22' 1680x1050 or 22' 1920x1080?

Lordegor3

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
48
0
10,540
I currently own a 22' LG LED with 1680x1050 and I have an option to get a 22' Benq GW2250 LED with 1920x1080.
I am a gamer and currently running a gtx 670 OCed to 1267/3454.
If i switch to 1920x1080, what is the performance impact that could be?
What is the FPS drop would be?
On the 1680x1050 i could max out every game (Crysis 3: 34-40 fps, TombRaidaer: 50-60 fps, AC3 stable 60 fps)
And is the switching would make me see a better picture while playing? i mean, does it worth the performance impact, since both are 22'?
 

PyjamasCat

Honorable
Mar 20, 2013
874
0
11,360
The picture quality would be a nice improvement, but you will lose some frames to that. Possibly 10 - 15 FPS average, depending on how graphically demanding the game is. I play AC3 with a 1080p monitor and GTX 670 and have no performance issues (Max settings 60fps with vsync) but Crysis 3 may take a hit as it is pretty intense( I don't have Crysis 3 but benches and videos etc). Not sure about Tomb Raider though.
 
It won't be very much. I'd say 5 is being optimistic. You are going from 1.7m pixels to 2.05m. It won't be anything you'll notice.

I didn't feel like going through alot of benchmarks because its tiring but google is your friend and heres 2 from crysis 3.

1680-Med-A.png

1920-Med-A.png
 

eklipz330

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2008
3,034
19
20,795
there will definitely be a perferomance hit, but if you're using it to play games, i suggest getting that 144hz monitor with the lightboost hack, since you already have a nvidia card.


you'll always be able to drop the resolution if you want, and for games that run well past 120fps, you'll have some amazing clarity and buttery smooth gameplay
 

Immaculate

Honorable
Mar 26, 2013
1,450
0
11,660
I have i5-4670K, cl9/1866 RAM, 7870Ghz and I get about 42-46 fps in TombRaider on Ultimate, FXAA, Shadows all Ultra, TressFX.
Everything I have is stock speeds. 1080p.
670 could handle it.
If under 60fps is unacceptable then stick with sub 1080p
If you want better quality with a slight performance hit then upgrade, I would not pay full price to upgrade from 1680x1050.
Anyone correct me but I thought ASUS monitors were better?
 

Lordegor3

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
48
0
10,540


40 fps and up is acceptable, even 35 + sometimes. i played Crysis 3, all settings on Ultra, TXAA x4, 34-60 fps, good enough, on 1680x1050
 

Lordegor3

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
48
0
10,540


From those pics I see that i must upgrade to 1080p. 5 fps hit on Crysis 3 is nonsense.
But if i won't notice any difference, it's not worthy.
 

Immaculate

Honorable
Mar 26, 2013
1,450
0
11,660


Once I get ethernet cable running to the room where my PC is then I will be able to tell you what numbers I get on 1080p Crysis 3 on a card slower than GTX 670 OC'd
 

Immaculate

Honorable
Mar 26, 2013
1,450
0
11,660


If you mean actually go inside a store, Id be very detailed about what I look at. Usually display models settings are all jacked up to look the brightest, eye popping settings. Personally, I hate using Dynamic Contrast, drowns out everything and stuff doesn't look as sharp and detailed to me... to me that is...
 

Lordegor3

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
48
0
10,540
Well, after googling, i found that the higher ress is better, since the higher ress (1080p) is on the same 22' (like my 1680x1050). i would not need to use AA, which means more fps. Correct me if i'm wrong.
 

Lordegor3

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
48
0
10,540


Well, I already own the monitor. My parents got it really cheap for their new PC, so i can give them mine, the 16x10, they dont have any problem. Just was wondering if the impact worth it.