Hello everybody!

I will purchase an 8800 GTX the 15th (or an R600 if theyre finally available!), I am still debating whether to spend the additional $450-$500 for a 24" monitor, or whether to save the money and get a 22".

I have seen the benchmarks and the 8800 GTX will be able to handle both resolutions beautifully with everything maxed out on just about every single game. Some taking AA better than others.

My big question is, will there be a noticeable difference in the image quality between those two resolutions.

Keep in mind that I will attempt to run 16xAA whenever possible no matter which res I choose cause I hate jaggies with a passion.

Please keep the discussion to image quality only. Frames per second can be fixed with SLI, which Ill definately do if needed.

Thanks for any help. I would love to see some screenshots if anyone knows of any links. I sadly could not find anything.

I play all my games in 1920x1200 and couldn't go back to less then that.

I'm not sure what you mean by a difference in image quality between resolutions. A 1920 x 1200 display will show 2304000 pixels on the screen in order to fill it, and a 1680 x 1050 display draws 1764000. The only difference between the screens would be that the larger screen contains more pixels, and the image will be larger.

There's really not much to it. If I had the cash for it, I'd certainly plunk down the money for a 24" screen and an 8800GTX, no question. I play at 1680 x 1050 on a Radeon X1900XT, and that's pretty much heaven for me considering I'm a college student with limited desk space and a budget.

Why not go to a store that carries the two screens you're interested in buying, get friendly with them, and ask if you can compare them both on a high end system? You might be able to finagle that at your local Best Buy or something.

If you're going to spend that much dough on something you'll be staring at for the next few years, make sure it's exactly what you want.

Sounds reasonable but no such luck. The only store in the area is a CompUSA and they dont allow it. Already tried.

Anyway, I can understand your point because I am a graphic artist. I understand the DPI concept. However, the reason I ask is because of this; I realise that one of the main pros of more pixels is a much better image smoothness, or less jaggies. But since the 8800 GTX is capable of such ridiculous AA (16xAA), then I am questioning whether the added pixels are really necessary. Two more inches of screen space are definately not worth $450 extra bucks. However, if the added 490 pixels im getting can provide noticeably better image quality and definition, then Id go for it.

For instance, is there a noticeable difference in image smoothness between the two res without AA turned on? Do textures and the like look more detailed with the added pixels?

Im just trying to justify the $450 extra I would need to shell out. Also, Playing at 1680x1050 would obviously help my 8800 GTX achieve a longer service time.

@BadDad

Would it be a hassle if I asked you for screen shots of any game at both res? Could you play around with both settings and give your honest opinion? Is there a noticeable difference in image quality? Obviously, if you have an LCD, the image quality might detiriorate by lowering the res, but see what you can do. Thanks.

Curious about this myself.Hope you get an answear.

Dont count on constant high frame rates at 1920x1200 with all the options maxed.

I run two pcs with 8800GTX's on CRT screens at those sorts of resolutions and a little higher, and oblivion with texture mods can still result in stutter at times in intense areas, X3 unmodified will have the occaisional stutter and LOTRo also causes issues (although that could be coding related as the client appears to have some memory leak issues). I dont doubt theres other games out there that can cause slow down even with the 8800GTX when you get to the high resolutions with everything turned up.

Also need to make sure that the actual pixel size is smaller when you go to the larger screen in order to see significant improvement in image quality from resolution otherwise if the pixels are the same size but theres just more of them you are just seeing more of the game at the same quality. It wont be taking away any jagged edges unless the pixels are smaller. I use LCD screens at work but CRT screens for play, Im going to be gutted when one of these CRT's dies because theres little that can match them for image quality refresh rate or resolution with high DPI.

Im planning on going SLI as soon as I have the money.

The pixel pitch of a 24" is better than that of a 22".

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824014124
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824001096

Not an earth shattering difference, but its there.

And the price difference certainly reflects that.

Anyways, I don't think that performance should be your concern when choosing between the 22" and the 24". Playing with 8xAA instead of 16xAA isn't going to kill you, so choose the monitor you want, not the one you think will perform better.

In my experience, I can really tell the difference between 1900x1200 vs. 1680x1050 on my 24". Especially in Oblivion, I cannot play at 1680x1050 without cringing. Although 1680x1050 might be adequete for a 22", it's definitely not for 24" (at least for me).

Also, don't expect to play newer games maxed out at 1900x1200 with a single 8800 gtx at 16xAA. It's a good card, but not invincible. Imo, 16xAA is overkill at that resolution; 8xAA (even 4xAA) is more than sufficient for me at that res.

Ditto on the CRT's for gaming. I've often thought about trading my LCD in to go back to CRT. Can't be beat for IQ. I have dreams about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW9 [...] B00004YNSR

That looks nice, dont have the deskspace though, would definately need a new piece of furniture to go with the PC. Looks nice though.

Go for the 24" you won't regret it

http://www.behardware.com/articles [...] 0-gts.html

Heres a link I got from another thread where we can see some differences in AA.

Obviously, even at low res, the high AA makes it so I dont really need the higher res. But this remains to be seen.

*It is a piece of furniture

But yea, not the most space-efficient monitor.

My Dell 2405 is great. Would definitely recommend.

I have a 24 inch Acer and 2 X1900's in X-fire and I don't think I could ever go back to playing at anything less than 1900 X 1200. Well, at least not happily anyway.

While I do appreciate your comments and the comments of other posters, I would appreciate it greatly, and Im sure everybody would appreciate it greatly as well, if one of you gamers with a 1920x1200 screen can do us all the favor of taking some screen shots.

The ideal set up would be taking 4-5 screens for 1920x1200 and and 4-5 screens for 1680x1050, each screen with a different level of AA. Obviously, if someone has a better set up, please include more screens depending on the AA capabilities of the set up. Cause if you can go all the way up to 16xAA, you will be a godsend. Please do not resize the images or reduce the quality. Sorry if im being too demanding, but honestly, anyone who can go through all the trouble will have the appreciation of everyone participating on this thread. Thanks!!

Edit: And a scene with power lines and trees and stuff that can take advantage of AA would also be a perfect candidate for this. Thanks!!