. :p
 
J Macker said:
I do really like the 1920x1200 resolution and I am still adjusting to the 1680x1050 size. I only recently "downgraded" to a 22" from my Asus 25.5" because I felt that 3x22" ips panels were much more affordable than 23-24" ips panels. I knew I wanted Eyefinity, and I was tired of my crappy looking TN panels. Now I have 4 ips panels and 2 TN panels. Though my wife has been sacked with one TN panel and probably wouldn't want to trade a 24" for a 20" ips at 1680x1050.

I could see the advantages of a single 30" display, but I really like the 48:10 ratio for some games. Internet at 3x22 in portrait is great as well. I would be hard pressed to use a single 22" panel though. There's just not enough resolution!
Click to expand...

Don't stone me for sidetracking here, but how do you find the input lag on the IPS screens? I still find myself hard to adjust to my 27inch PVA and i've put it off as a secondary now, because when I game on this I find the 2-3fps delay to be actually bothering me quite a bit, even on non-FPS games...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top