Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Performance at Widescreen Resolutions

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 30, 2006 1:42:59 PM

Just read the reviews of the ATI X1900 cards - very nice!

However, the perf stats are always for 4:3 ratio resolutions (1024x768 & 1600x1200). Do the cards (and games) handle widescreen as efficiently? Can I expect similar performance at 1680x1050 as at 1600x1200?

With the increasing availability of cheaper widescreen displays, tt would be interesting to see if the new format performs as well as the traditional.

Ian
January 30, 2006 2:29:16 PM

The higher the resolution the bigger the gap is compared with the 7800.
I have a Dell 2405FPW and a X1800XT, and it plays great at max detail.
January 30, 2006 5:38:45 PM

What res. do you run that LCD at? (Games and Desktop)

I've been contemplating getting a widescreen LCD 'cause games coming out these days have a widescreen mode.

-mpjesse
Related resources
January 30, 2006 7:05:22 PM

What about Fear and Farcry? Those two are killers.
January 30, 2006 7:56:36 PM

Have not played Farcry on this rig, but have played the demo to fear at high quality resolution, and it played fine with no noticable hiccups, but I only tried it for about a half hour.
So far, everygame I played with this rig has been in the desktop standard widescreen resolution.
January 30, 2006 8:20:31 PM

Quote:
So far, everygame I played with this rig has been in the desktop standard widescreen resolution.


Awww man. Go buy Grand Theft Auto: SA and let me know how it looks in widescreen.

:-)

-mpjesse
January 30, 2006 8:41:37 PM

Been there, done that.

It's awesome. :D 

All games are better on a 24" widescreen though.
January 30, 2006 8:43:07 PM

That's amazing. The benchmarks still seem to show some low framerates at ultra high resolutions at the highest settings. If what you're saying is true though I'll probably upgrade with the next generation. A year and a half on a x800xl is enough for the 2405fpw.
January 30, 2006 8:48:11 PM

I think the 7800 series handles higher resolutions better .... something to consider. I dont have any linkage but I coudl look some reviews up later.
January 30, 2006 8:52:16 PM

Now you have to try some high Anti aliasing. :) 
On FarCry I play at 1280x1024 with 8X SSAA and 16XAF
February 4, 2006 3:50:28 PM

Quote:
Just read the reviews of the ATI X1900 cards - very nice!

However, the perf stats are always for 4:3 ratio resolutions (1024x768 & 1600x1200). Do the cards (and games) handle widescreen as efficiently? Can I expect similar performance at 1680x1050 as at 1600x1200?

With the increasing availability of cheaper widescreen displays, tt would be interesting to see if the new format performs as well as the traditional.

Ian


1680x1050 performance levels equate to 1600x1200 levels, while 1920x1200 equates to 2048x1536.

If you need a point of reference, that would be the correct one.
Even though 1600x1200= 1920000pixels > 1680x1050= 1764000px, the widescreen aspect ratio (16:10 vs 4:3) means more is actually rendered onscreen than a "square" display.. effectively equalizing things, performance-wise.
February 4, 2006 4:30:10 PM

How do you figure that 1920x1200 is the same as 2048x1536? There's almost a million pixel difference?

2304000
3145728

diff 841728 or 27%!
February 4, 2006 4:38:23 PM

Its 128 pixels longer (not really a drastic difference for modern video cards), and 336px taller. It may dwarf if, but the widescreen still will render more onscreen than the 4:3 comparison. WS AS renders somewhere around good ~27% more polys onscreen by its nature (in native WS games only, not ones that chop the top off like BF2).
Its the closest I've found for comparison.. if you dont like it, disregard my ridiculously foolish reasoning. 8)
February 4, 2006 5:07:30 PM

by the way have you considered the 3007?
its a bit pricey for my taste, i think the 24" is big enough for me.. if I ever need bigger I'll hook up the PC to a 1080HDTV and just jump to 32+"

I have a dual tdms link card, but I cant justify the 3007.
I'm waiting for the 2407
February 4, 2006 5:15:42 PM

Quote:
Anand used 1920x1440 for their X1900 review. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=12

Guru3d used 1920x1200 for some tests. http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/315/11

skip 2 pages later; Averaging 62fps in COD2 at 1920x1200 with EVERYTHING maxed out, is simply amazing. I play it at 10x7 no fsaa on my 6800U. :( 


TY. I dont mind scaling down, personally. I run 1152x864 in Pirates and set the panel to fill.
Also on a Heroes of Might and Magic 3 kick, so Im stretching 800x600 out across the panel..
games already look like crap at 800x600, so why bother with keeping the correct aspect. My way of looking at it.

I stretch out Starcraft too.
Civ4 supports native WS, as does HL2 and MS Flight Sim 2004.
Quake 4 seems to support it fine too. BF2 cuts the top and bottom off though.


Currently the games I'm playing regularly (Civ4/HOMM3/Pirates/SC/BF2) are by a majority ones that dont support native WS.
One thing that will be nice when I get my 2407FPW, I'll have 1600x1200 as an option.. I'll be running that a lot and stretching it in games like BF2.
!