Are high end cards worth it?

Hi - Before I drop beaucoup bucks on a highend card, I was just wondering...
Since LCD monitors up/down convert the signal to match their native resolution, is there any visible benefit from a card that outputs higher resolutions? Wouldn't downconverting from a high resolution actually make the image fuzzy? Are very high resolutions only really useable on a CRT?
Finally, is the sole real benefit of a highend card in its higher fps and smoother gameplay? If the answer is yes, then what actually constitutes a noticeable difference - 5%, 10%, 15% ?
TIA for your advice...stevenpchurch

lcd's DO NOT handle resolutions higher then their native. They will interpolate and/or block-in res that is lower, but show nothing for res that is higher.

as for high-end... if you have an lcd that has native 1600x1200 then a low-end card will simply not be able to run a "new" game w/ all the eye candy turned on. You would have to lower the resolution to 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 to get the same eye-candy. Thus the lcd will have to interpolate it up to 16x12 which makes the "fuzzy" picture mentioned above.

Other then increasing the picture quality, or running a higher minimum fps... if you can't figure out any worth, then buy the el cheapo-gazebo version and be happy w/ the $ you saved.

Personally, I will not use LCDs for gaming for a very long time. Aside from gaming there are other advantages to being able to set the video card+monitor to resolutions other than a fixed "native" resolution of an LCD.

However, LCDs are kind of replacing CRTs for reasons other than just being a "new" technology. They are not all that new anyway. Thing is that the majority of computers out there are not gaming machines. I work in a college and we have approximately 7000 - 1000 PCs between all buildings of the campus. Modern office buildings also have thousands of PCs.... LCD's are fine for office use and they do take up much less space. This, I believe, is the main reason why manufacturers are making more and more LCDs.

Finally, I would venture to guess that the majority of home computers are not gaming machines and that the majority of home PC users are casual gamers at best.

That's why we all love LCDs. Funny how an inferior technology replaces the old one just because it's new. :?

LCDs are superior to CRTs on the basis that they won't kill you.

LCDs can have mercury lamps in them. Far less toxic content than CRTs which is a plus. But they can still be somewhat toxic.

IMHO, there are two main reasons why they are popular. First, their size. They are immensely more conveinient than clunky CRTs. Second, power consumption. LCDs consume significantly less power than CRTs, so institutions and businesses save money by using them. Granted, they have to buy them first, but I think that they make up for that within their lifetimes (I hope).

I have an old Sony Trinitron CRT and I love playing games on it. The image is so crisp and the colors are wonderful. As a tradeoff for this, it takes up all of my desk space leaving me with no space for my mouse and keyboard

That's why we all love LCDs. Funny how an inferior technology replaces the old one just because it's new. :?

LCDs are superior to CRTs on the basis that they won't kill you.


Tip of the Day:

Don't Eat Your Monitor!

I personally never had any trouble with LCD screens (even with scaling down). The newer monitors are much better than a few years ago.
( The ONLY problem I had with new LCDs is black isn't really black. )
Try to get 500:1 + contrast ratio if you can. Response Time and viewing angles are mostly non-issues now a days.

I also never regret spending too much on a video card. I even play Obivion on a 7800GS @ 1600x1200 native res. (with a lot of tweaks)

That's why we all love LCDs. Funny how an inferior technology replaces the old one just because it's new. :?

LCDs are superior to CRTs on the basis that they won't kill you.

LCDs can have mercury lamps in them. Far less toxic content than CRTs which is a plus. But they can still be somewhat toxic.

IMHO, there are two main reasons why they are popular. First, their size. They are immensely more conveinient than clunky CRTs. Second, power consumption. LCDs consume significantly less power than CRTs, so institutions and businesses save money by using them. Granted, they have to buy them first, but I think that they make up for that within their lifetimes (I hope).

I have an old Sony Trinitron CRT and I love playing games on it. The image is so crisp and the colors are wonderful. As a tradeoff for this, it takes up all of my desk space leaving me with no space for my mouse and keyboard

There are other reasons, like, CRTs have a tendency to cause vision problems after a long period of use (try using a CRT for many hours in a row - you'll probably end up tired, even if you set your Vert Sync at above 60 Hz).

But there are newer technologies that are better than LCDs, like Led Displays and VRD.

I happen to prefer CRT over LCD's for a couple of reasons. One I have never had any problem with my eyes getting tired usign them and I sit in front of one for 8 hours at work and then go home and spend many more hours looking at one there. Second I belive that if you purchase a good CRT monitor it will smoke most any lcd panel for color depth, contrast and sharpness (with a good enough dot pitch at least). And second you can run any resolution on a crt that the monitor supports with out getting fuzzy images, which if you are trying to save money on a vid card is a big plus. They do have obivious drawbacks with size, weight, and heat but IMO any gamer out there would be better off with a high quality 20" or 21" or larger CRT as long as you have the room. The picture is just better across the board on CRT's. And I do use a lot of lcd panels as well doing searches at the local courthouse and frankly the colors always tend to looked muted and washed out to me, they are all dell panels by the way.

Well, to rephrase my original question...THGs is always testing the cards du jour and trying to determine the current king of the hill but I never get a feeling for what constitutes significant, noticeable differences (it would help if THG would tell us if they actually saw these differences in real world use). Yes, I understand pride of ownership, technolust, mine is bigger than yours, etc but at what point is the difference between cards virtually indistinguishable? At what point is an extra few fps on one game or another just marketing one-ups-manship? Am I really going to see the difference between a $300 midrange card and the latest $600 superhero? Thanks for your opinions...stevenpchurch

Well, you're still talking a numbers game. What I need to know is "Are these differences viewable?". I just can't get a feel for that from numbers alone and that's why I was asking for folks to share their real world experience. Thanks...stevenpchurch

Thank you sojrner! That is exactly the kind of proof I was looking for and, yes, even my tired old eyes could tell the difference. Thank you very much!...stevenpchurch