Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Monitor Bottleneck?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 8, 2007 10:08:27 PM

I'm in the process of building a new computer but haven't picked out a video card yet. I currently have a 19" Flat Panel Samsung (SyncMaster914v) and am not planning on upgrading my monitor any time soon. The highest resolution I can get with my current monitor is 1280 X 1024 so buying an 8800GT is obviously a waste of money. The question I have is, at what point does spending more on a video card make no sense considering the monitor someone is using? Would it be worth it to buy say, the X1950XT instead of the X1950Pro if I am going to keep the monitor? Or would I be wise in not even going that high and get a 7600GT until I can get a new monitor? I guess what I am looking for is the best graphics card I can use and still see some benefit with this monitor.

I know which cards are better than others but don't want to spend funds on a card if it won't make a difference. Where in the video card spectrum should I be looking? Thanks in advance.

More about : monitor bottleneck

January 8, 2007 10:42:56 PM

First off, this topic is kinda dumb......

Ok, video cards do not really give a shit what your monitor is. The point of more expensive cards is FPS.
January 8, 2007 10:48:06 PM

Quote:
Ok, video cards do not really give a **** what your monitor is. The point of more expensive cards is FPS.

It doesn't care, but if the monitor limits you to a 800x600 resolution, then most graphic cards are a waste of money.

@ Original Question
Go for the 8800GTS, it's a better card, and 1280x1024 is the optimal resolution.
Related resources
January 8, 2007 11:16:49 PM

And I feel sorry for anyone whose monitor does limit them to anything less than 1024x768. Both the 17" CRTs I own have a limit of 1280x1024, but at 60hz. Their highest at 85hz is 1024x768, but their image quality is bad->shocking at any resolution.
January 9, 2007 12:03:59 AM

Quote:
Ok, video cards do not really give a **** what your monitor is. The point of more expensive cards is FPS.

It doesn't care, but if the monitor limits you to a 800x600 resolution, then most graphic cards are a waste of money.

@ Original Question
Go for the 8800GTS, it's a better card, and 1280x1024 is the optimal resolution.

Yup.
January 9, 2007 12:08:41 AM

IMO the resolution of your monitor is fine. Just quick glance at the specs of your monitor shows a response time of 12ms. I believe the response time needs to be less than 8ms to be a decent gaming monitor. If I were you I would sell the monitor for a 100+ and get a new one with a quicker response time from newegg (for under 250) and a x1950pro. The only waste of money for a resolution of 1280 x1024 would be SLI or crossfire.
January 9, 2007 2:23:25 AM

Quote:
First off, this topic is kinda dumb......

Ok, video cards do not really give a **** what your monitor is. The point of more expensive cards is FPS.


Really? The point of a better graphics card is better FPS? I was unaware of that. Thanks for the useful info. I'm sure there are about 50 "Check My Build" threads in the Homebuilt forum that you can crap all over instead of mine.

Thanks to the folks that provided USEFUL information to what I thought was a valid question. I can't really justify a better monitor after only having it about a year or spending $400 on a GPU so I guess I'll look into getting an X1950 Pro or maybe an X1950XT.
January 9, 2007 4:51:44 AM

Quote:
First off, this topic is kinda dumb......

Ok, video cards do not really give a **** what your monitor is. The point of more expensive cards is FPS.


I believe you have showed the world your intelligence level in a single post.
!