Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Screen Size & Resolution Hender GPU Optimal Performance?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 9, 2014 10:05:55 AM

I have a simple A-10 6700 APU 3.7ghz Quad core an I'm using an HDMI out to connect with my HDTV as I do not have a monitor just yet. The tv is like 42" an the resolution right now is at 1920x1080 30hertz 1080i (My tv is not 1080p it's 1080i unfortunately)

So when it comes to lower class gpu outputs would I see better performance with a sizably smaller monitor?
a b C Monitor
a c 378 U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 10:19:01 AM

Smaller, not really, lower resolution yes.
On a larger monitor/tv the pixels are simply larger, so therefore its still the same amount of pixels.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 10:22:21 AM

The size of a screen is irrelevant. Your concern is with how many pixels you are asking your graphics card to manipulate and push to the screen.

The number of pixels you are manipulating goes up pretty quickly at some resolutions and is going to directly affect how many frames per second your game is going to produce.

2560 x 1440 : 3,686,400 pixels
1920 x 1080 : 2,073,600 pixels
1366 x 768 : 1,049,088 pixels

You don't necessarily want a smaller screen, but choosing a lower resolution will always speed things up for a given detail setting.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 10:33:40 AM

According to these guys [http://www.computershopper.com/components/reviews/amd-a...(page)/5#review-body], to see a noticeable jump in performance at 1920x1080 resolution, with your onboard GPU using System memory, you'd need to bump up the speed of your RAM to 1866, which is quite feasible with most good memory nowadays, but definitely not advisable for beginners.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 10:41:33 AM

While you may receive a boost in performance with some pricier, high speed RAM, the money would be better spent on even a low end graphics card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 11:09:02 AM

I most definitely agree, a discrete gpu, or even a hybrid crossfire with something like a R7 250, would be an amazing increase in performance at 1920x1080 resolution, however, I was thinking along the lines of a RAM OC, not necessarily new pricey RAM, if the RAM he has is capable. Even then, I'd not suggest he OC that RAM, that's definitely not something beginner OCers should even consider doing.
m
0
l
February 9, 2014 9:01:28 PM

Well 10 years ago OC'ing was the thing to do. Now days it is quite irrelevant as you are not going to see a performance increase that is worth the risk.

On the other hand what I've gathered here is that removing the current 8gb DDR3 1600mhz ram an install 2 8gb DDR3 1866mhz ram or even 2 4gb DDR3 1866mhz ram an than the highest compatible gpu that I can install on this motherboard. Set the dedicated graphics memory on the APU lower an let the gpu I installed do all the work.

That seems to be my best option. Not sure though. My motherboard does have Graphics Boost. For what reason I don't know since I can not overclock the APU as it is not compatible.

I have a 350w Psu pre-installed an on the monitor of settings the power hardly ever goes above 150 - 100 most times sitting at around 50w when not doing much of anything.

Also since setting resolution lower would help a tiny bit than lowering my screen size would make it look better at that lower resolution. Screen size doesn't affect performance but it affects the visual part when reducing the resolution.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 378 U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 9:05:07 PM

As for the OC, thats not true.
My 965 couldnt support a GTX 760 at stock speeds, it would max out at 80%.
Running at 4.11 GHz up from 3.4 there is no longer a bottleneck. So OCing does help, its free performance. And the only risk is heat, which is easily removed, or if people are careless.
m
0
l
February 9, 2014 9:08:48 PM

Gam3r01 said:
As for the OC, thats not true.
My 965 couldnt support a GTX 760 at stock speeds, it would max out at 80%.
Running at 4.11 GHz up from 3.4 there is no longer a bottleneck. So OCing does help, its free performance. And the only risk is heat, which is easily removed, or if people are careless.


What about random crashing? Do OC's not do that anymore if you set it up right?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 9, 2014 9:17:18 PM

OC isn't that dead lol, its what AMD lives and breathes for
m
0
l
February 9, 2014 9:19:01 PM

Well I was quite surprised to see all these new utilities on this machine. It's almost like they want you to OC it but than again there is also a lot of warnings about doing so.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
a c 378 U Graphics card
February 10, 2014 4:18:05 PM

If you get the OC right, it wont crash. It will be stable. I havent crashed at all in the months after OCing.
The reason they tell you not to is is voids warranties, but its still safe and viable. Hence why all AMD processors are "Black Editions"
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2014 7:20:26 PM

Intel 4770 $294.99
Intel 4770K $334.28

Difference in chips? none. Difference in bios, 2- stock setting for 4770 is 3.4Ghz, 4770K is 3.5Ghz. Most important, 4770K has an unlocked multiplier. What does this all mean? It means Intel has hooked someone for an extra $40, just to be able to OC, by using software switches, architecturally the 2 chips are the same. AMD doesn't lock their multipliers.. so you get to OC for free. Go AMD!
m
0
l
February 10, 2014 7:45:29 PM

So it's a good thing that I'm a fan of AMD than huh lol

What about Asus? Are they a good company to stand by?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b C Monitor
a c 378 U Graphics card
February 10, 2014 7:46:28 PM

ASUS is great!
Some of the best motherboards and graphics cards around.
Share
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2014 8:07:11 PM

Best answer.. right there!
m
0
l
!