Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800gtx @1280 x 1024resolution a waste???

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 14, 2007 11:14:38 PM

i got a 16inch viewable crt screen. i plan on buying a 8800gtx with my income check soon. the max resolution of my crt monitor is 1280 x 1024. it has a refresh rate of 85Hz i believe. I was wondering if anyone knows if that graphics card would basically "bottle neck" my monitor? I also would like to know if anyone knows if the evga 8800gtx is easily hooked up to a hdtv? would gaming be good on a 55inch hdtv? and finally would anyone be able to guess wut score i would get on 3dmark06 with the following rig i will have shortly::
8800gtx evga stock
Pentium d (805 @ 3.8-4.0 )
Evga 680i
800mhz gskull 1024mb
Segate 320gb 7200rpm sataII

I m guessing 8000 3dmark 06?? i could be way off..
thnx.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2007 11:31:40 PM

no it wont bottle neck your monitor.

and yes it will work with hdtv and a 55 inch monitor.
Related resources
January 14, 2007 11:43:28 PM

I don't see 1280x1024 being as much of a waste as the 16 inch monitor.
Anti-alaising can help cure the 12x10 resolution.
January 15, 2007 12:43:44 AM

just a quick question off-topic here. you guys with widescreen monitors, when gaming at 1280 x 1024, do you set your monitor to remain at a fixed aspect ratio or do you let it stretch to fit your screen? my native reso. is 16:10 (1440 x 900) and 1280 x 1024 will need to be stretched to maximise all screen space. most games i play support my reso, and most that don't support it look ok when stretched at 1280 x 1024. just wondering what you guys do.
January 15, 2007 1:12:42 AM

It's perfect for it? Smooth gaming at highest quality.
January 15, 2007 1:21:47 AM

Whether it's worth it or not is up to you but I personally would not. The cpu and 1 gb of ram will bottleneck your system anyway so whether your monitor is the issue is moot.
January 15, 2007 1:27:36 AM

Quote:
just a quick question off-topic here. you guys with widescreen monitors, when gaming at 1280 x 1024, do you set your monitor to remain at a fixed aspect ratio or do you let it stretch to fit your screen? my native reso. is 16:10 (1440 x 900) and 1280 x 1024 will need to be stretched to maximise all screen space. most games i play support my reso, and most that don't support it look ok when stretched at 1280 x 1024. just wondering what you guys do.


Try 1280 x 960.

That resolution looks really good on my Sceptre 22 inch widescreen 16:10. Let us know if it worked.
January 15, 2007 7:10:58 AM

Quote:
I don't see 1280x1024 being as much of a waste as the 16 inch monitor.
Anti-alaising can help cure the 12x10 resolution.


hm can you explain yourself furthur?? i have a 17inch monitor (16inch screen) that is 12 x 10. Is 1280x1024 a waste on 16inch screen? what are you trying to say?
January 15, 2007 9:05:09 AM

Quote:
i got a 16inch viewable crt screen. i plan on buying a 8800gtx with my income check soon. the max resolution of my crt monitor is 1280 x 1024. it has a refresh rate of 85Hz i believe. I was wondering if anyone knows if that graphics card would basically "bottle neck" my monitor? I also would like to know if anyone knows if the evga 8800gtx is easily hooked up to a hdtv? would gaming be good on a 55inch hdtv?

8800gtx evga stock
Pentium d (805 @ 3.8-4.0 )
Evga 680i
800mhz gskull 1024mb
Segate 320gb 7200rpm sataII.


ok, the GTX may be a little bottlenecked by the processor, depending on the game, but I wouldnt worry about it. The monitor is fine for the GTX, it may be overkill in frames per second terms at the moment, but as you start seeing Crysis/Alan Wake etc you will be glad of the extra power.

Oh and in regards to the HDTV, it will look ok depending on your distance away and what games your playing. Try it and see!
January 15, 2007 9:13:56 AM

Quote:
just a quick question off-topic here. you guys with widescreen monitors, when gaming at 1280 x 1024, do you set your monitor to remain at a fixed aspect ratio or do you let it stretch to fit your screen? my native reso. is 16:10 (1440 x 900) and 1280 x 1024 will need to be stretched to maximise all screen space. most games i play support my reso, and most that don't support it look ok when stretched at 1280 x 1024. just wondering what you guys do.


If the game doesn´t support 16:10 I'll use always some kind of patch or edit the .ini file
January 15, 2007 9:24:30 PM

I found a way to change the reso. in F.E.A.R. and it was simple and works. I just hope it is that easy for other games that don't support WS. Thanks for the suggestion. BTW to the guy further above, I didn't see a 1280 by 960 res but thanks anyways.
January 15, 2007 10:29:02 PM

Quote:
I found a way to change the reso. in F.E.A.R. and it was simple and works. I just hope it is that easy for other games that don't support WS. Thanks for the suggestion. BTW to the guy further above, I didn't see a 1280 by 960 res but thanks anyways.


And for further questions I advise you to go here:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/

They have all the answers :D 
January 15, 2007 10:34:15 PM

Quote:
I don't see 1280x1024 being as much of a waste as the 16 inch monitor.
Anti-alaising can help cure the 12x10 resolution.


hm can you explain yourself furthur?? i have a 17inch monitor (16inch screen) that is 12 x 10. Is 1280x1024 a waste on 16inch screen? what are you trying to say?

Well, 17 inch monitor - 16 inch viewable as you said. Regardless, it's not huge. The bigger the viewable, the better at at higher (more dense) resolutions.

Anti-alaising is a process done by your computer to smoothen out edges as lower resolutions produce "zags". This is why (imo) having a 12x10 max resolution is not waste - the 8800 can clean the picture up. Though having a bigger resolution will not make games any smaller as it does to windows (smaller bars, icons, ect.), your 16 inches of viawable is - as you won't see the full effect. It's like having HDTV on a 10inch screen. Know what I mean?

Basicaly man, if you have to compress your nose against the screen to see something, you need a bigger monitor :wink:
January 16, 2007 5:09:38 AM

ah ha.. great information on this thread. thanks alot everyone. I have another question. the tv i want to hook my pc up to is a 1080i 55 inch with the game run smoothley on such a tv? what resolution is hdtv considered?
January 16, 2007 5:12:12 AM

Quote:
ok, the GTX may be a little bottlenecked by the processor, depending on the game, but I wouldnt worry about it


yah i agree the pentium d 805 @ 3.8-4.0 probally is a bottleneck. But i plan to upgrade to a quad 6600 when price drops this summer i hope/heard.
January 16, 2007 6:45:02 AM

why would anyone want to buy 8800GTX for low res other than 24" LCD or 30" LCD. Is beyond me.

Totally not worth it.

you can get 7950GT for 200 and volt mod it to 7800 GTX performance level.

Which was GOD only a year ago and cost 550 if you can find it at all.

550 a year ago to 200 now. more than 50 percent drop in a year.

If your car or house drop 50 percent a year, you will commit sucide with katana.


those people who paying two 8800 GTX , for SLI is totally ridiculous.
that 1100 dollars performance will worth less than a 200 dollars card in two years time.

Yes, i am going to get one 8800GTX for my 30 inch LCD, but that is because unplayable fps at 2560x1600, but even that i still thinking of waiting until march where price will drop new card coming out.
2 8800GTX is totally out of the question.

SAVE THE PLANET. Dun use too much power. Lower your green footprint.
January 16, 2007 7:51:31 AM

Unless you are playing at 1900x1200+, a 8800gtx will be serious overkill for current games.

Pick yourself up a 1900gt.

I actually don't mind paying the extra money for top-of-the-line sli. I enjoy the ability to play games at max. Also, in terms of power usage, it's nice piece of mind that there'll be nothing left for the generations after me :twisted: I work hard and am American. I thus have the right to have 15 kids, drive a hummer, and keep at least one faucet in my house running at all times. No if I could just figure out where I put that bucket of chicken skins :wink:

Really though, for the time I get to use my PC for gaming, the power draw of sli is a drop in the bucket.
January 16, 2007 8:17:11 AM

Ok....Its like this,
For a 8800GTX running low resolutions, it can and will do the job quite nicely. Since the card is not having to pump crazy resolutions its not going to have to work at its max capacity. Your processor will in fact not be feeding its insatiable appetite for data in order to process. So essentially your frame rates will depend on the speed at which your processor can supply it data. You will actually have the card waiting on data from the processor from time to time...Which necessarily isnt a bad thing. Just so long as you can get 60fps, then who cares about frame rates? Just play the game and enjoy knowing that when new and more complex games come out, you will definitely have the horsepower to render all the graphical goodness. Furthermore running your computer on a HDTV is doable..Just make sure you have the right connections and or dvi to hdmi converters. Mitsubishi micro displays have actual DVI inputs, while samsung displays have HDMI inputs on the rear connections panel. And before you ask, you will not lose any quality using a converter because its all a digital connection. You either have all of it or nothing at all. Hope this helps. With the tv though, you might have to tweak graphic driver settings to get the best picture on your TV. just mess with it and youll get it mate!
Cheers*
January 16, 2007 8:51:15 AM

I dunno I use a 8800gtx on my projector set at 1280x720 and the nice thing im able to do is crank the aa up to 16 which really makes games like oblivion look great at the lower resolutions. And even my old x1900xt can't do oblivion with half the aa on its own
January 16, 2007 9:55:22 AM

When using a 8800GTX on a 1280x1024 monitor, one would most probably need to enable verticle sync (prevents texture tearing etc)..

When this feature is enabled, the gfx card will "sync" the FPS to the refresh rate of the monitor.. So, if you run at 75Hz refresh rate, you'll sit with 75FPS, which is perfect.. Now, maintaining that FPS no matter what the game is throwing at the card is the ideal situation.. So, in my opinion, a 8800GTX and a 1280x1024 monitor is NOT a waste at all... Its perfect..
January 16, 2007 10:14:24 AM

Thats impressive.. But dont you think oblivion is poorly written? Maybe? :?
January 16, 2007 11:08:11 AM

Quote:
why would anyone want to buy 8800GTX for low res other than 24" LCD or 30" LCD. Is beyond me.



I said this in another thread and I'll say it again:

-oblivion
-rainbow six vegas
-Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
-splinter cell
-call of duty 2
-8XAA
-16XAF
-Gamma Correction AntiAliasing
-Transparency AntiAliasing:Supersampling
January 16, 2007 12:35:56 PM

Quote:
I disagree, the x1950xt would be a better buy than the x1900gt


for once you and I agree taco, any of the 19...XT range would be a far better buy than a GT, especially at current prices!
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2007 10:43:08 PM

is mr taco back to sniffin something again :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2007 11:26:03 PM

looks like we have another spammer amoungst us.

have you seen the mutiple (save and earn at your local e-tailor)
threads. :evil: 
January 16, 2007 11:33:47 PM

Quote:
why would anyone want to buy 8800GTX for low res other than 24" LCD or 30" LCD. Is beyond me.

Totally not worth it.


Got a problem with that. FPS.
But if you wanna keep running Oblivion on a 9600 and 30 inch monitor at maxed resolutions and 5 frames per second, feel free. :wink:
I wouldn't settle for anything below 19 or 20 inches. 55, yeah, thats overkill.
January 17, 2007 12:04:18 AM

I dunno sirheck, check out that shading.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:19:01 AM

Quote:
I dunno sirheck, check out that shading.


im simply saying that as jack mamais states that crysis
will work OK on modern computers.

now of course i want the best possiable graphics. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:29:26 AM

Quote:
than get a 6600gt :lol: 


already have a 68gt. :wink: oh wait 2 :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:34:56 AM

Quote:
naw man, I'm telling you, who ever told you the 6600gt is an old card is a lie, its actually from alien technology stolen from the aliens in crysis from the future, I get about 200 fps in oblivion, 500 in hl2, and about 3,000,000 in halo :lol:  Telling you, 6600gt is the way to go :D 


the 66gt is a good OLD card.

and yes i think you have been sniffin something :wink:
January 17, 2007 12:38:07 AM

Quote:

I know it doesnt have as many connection options as the sceptre model but I would tend to trust dell over sceptre when purchasing a monitor as far as quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c...


Go and have a look at the Samsung 244T; 1920x1200, 8ms, 24". Expensive, yes, but since the monitor is something that you won't upgrade every year it makes sense to spend a bit more.
January 17, 2007 1:50:43 AM

Quote:
yes, tacos


and rob, guess you were right about toms dropping the ball, in one of their reviews, they said pretty obviously the x1950 series has a newer gpu than the x1900 series, so I will listen to your advice and not go by what toms has said for a while. So that makes a lot more sense now why you say the xt is only clocked higher than the gt


I told you tomshardware.com's reviews were the laughing stock of the online PC world. :lol: 

Agreed. Several cards use the same cores and are just manipulated to clock differently. It's a curiousity why Intel and Nvidia and ATI have such strange and confusing numbers for their components. Actually, it's not. Ever since computer technology began, companies have been trying to keep consumers in the dark about what they're buying. It's an outrage.
January 17, 2007 7:31:44 AM

Quote:
That's true, but for now, all a gtx will do is make you have so many fps with everything maxed out with 19" lcd res that your monitor probably won't be able to keep up if its a crt.


i thought that a crt could handle more fps then a lcd. Arent Crt's judged by 70hrtz or something?.. does hrtz allow a crt to be cable of no ghosting and more fps since it is not judged by its refresh rate per second? what is the differnece between hrtz and refresh rate? anyone know this #$@#
January 17, 2007 7:47:58 AM

Hertz is the measurement of the refresh rate. CRT's don't ghost (AFAIK)

CRT's can do many resolutions without any drop in image quality (such as with going out of spec on an LCD, in terms of resolution) the trade off is that at higher resolutions CRT's lose the ability to refresh (or redraw the image) the screen at higher rates.

An example would be if you changed my monitor's resolution from 1024x768 @ 85Hz to 1280x1024 it would only be able to get a max of 65Hz. It has been said that any refresh rate below 75 is hard on your eyes. The one thing I'm not sure about is how refresh rate works on LCD monitors... I wish someone would explain that to me :? .
January 17, 2007 8:04:49 AM

it's not really a waste having that card at that res because you can turn all the eye candy up on current games and still have very fast FPS. Also it's a better investment, it should last a good couple of years.
January 17, 2007 8:15:15 AM

Quote:
Hertz is the measurement of the refresh rate. CRT's don't ghost (AFAIK)

CRT's can do many resolutions without any drop in image quality (such as with going out of spec on an LCD, in terms of resolution) the trade off is that at higher resolutions CRT's lose the ability to refresh (or redraw the image) the screen at higher rates.

An example would be if you changed my monitor's resolution from 1024x768 @ 85Hz to 1280x1024 it would only be able to get a max of 65Hz. It has been said that any refresh rate below 75 is hard on your eyes. The one thing I'm not sure about is how refresh rate works on LCD monitors... I wish someone would explain that to me :? .


so what kind of refresh rate would you say a 1280x1024 res is getting at 65hrtz? If there is a low hrtz # why is it bad to the eyes? will the frames lag on the monitor or something??
January 17, 2007 9:48:41 AM

How come 60Hz on a LCD looks better than 60Hz on a CRT? With a LCD, you dont notice any flickering at all, but with CRT you do (@60Hz)
January 17, 2007 10:56:10 AM

Aren't LCDs made of different coloured dots of Liquid crystal, that just stay turned "on" or "off" instead of needing to refresh, thus on a static image there is no flicker?
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:11:01 PM

Quote:
That's true, but for now, all a gtx will do is make you have so many fps with everything maxed out with 19" lcd res that your monitor probably won't be able to keep up if its a crt.


i thought that a crt could handle more fps then a lcd. Arent Crt's judged by 70hrtz or something?.. does hrtz allow a crt to be cable of no ghosting and more fps since it is not judged by its refresh rate per second? what is the differnece between hrtz and refresh rate? anyone know this #$@#

my crt can handle 1920x1080 just fine as that is its native resolution.
January 17, 2007 5:44:56 PM

Quote:
That's true, but for now, all a gtx will do is make you have so many fps with everything maxed out with 19" lcd res that your monitor probably won't be able to keep up if its a crt.


i thought that a crt could handle more fps then a lcd. Arent Crt's judged by 70hrtz or something?.. does hrtz allow a crt to be cable of no ghosting and more fps since it is not judged by its refresh rate per second? what is the differnece between hrtz and refresh rate? anyone know this #$@#

my crt can handle 1920x1080 just fine as that is its native resolution.

nice 1920x1080.. what crt do you have? can you send a link to the model
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 11:19:52 PM

its a sony 32 inch hdtv.

i sometimes hook my computer up to it to game.

oh and the resolution is also how much it weighs :lol: 

200lbs 8O

it does have a better overall picture than any lcd or dlp i have seen.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 11:33:29 PM

Quote:
I have a nice 19" full screen I picked up for only $5 :lol:  that can do a max of 1600*1200, is it worth it for me to upgrade for gaming (I want a 2407, but can't afford anything near $700 for a monitor alone)


a 19 inch at 16x12 should be great especially for 5$ :wink:
January 18, 2007 1:40:20 AM

Quote:
yeah, but its an old crt that can't do anything better than 65htz on the refresh rate and hurts my eyes, which is why I want to upgrade


yah it might hurt your eyes but 5$ didnt hurt your wallet.
January 18, 2007 2:04:16 AM

Quote:
I have a nice 19" full screen I picked up for only $5 :lol:  that can do a max of 1600*1200, is it worth it for me to upgrade for gaming (I want a 2407, but can't afford anything near $700 for a monitor alone)


a 19 inch at 16x12 should be great especially for 5$ :wink:

I think you mean $5. :-) It's read as "five dollars" but the dollar sign goes in front of the numeric value. Just in case you're not American and unfamiliar or something.
January 18, 2007 2:04:56 AM

Quote:
yeah, but its an old crt that can't do anything better than 65htz on the refresh rate and hurts my eyes, which is why I want to upgrade


yah it might hurt your eyes but 5$ didnt hurt your wallet.

Here it is again...
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2007 2:08:14 AM

Quote:
I have a nice 19" full screen I picked up for only $5 :lol:  that can do a max of 1600*1200, is it worth it for me to upgrade for gaming (I want a 2407, but can't afford anything near $700 for a monitor alone)


a 19 inch at 16x12 should be great especially for 5$ :wink:

I think you mean $5. :-) It's read as "five dollars" but the dollar sign goes in front of the numeric value. Just in case you're not American and unfamiliar or something.

if five dollars, then a good deal.
if 500 dollars then not so good deal 8O

but then tacos sometimes seems to be on something. :wink:
January 18, 2007 2:31:14 AM

Quote:
That's true, but for now, all a gtx will do is make you have so many fps with everything maxed out with 19" lcd res that your monitor probably won't be able to keep up if its a crt.


i thought that a crt could handle more fps then a lcd. Arent Crt's judged by 70hrtz or something?.. does hrtz allow a crt to be cable of no ghosting and more fps since it is not judged by its refresh rate per second? what is the differnece between hrtz and refresh rate? anyone know this #$@#

For starters, lcd's don't technically have a refresh rate, because they don''t boom in electrons like crt's do, the rate the crt can send in those electrons is it's refresh rate. Lcd's on the other hand use liquid crystil (hence the name) the crystils to make it simple change colors, so they don't actually have a refresh rate, and are easier on your eyes because of that (just wanted to add that in in case you wonder why people prefer lcd's)

Thanks, I thought that was the case with LCD monitors but I just couldn't seem to remember.
January 19, 2007 1:29:52 AM

Quote:
I have a nice 19" full screen I picked up for only $5 :lol:  that can do a max of 1600*1200, is it worth it for me to upgrade for gaming (I want a 2407, but can't afford anything near $700 for a monitor alone)


a 19 inch at 16x12 should be great especially for 5$ :wink:

I think you mean $5. :-) It's read as "five dollars" but the dollar sign goes in front of the numeric value. Just in case you're not American and unfamiliar or something.

if five dollars, then a good deal.
if 500 dollars then not so good deal 8O

but then tacos sometimes seems to be on something. :wink:

Hey, I thought we discussed this, rocket fuel is not a drug :lol:  :roll:

Neither are lead based paint chips...technically...
!