Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can my pc handle a larger monitor?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 3, 2008 4:07:04 AM

I would like to upgrade my current lcd to a widescreen but I wanted others opinions on whether my pc could handle it on games, more so on current rpgs: wow, oblivion and future mmo's like aoc and warhammer, etc. My current lcd is a 19" Acer AL1916 and it does its job just fine with my 8800gts320 but I would really prefer to go widescreen. I was looking into getting the AMSUNG 206BW Black 20": http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Current setup:
e6750 @ 3.2
Gigabyte p35-ds3r
2GB G.Skill 4-4-4-12
Evga 8800GTS 320MB ko acs

My main concern is that the video card will get hogged down with the widescreen lcd because of the 320mb but maybe it won't be that bad? Any info is appreciated.

More about : handle larger monitor

February 3, 2008 5:04:54 AM

i wonder where people get this notion from.

perhaps people think that a LARGER monitor needs a stronger card cause it's pushing more information to it?

dont know how they get this idea, but no. physical monitor size makes no difference whatsoever. you need to look at your screen resolution. if you are running your 19" monitor at 1280x1024 resolution, and plan on running your 20" at the same or similar there's no difference whatsoever. that video card can handle just about any screen resolution you will be able to throw at it or that your monitor can display.

it doesn't matter if the monitor is 19", 20", or if it's a 500 feet wide display at a baseball stadium, if it's running at a normal screen resolution that your card supports you can use it.
Anonymous
February 3, 2008 5:10:16 AM

First off its not the widescreen that makes it more demanding on your card, its the higher resolution

Well if your 19in is 1280 x 1084 and you are going to 1680 x 1050 you're gonna see a hurt in oblivion. wow wont even bother you, and as for the newer titles i dont know.

In general though, the 1680 x 1050 resolution is where games start to show a need for more ram. There have been many a thread made over the debate between the two resolutions in question and whether their graphics card has enough ram(mainly 320 vs 640). make a seach. Also mmorpgs tend to be less demanding than normal titles(ie wow).

I think you would be more or less fine but why not go all the way to 22in, its the same resolution.
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 3, 2008 4:07:40 PM

To fuzen
Don't give it a second thought your 19 inch screen has a max res of 1280X1024. The screen you are planning on getting has a max res of 1680x1050. The actual physical differance is .43mp or not quite half a mega pixel.
Your card has a max res of 2560X1600. This gives you an overhead of 2.23 mp (mega pixels).
All of which means that it will run it standing on its head.
If you are interested 2560X1600 is equal to running a 30 inch screen if that helps put it in perspectivev for you.
mactronix
February 3, 2008 5:48:14 PM

mactronix, I'm not sure I'm buying what you're saying.

First of, it's "only" an increase of 430,000 pixels, but that's an increase of about 34%, which is quite a big step.

Second, I'd say it really depends on the game. The Tom's VGA chart will let you see the change in FPS as you go from resolution to resolution for a few games, for the same hardware. For example, with Oblivion you'll go from 31 fps down to 23 (based on 1600x1200, since they don't list 1680x1050). Battlefield 2142 goes from 63 down to 43.

Finally, just because they list the card supporting 2560x1600, that doesn't mean you can game effectively at that. I would only use that number as a maximum supported by a 2D desktop; nothing to do with a maximum resolution games can run at (besides Solitaire).

To the OP, I'd go for it, in any case. You can always drop down the resolution of a particular game if it's running too slowly.

Clint
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 3, 2008 6:32:21 PM

cneufeld
Please dont read stuff in to my post that i didnt actually say. :non:  Check my whole post again if you want i didnt even use the word "only" yet you quote it like i did.
While i appreciate what you are saying is correct in particular about the games being a deciding factor on the overall performance of the gpu, I dont appreciate your insinuation that i was in any way trying to play down the acctual differance.
All I did was provide the OP with the figures and my opinion that it would run it standing on its head. Im sorry if you thought it misleading that wasnt my intention at all I was only trying to put some numbers to it to give the op some kind of perspective as to the acctual differance between what he was asking the card to do and what it was capable of.

Using your math "an increase of 430,000 pixels, but that's an increase of about 34%" then although it is an increase of approx 34% its still asking the card to run at less than 50% of its potential which even allowing for the assumption that that figure may well be for 2D I would have thought it plenty enough of a safetynet.
Oh and by the way the differance between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050 is .15mp so your figures for frame differance are approx a third out Oblivion would loose about 5 FPS and Battlefield 2142 would loose about 13. Of course as has been pointed out and you yourself have noted the op dosent have to run the new screen at max res, and of course there are all those in game settings to play with as well to optimise the experiance.
Mactronix
February 3, 2008 7:27:34 PM

My point is that your assumption (which you state more as a fact, since nowhere in your post do you mention "opinion" or "assumption" as you do in your followup post) that a manufacturer's stated maximum resolution has anything to do with a usable gaming resolution is completely invalid. It's only marginally better than looking at the speedometer of your Yugo and figuring the maximum speed of your car is 200mph, since that's the maximum speed on the dial.

For example, according to NewEgg a 7600GS (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) has the same maximum resolution as an 8800 Ultra (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) (2560x1600). Does that mean that you'll have the same gaming experience on either one? I doubt it, and I doubt they're remotely close.

Clint
February 3, 2008 7:52:24 PM

it does take more horse power to run a higher resolution, I jumped from 17" crt 1024x768, to a 22" samsung 1680x1050, and I with the same settings in cryis it has pretty much cripple my pc, so I had to turned down some settings down to get a reasonable fps. so it looks like I maybe buying a new video card in the foreseeable future.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 3, 2008 8:27:36 PM

CNeufeld said:
My point is that your assumption (which you state more as a fact, since nowhere in your post do you mention "opinion" or "assumption" as you do in your followup post) that a manufacturer's stated maximum resolution has anything to do with a usable gaming resolution is completely invalid. It's only marginally better than looking at the speedometer of your Yugo and figuring the maximum speed of your car is 200mph, since that's the maximum speed on the dial.

For example, according to NewEgg a 7600GS (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) has the same maximum resolution as an 8800 Ultra (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) (2560x1600). Does that mean that you'll have the same gaming experience on either one? I doubt it, and I doubt they're remotely close.

Clint

Your point is invalidated by your own post :lol:  how can you state that my post is stated more as fact because I didnt use the words "opinion" or "assumption" ? I didn't use the word fact either so where does that leave you ?
If you want to continually twist my posts and read stuff into them to try and protect your ego after i called you on misquoting me thats up to you, I already posted this. "While i appreciate what you are saying is correct in particular about the games being a deciding factor on the overall performance of the gpu, I don't appreciate your insinuation that I was in any way trying to play down the actual difference".
That's me agreeing with you but objecting to your initial misquote.
I have tried to be civil and explained why i posted what i did but you seem intent to keep pushing the point even after i have conceded it to you.

February 3, 2008 11:44:11 PM

Mactronix,

Don't mean to degrade this thread any more than it's already been degraded, but I'll just offer up my $0.02 (i.e. my opinion, just so we're clear).

1) There's a reasonably big difference between saying something will happen, and something should happen. For example, if I go in to my local computer store, and the salesperson sells me something that he says will work for me, I'd be quite grumpy if it didn't. However, if he says that he thinks something should work for me, I'd be much more understanding if it doesn't. So your statement that the OP's card "will run it standing on its head" is (to me, at least), an implied statement of fact. Whether that's based on benchmarks you've seen, personal experience, or whatever. Yet the only logic you provide for your fact/opinion is based on a false assumption. Any actual English instructors can feel free to wade in to refute me if they like. :) 

2) People come into the forums with a variety of experiences and expectations. Some people will trust anything in the forum as correct, particularly if it's stated as a fact (implied or otherwise) and nobody disputes it. That's the reason I responded to your initial post. For example, think of a forum thread that consists of two messages. The first one asking if something will work, and a second one that incorrectly says it will. If the original poster recieves no other feedback, they may very well go out and make a decision based on incorrect data, costing them money, equipment, time, etc. Other people searching through the forums might read that thread months later, and make the same assumption. So if I stumble across a thread of interest to me, and see something I think is incorrect, I'll throw in my input. I'm not claiming to be right more than the average yokel, but at least it's one more input to the original poster and anyone else who reads it. Eventually (hopefully) there will be enough information in the thread to let people make proper decisions.

3) Occasionally, when communicating through writing, people will use quotes to emphasis something, in particular, ironic or sarcastic emphasis. It is a casual English thing, as opposed to a formal acceptance (http://alt-usage-english.org/quotes_for_emphasis.html), but that was my intention with the "only" in my original post.

4) And finally, if I seemed grumpy or whatever to you, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize. In my defense, I was taking a break from work, while working on Superbowl Sunday, so I wasn't happy about being there.

Whew, that was much longer than I thought it would be! :) 

Clint
!