8800GT vs 19" screen

[fordy9]

Hey all, im building a new system soon and its going to contain a 8800Gt and an LG 19" screen that supports 1280 x 1024

I was just wondering whats this going to result in. Will the smaller screen bottleneck the 8800GT, or will it just give a really good result?

 

[jaguarskx]

The 8800GT is capable of handling up to 1920 x 1200 games. Unless of course you're shooting for Crysis at high graphic quality settings.

 

[fordy9]

O ok cool, im just concerned that the 8800gt would be a waste of money/overkill on a screen this size.

 

[swiftyy]

What CPU do you have? To be honest I think that with a 19 inch screen your GT will get bottlenecked in Crysis but with all other games it should be ok.

 

[fordy9]

Ill be using the e6750 2.66ghz at stock speeds for now.
For complete system look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/246147-31-comment-build
Id love a bigger screen but just dont have the budget =(

 

[systemlord]

Perfect! The 8800GT is great for 1280x1024 and with Crysis running better on smaller screens. Bigger screens will have problems running Crysis. I'm glad I held on to my 19" 4:3 LCD, Crysis runs all high settings except for "Shader Q" at 50+ fps.

 

[ghostwalker]

As far as I know (please correct me if otherwise), using a lower res won't bottleneck anything. It just means the GPU doesn't have to work so hard which then means you can crank up other settings like AA and shadows/textures etc.
I'm running the same res and am looking to buy a 8800GT, albeit once ATI's offering comes out and the prices level out.

 

[MacPJ]

I'd be interested in a few more responses as well. I've asked in the CTR Monitor forum, but it's a ghost town.

I have a Viewsonic A90f+, and it still works great. But with the new, more powerful video card's, am I missing out with the old 1280x1024 resolution monitors? How much of an impact are the 22" and 24" monitors that support 1600x1200 plus resolutions and how much am I missing out on.

Would it be worth dropping ~200-300 dollars for a newer monitor?

 

[jaguarskx]

As far as I know (please correct me if otherwise), using a lower res won't bottleneck anything. It just means the GPU doesn't have to work so hard which then means you can crank up other settings like AA and shadows/textures etc.

Yep, that's right.

 

[Seikent]

If you're happy with your monitor, keep it. Time will be the one to extract the power of you card as games like crysis are released.

 

[mactronix]

Yep, that's right.

As far as i know its wrong.
If you have lets say a 8800gt for the sake of it and you are running it at 800x600 you are forcing the load onto the cpu because you are not using the performance of the GPU to its fullest. The idea that the lower the res the faster the FPS is a comon misconception that makes a lot of sence but i in fact it works the exact oposite.if you increased the res the GPU would then be freed for want of a better term to do what it was meant to do and you would get better frame rates.
Of course this isnt limitless it has a top end so to speak but equally it has a point where it will start under performing also.
Hope that makes sence
Mactronix
Edit : What you are planning on running will be fine though

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

8800GT is fine with a 19"

 

[kpo6969]

You'll be fine. I run an 8800GT with my 19" (1280x1024)
Only issue would be cpu which your's is fine (better than mine)
X2 5000 = 3D Mark 06 = 9169
Evga 8800GT SC (stock)

 

[jaguarskx]

As far as i know its wrong.
If you have lets say a 8800gt for the sake of it and you are running it at 800x600 you are forcing the load onto the cpu because you are not using the performance of the GPU to its fullest. T

What crap are you talking about?

Running at lower resolution does not increase the load on the CPU. Just what is the GPU gonna force on the CPU?

 

[systemlord]

I'd be interested in a few more responses as well. I've asked in the CTR Monitor forum, but it's a ghost town.

I have a Viewsonic A90f+, and it still works great. But with the new, more powerful video card's, am I missing out with the old 1280x1024 resolution monitors? How much of an impact are the 22" and 24" monitors that support 1600x1200 plus resolutions and how much am I missing out on.

Would it be worth dropping ~200-300 dollars for a newer monitor?

If you want to upgrade to a bigger monitor a 20-22" would be good for people with mid-end to high-end systems and a 24" would be good for a uber high-end system running 8800's in SLI for Crysis. If I were to upgrade to a bigger monitor it would be a 20" cause I don't like the dot pitch of 22" inchers.

 

[Ilander]

The monitor would "bottleneck" the 8800GT in that the 8800GT would be spitting out more frames than the monitor could display...which means, you might as well turn on V-sync and enjoy the most fluid gaming experience of your life.

At low resolutions, the CPU does become the bottleneck, as it has to pre-process the game for the graphics card. However, we'er talking about getting 180 frames per second instead of 230. I wouldn't call that a bottleneck, as it's not a real cap on your system. Your display is probably capped at 65 fps.

Now, as far as it goes, I don't much believe in buying graphics cards that can outperform my monitor on max settings, but it won't do that forever, so I can't blame you.

 

[homerdog]

8800gt = at any resolution.

 

[Sid3way]

amen to that. im playing COD4 demo at 1680x1050 as we're speaking.

 

[systemlord]

The thing is when you go to a 24" monitor you never know what new games will bring as far as playability at that resolution. The 20-22" monitors are a good compromise for future gaming, Crysis excluded.

 

[night_wolf_in]

Question
a mid/high end graphics card (8800GT/maybe coming RV670) and a 19" LCD that is native 1280 x 1024.

if ran at lower resolutions, will the graphics quality will be lowered, OR if ran higher than native the graphics quality will be lost?

 

[dtq]

Question
a mid/high end graphics card (8800GT/maybe coming RV670) and a 19" LCD that is native 1280 x 1024.

if ran at lower resolutions, will the graphics quality will be lowered, OR if ran higher than native the graphics quality will be lost?

Running a LCD screen at anything other than native resolution will result in very poor image quality as the monitor tries to fit the incoming picture to the fixed existing pixels resulting in generally horrible image quality. If you want to run at lower resolutions to get better performance you need to hope your game will run in window mode then run in it in window mode at lower resolution. This can provide a usefull speed boost, whilst maintaining image quality albeit in a smaller picture.

 

[kpo6969]

Never saw a 19" greater than 1280x1024 max

 

[night_wolf_in]

Running a LCD screen at anything other than native resolution will result in very poor image quality as the monitor tries to fit the incoming picture to the fixed existing pixels resulting in generally horrible image quality. If you want to run at lower resolutions to get better performance you need to hope your game will run in window mode then run in it in window mode at lower resolution. This can provide a usefull speed boost, whilst maintaining image quality albeit in a smaller picture.

got it. thanks for the explination. it clarified many things.

 

[mactronix]

What crap are you talking about?

Running at lower resolution does not increase the load on the CPU. Just what is the GPU gonna force on the CPU?

Don't appreciate the tone of your post if you think i am talking crap please supply some supporting evidence.
Its probably partly because i'm not very good at explaining these thing's the easiest way of explaining it is that at the lower res the GPU is processing so fast that the CPU cant keep up with it so you get a limit to what can be displayed.
Im not saying it would turn in to a slide show or any thing.
So what was the point of posting (please correct me if i am wrong)if the reply is just gonna be "no im not your talking crap"?
Do a bit of googling and come back later and let me know what you find.
Mactronix

 

[bazza]

i tried my 8800GT at various resolutions from 800x600 to 1680x1050 and various quality settings

at lower resolutions, the fps maxed out (60 in this case) and as I turned it up, the fps dropped as you would expect

on my older system with a 6800GS 800x600 has the highest fps and 1680x1050 has barely 10fps

->mactronix I dont even know where to start googling that at 800x600 cpu usage would be higher compared to say 1680x1050... because that is quite backwards