Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What Should I buy? 24" LCD or extra 8800GT and SLi it?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 27, 2008 8:51:20 PM

Currently I have a 19" monitor. I was wondering if I should uprgade my performance and get sli 8800gt or should i get bigger display with one 8800gt? I will be buying in May. Is there another upgrade I should make instead?
February 27, 2008 9:01:46 PM

What is your current monitor resolution? And what is the resolution of the monitor that you are considering purchasing?

Also what do you do on your computer?


~Physx7
February 27, 2008 9:03:15 PM

In all truth sli may allow you to up your detail a small amount but unless you raise your resolution you dont get the full benifit from it.

What you have to figure out is if your GT is going to be able to run the resolution/size of your new monitor. I find that the GTs softspot is 1680x1050 on most 22" and thats pretty much the top end of what it is designed to perform at. Chances are if its a nice gaming moniter at 24' a GT just is not enough.

Keep in mind single card solutions allways yeild better returns all around. At this time Nvidia does not support dx10.1 on any of the hardware they released. The 9 series will not support it either.

If I was you and you are not totaly unhappy with your rig I would sit on that rig for another year. Otherwise I would consider moving over to an AM2+ MB. If you are on am2 atm you can swap over to AM2+ socket and keep all your current hardware and gain the pcie-2.0 and xfire support. AM2+ would open the door for future upgrades. You are kind of in a wierd place with that rig. Its good enough but you dont have much upgrade options that will pay off atm.
Related resources
February 27, 2008 9:04:31 PM

physx7 said:
What is your current monitor resolution? And what is the resolution of the monitor that you are considering purchasing?

Also what do you do on your computer?


~Physx7

My monitor i have right now is 1440x900, the one im considering is 1920x1200 and I play games like crysis
February 27, 2008 9:10:02 PM

Quote:
the one im considering is 1920x1200 and I play games like crysis


I seriously doubt you will get playable frame rates in Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800 GT, even SLI'd GT's.

I don't think SLI will cause a major jump in your current setup. But if you get the 1920x1200 monitor then I would recommend SLI.


~Physx7
February 27, 2008 9:15:40 PM

physx7 said:
Quote:
the one im considering is 1920x1200 and I play games like crysis


I seriously doubt you will get playable frame rates in Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800 GT, even SLI'd GT's.

I don't think SLI will cause a major jump in your current setup. But if you get the 1920x1200 monitor then I would recommend SLI.


~Physx7

The thing is, it's one or the other
February 27, 2008 9:17:42 PM

That seems to be the problem. One upgrade doesn't seem to be worth it without the other.....

~Physx7
February 27, 2008 9:18:18 PM

I say compromise and get a nice 22" 1680 x 1050 monitor, that should be plenty of res for ya.
February 27, 2008 9:20:20 PM

Is there anything else that might need upgrading? Ram? Hard Drive? Cooling?..........

Please list your entire system.

~Physx7
a c 148 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 27, 2008 9:21:41 PM

It it's only one or the other, then do neither.

-Wolf sends
February 27, 2008 9:22:42 PM

Wolfshadw said:
It it's only one or the other, then do neither.

-Wolf sends


+1
Anonymous
February 27, 2008 9:22:52 PM

Don't buy anything. Save your money. If you want to get another 8800gt, don't ha. But if you REALLY want to, wait until the few more Geforce 9 cards and Radeon 4000 series cards are released. Then sell the 8800 that you have and then use that money, combined with the money you have now to buy the high end 9 series or 4000 series. Then after summer, buy the newest 45nm processors from either company (whichever one is faster) and combine that with some nice ddr3 ram. Then park your car in the garage, instead of outside your house, because you don't want it to give away information about your rig. Wait... what the hell were we talking about it?
a c 269 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 27, 2008 10:04:35 PM

I vote to get a nice 24" monitor. Your 8800GT will run many games just fine on it. You will always have the choice to run the monitor at less than native resolution, or to tone down the graphics detail if you need it.

Save your old monitor and use it also. A dual monitor setup is a wonderful convenience.

The benefits of sli are iffy, it helps some games, and doesn't help others. The next upgrade is probably best done with the follow-on to the 8800GTX.
February 27, 2008 10:14:39 PM

I have a 24" monitor (Samsung 245bw) with a 8800 GTS 640mb SC and absolutely love it. By the way, i run crysis at mix of high/medium settings at 1920x1200 at around 20-25 fps, and dont notice any lack of performance. I mean sure it can be better, but i dont notice any lag or anything that makes my gameplay unpleasant.

So imho buy a 24" monitor and i recommend Samsung, either the 245bw (if you are on a budget) or the 2xxT series (if you want the best).
February 28, 2008 12:15:05 AM

physx7 said:
Is there anything else that might need upgrading? Ram? Hard Drive? Cooling?..........

Please list your entire system.

~Physx7

I have a centurion 5. Everything has stock cooling. 2gb of ddr2 800 ram. Amd 5600+ @3.2 500gb hard drive
a c 231 U Graphics card
a c 78 C Monitor
February 28, 2008 1:03:28 AM

Quote:
I seriously doubt you will get playable frame rates in Crysis at 1920x1200 with an 8800 GT, even SLI'd GT's.


Here's triple SLI - 22 fps no AA @ 1920 x 1200 w/ 3 Ultra 8800 w/ Intel QX9650 2GB Dominator

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2269900,00.a...
February 28, 2008 1:17:41 AM

it depends on what part of the game, i get playable frames in crysis @ 1920x1080 all high in the begining part of the game(before you find the aliens) my 8800gt is at 715/1750/2000.
a c 231 U Graphics card
a c 78 C Monitor
February 28, 2008 2:32:08 AM

carman594 said:
Currently I have a 19" monitor. I was wondering if I should uprgade my performance and get sli 8800gt or should i get bigger display with one 8800gt? I will be buying in May. Is there another upgrade I should make instead?


I'm saddled with good eyesight and I find I don't like most LCD screens. The problem I have w/ most LCD's is I can see individual pixels which makes the images look grainy....not so noticeable with moving images but text and still images is annoying. While everybody generally worries about inflated advertised response times and brightness levels which you will invariable tone down, (both which never seem to be equaled in independent testing) no on ever seems to look at:

Color Depth - Most consumer panels are TN types with 6 bit color. 3 dots x 6 bits = 18 bit color. Look at your machines display settings .... if the number is 24 or bigger, the number between 18 and that number is "dithered". Note 32 bit color is not really 32 bit, it's 24 bit color with 8 bits of "non color data".

Your typical consumer level LCD has only 262,144 combinations. This comes from 6 bits x 6 bits x 6 bits (2 to the 6th power) or 64 x 64 x 64 to produce the 262,144 different color combinations. Now 8 bits sounds like it's only 33% better off the bat. But 2 to the 8th power is 256 and 256 × 256 × 256 = 16,777,216 colors.

So 8 bit color has 64 times as many color combinations as 6 bit color. Eizo produces very expensive 10 bit LCD displays and these are what you find in photo editing shops....these cost as much as an entire hi end gaming system.

Display Type - As indicated above, TN is the typical panel type which is found in most consumer level monitors. A good number of S-PVA types can be found at affordable prices. Wikipedia writes:

"The TN display suffers from limited viewing angles, especially in the vertical direction, and most are unable to display the full 16.7 million colors (24-bit truecolor) available from modern graphics cards. These particular panels, with 6 bits per color channel as opposed to 8, can approach 24-bit color using a dithering method which combines adjacent pixels to simulate the desired shade. They can also use FRC (Frame Rate Control), the less conspicuous of the two. FRC quickly cycles pixels over time to simulate a given shade. These color simulation methods are noticeable to most people and discomforting for some. FRC tends to be most noticeable in darker tones. Dithering has the tendency to appear as if the individual pixels of the LCD were actually visible. Overall, color reproduction and linearity on TN panels is poor. Shortcomings in display color gamut (often referred to as a percentage of the NTSC 1953 color gamut) can also be attributed to backlighting technology. It is not uncommon for displays with CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps) based lighting to range from 40% to 76% of the NTSC color gamut, whereas displays utilizing white LED backlights may extend past 100% of the NTSC color gamut – a difference quite perceivable by the human eye."

"PVA (patterned vertical alignment) and S-PVA (super patterned vertical alignment) are alternative versions of MVA technology offered by Samsung. Developed independently, it offers similar features to MVA, but boasts contrast ratios as high as 3000:1. Value-oriented PVA panels often use dithering/FRC, while S-PVA panels all use at least 8-bit color and do not use any color simulation methods. Some newer S-PVA panels offered by Eizo offer 10-bit color internally, which enables gamma and other corrections with reduced banding. PVA and S-PVA offer good black depth, wide viewing angles and S-PVA also offer fast response times using modern RTC technologies.

Color Gamut - As seen above, TN offers 40 - 76% of the full color gamut. The S-PVA tpes hit well into the 90's.

Dot Pitch - This is how close the pixels are put together and affects the "grainy-ness" of the image that I referenced above. The bigger the screen, generally the wider they are....in general. But look at a laptop with a 17" screen and compare the image with a 24" screen and you will see a huge difference. That's cause one has a dpi in the 80's and the other has a dpi in the 130's.

Viewing angle - TN is usally about 160. S-PVA is 170 - 80

So after all that background, I wouldn't think of just buying either one.....I'd save my money until I could buy both or I'd buy the monitor 1st and add the 2nd card later. I'd look to grab a S-PVA monitor with > 100 dpi, > 90% color gamut and given a choice between 2 sizes both with 1920 x 1200, I'd take the smaller one. OK, so your probably thinking, it be years before you had enough buckaroos to grab that. The thing is that S-PVA pricing is coming down. For example the Lenovo L220x ....Comparing it to the Samsung 245bw

-Lenovo L220x / Samsung 245bw

- 22” S-PVA display panel / 24" TN Panel
- WUXGA (1920x1200) resolution / Same
- 325 cd/m^2 brightness / 400 cd/m2
- 1200:1 contrast ratio / 1000:1 contrast ratio
- 92% NTSC color gamut / Not published
- +/- 89° horizontal and vertical viewing = 178° / 160°
- 6 ms response time / 5 ms
- DVI-D and VGA inputs
- Dot Pitch 106 / 94
- portrait/landscape pivot function / not available
- Cost $462 / $469

Don't get me wrong, the Samsung 245bw is a great display....but for the same money, I would grab an S-PVA monitor. Neither has an HDMI port if that is important to you.

You can see a list of Samsung's S-PVA monitors here:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/lcdpanel/product...

And a review of the Samsung 245T S-PVA here:

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3221&p...

And pricing here

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...




February 28, 2008 4:31:18 AM

jerseygamer said:
In all truth sli may allow you to up your detail a small amount but unless you raise your resolution you dont get the full benifit from it.

What you have to figure out is if your GT is going to be able to run the resolution/size of your new monitor. I find that the GTs softspot is 1680x1050 on most 22" and thats pretty much the top end of what it is designed to perform at. Chances are if its a nice gaming moniter at 24' a GT just is not enough.


That's what I was going to say. He may not be able to handle the resolution with that card solo. He can always get both. The second card first and then save for the LCD.

I have the opposite problem. I have a 17" CRT and will get an LCD, but all the reviews I've read said to go 24" 1920 x 1200 for the 3870x2 (which will someday be in hybrid Crossfire with at least a 4850 on a new board with a quad core CPU). It seems it can be CPU limited in some games at 1650 x 1080, and really performs at the 1920 resolution.

Right now, I'm really CPU limited but still getting 50-60 in The Witcher, 20-39 in LOTR online, 30-60 in Oblivion, all with settings at full except in LOTR online where I get 5-10 fps more with very high detail instead of 8x anisotropic filtering.
February 28, 2008 5:24:17 AM

I don't know what most of these guys are talking about, but I bought a 24" monitor nearly years ago when I built a 7900 GTX system. I bought it for 700 and consider it one of the best investments I've ever made.

While I have little interest in playing Crysis, I do play Doom III, FEAR, Tiberium Wars, Company of Heroes, Medieval II: Total War, all on max settings at 1920 x 1200.


Games are gorgeous and the real estate for photoshop, word processing, and even just internet browsing is amazing.

My 7900 GTX handles most '06 - '07 fine. I've only recently contemplated upgrading. Contemplated.

One 88 GT will handle most everything you throw at it, save Crysis. But you'll still have the infinitely valuable benefit of the room WUXGA offers for things OTHER than gaming.
February 28, 2008 4:50:54 PM

I would vote 24" monitor. I currently have a single 8800GT and an E2180 @ 3Ghz. I run all my games at 1920x1200 and it does quite well. Plus if you get 24" you literally have a nice console gaming monitor than can do 1080p if it HDCP compliant. But it's your choice although having 8800GT SLI is kind of a waste at 1280x1024(19" native res correct)
February 28, 2008 5:00:01 PM

If you do get the 24'' then post what FPS you get in Crysis at 1920x1200...

~Physx7

Edit: posted my illustrious sig.
February 28, 2008 5:06:14 PM

I would say save the cash until you can do both.

You are in a catch 22, where if you spend on the SLI you won't see a great performance difference at that resolution...but if you spend on the 24" you'll see performance go down because of the resolution going up!

So in essense, you really need to purchase both! Save your money until you have enough for both.
February 28, 2008 5:11:10 PM

Quote:
I would say save the cash until you can do both.


+1
February 28, 2008 5:11:30 PM

Waspy said:
I would say save the cash until you can do both.

You are in a catch 22, where if you spend on the SLI you won't see a great performance difference at that resolution...but if you spend on the 24" you'll see performance go down because of the resolution going up!

So in essense, you really need to purchase both! Save your money until you have enough for both.


Cmon :sarcastic:  , you guys make the 8800GT to be some type of integrated graphics. The 8800GT handles very well under the stress of 1920x1200. This I can attest to by playing HGL at max settings under DX9 and it runs quite smooth. It's a very demanding game, maybe not as much as crysis(BTW it seems Crysis is more of a benchmark than a game?) But for an example as Crysis you don't have to have EVERY option maxed out. I'm sure there's very specific settings that can be bumped down a single notch and then make the game very playable again, without much of a graphical goodie loss.
February 28, 2008 5:20:12 PM

Quote:
This I can attest to by playing HGL


What is HGL?
February 28, 2008 5:24:21 PM

bildo, that's just my opinion on his situation.

My mind is stuck in the 30" world which is a higher resolution so SLI becomes a lot more useful there.

Carman if you are getting one of these for free, take the monitor!
February 28, 2008 5:24:55 PM

I have 2 GT's SLI'ed and a LG L246WP 24" at 1920x1200. In Crysis I can run with one card a mix of medium and high settings while in SLI I run at a combination of high and ultra high. I think your money would be best spent on the monitor since a good screen will out live several hardware upgrades and by summer there should be significantly better hardware available.
February 28, 2008 5:25:02 PM

I will recomend a 1680x1050 monitor as it is the perfect resolution for most any card on the shelf to perform under.

I would highly recomend not buying any SLI or Nvidia products at this time. There is no support or will ever be support for DX10.1 or any further updates to DX for any peace of current Nvidia hardware or any of the 9 series set to release. So basicly next year when DX10 is the norm Nvidia users will still have the same horrible dx10 performance now and forever. What is making the ATI's such a good buy atm is that they are all pcie2.0, scale very well in xfire vs sli, great performance per $, have much better xfire support as sli is fading out this next year a good amount and are far greater in the area of future proof then Nvidia is atm.
February 28, 2008 5:31:03 PM

Hell Gate London..... maybe?
February 28, 2008 5:32:25 PM

jerseygamer said:
I will recomend a 1680x1050 monitor as it is the perfect resolution for most any card on the shelf to perform under.

I would highly recomend not buying any SLI or Nvidia products at this time. There is no support or will ever be support for DX10.1 or any further updates to DX for any peace of current Nvidia hardware or any of the 9 series set to release. So basicly next year when DX10 is the norm Nvidia users will still have the same horrible dx10 performance now and forever. What is making the ATI's such a good buy atm is that they are all pcie2.0, scale very well in xfire vs sli, great performance per $, have much better xfire support as sli is fading out this next year a good amount and are far greater in the area of future proof then Nvidia is atm.


There are only a few DX10 programs as it is. By the time DX10.1 comes into play the 8800 GT will probably start showing age.

I have a weird feeling that tells me something about some gamer wearing a jersey being an ATI fanboy... :D 
February 28, 2008 5:34:20 PM

Quote:
So basicly next year when DX10 is the norm Nvidia users will still have the same horrible dx10 performance now and forever.


Don't you mean DX10.1? :??: 
February 28, 2008 5:49:12 PM

physx7 said:
Quote:
This I can attest to by playing HGL


What is HGL?


El_Hefe said:
Hell Gate London..... maybe?


I think you're right El_Hefe, because that is known to be one of the more demanding games out there (although not as much so as Crysis obviously).

@OP, +1 for the "get neither, save the cash for later" vote.
February 28, 2008 6:16:10 PM

Your monitor can never be too big. I use a fair sized screen myself, and its still never too big. Get the 24" if you can. ...you can still trim back to 1680x1050 or lower for gaming if the performance you get warrants a drop in resolution.

If you get the 24" you can enjoy the 1920x1200 real estate for most tasks (and some gaming) and upgrade your gaming cards when you can.

I use an old 8800GTX and it seems to push Crysis fine at 1920x1200 (at least it feels quite playable) on the rig in my sig...and I know that old GTX is pretty much next to the 8800GT in many tasks. ...I say that to suggest that your 8800GT may offer playable peformance in Crysis @ 1920x1200...if it does not scale to a lower resolution...its not like the game will all-the-sudden become ugly because you went to 16x10 on a monitor that has a native resolution of 19x12....yes, yes...IMO.

...just my 1 cent.
February 28, 2008 6:18:47 PM

I would say go for the 24".

I too have a 8800gt with a 24" monitor and except for Crysis most games run fine with everything maxed out and 2xAA (@ 1920x1200 resolution IMO you don't need more AA). Crysis runs ok (average 25fps) on my rig with most settings @ high. 8800GT's are very capable cards !

As for the monitor JackNaylorPE is right if you have the money go for an 8bit panel. I had 3 6bit LCD's before I got my 24" 8 bit and the difference is amazing in both image quality and viewing angles. Here is a link to the one I got:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014133&Tpk=fp241vw
It has very nice features like HDMI, DVI, VGA, Component, S-Video, PIP.

February 28, 2008 6:32:10 PM

I'm with the get a 24" monitor crowd. A good monitor will last for years, so get the best you can afford. The Samsung 245BW, or if you can afford the extra dollars, the 245T.

Video cards come and go. Even if you got the best card available today, or went SLI, in 6 months to a year it will be old again and you'll be looking for a replacement. If you get a 24" monitor and a single 8800 GT, you should get along fairly decent. It won't play the highest settings, but it will play, and in another year or so, you can save up money and get a top end card setup at that time if you want. And the 24" monitor will still be there to use.

As a side note, I did buy a 22" widescreen LCD a year ago and I wish I had gotten a 24" widescreen. A 22" widescreen LCD has the same height as your present 19" monitor but is 3" wider. I didn't quite realize that when I ordered my 226BW and I felt a bit disappointed when I looked at it. Its a good monitor and all that, just isn't as big as I'd like.
February 28, 2008 6:43:29 PM

I use a 24" at the office...the Samsumg 245BW...not a bad piece. ...but I will tell you that 2560x1600 dwarfs it. A monitor can almost never be too big. Sailer is dead-on about the gaming card. I got my GTX last September. ...now the GTX is thought of as the unloved step child (not that step children are all unloved :) 

The 245BW is a nice 24" for only a little $$...heck you could even get 2.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 28, 2008 6:54:54 PM

I say get the 24" LCD. You can always upgrade the GPU later and enjoy the monitor for years to come.
a c 231 U Graphics card
a c 78 C Monitor
February 29, 2008 1:51:35 AM

halcyon said:
If you get the 24" you can enjoy the 1920x1200 real estate for most tasks (and some gaming) and upgrade your gaming cards when you can.


Just to clarify, now we have the option of enjoying 1920 x 1200 on smaller screens also.

As can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

There are 15" and 17" 1920 x 1200 laptop screens with 130+ dots per inch with astounding images. In the desktop market, at the same 1920 x 1200 resolution, and all things "being equal", the image will always be better on the smaller screen than the larger one. Now that Lenovo broke into the market witha sub $500 S-PVA 1920 x 1200 panel, I think we gonna see lot of 22" 1920 x 1200 screens hitting the streets soon....and I imagine 2560 x 1600 24" won't be far behind.
February 29, 2008 3:58:58 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Just to clarify, now we have the option of enjoying 1920 x 1200 on smaller screens also.

As can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

There are 15" and 17" 1920 x 1200 laptop screens with 130+ dots per inch with astounding images. In the desktop market, at the same 1920 x 1200 resolution, and all things "being equal", the image will always be better on the smaller screen than the larger one. Now that Lenovo broke into the market witha sub $500 S-PVA 1920 x 1200 panel, I think we gonna see lot of 22" 1920 x 1200 screens hitting the streets soon....and I imagine 2560 x 1600 24" won't be far behind.


Hunger get what Hunger wants! Ballpar......wait, Bigger is better, pretty much your getting a sharper picture on a smaller screen. I vote for bigger screen, it's just nicer having more real room, But Im sure we'll have the hardware to handle a 24" at 2560 in a couple years anyhow. As for HGL, it is Hellgate:London, a very demanding game(not as much as 3DCrysisMark) but still holds it own. I wouldn't recommend buying it since it quickly became a boring, thoughtless, repetitive game. But for the 8800GT to handle that game maxed out at 1920x1200 no AA(I personally don't think it's needed at such a high res.) does say a nice bit about it.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 29, 2008 5:09:15 PM

Avenger_K said:
I think you're right El_Hefe, because that is known to be one of the more demanding games out there (although not as much so as Crysis obviously).

@OP, +1 for the "get neither, save the cash for later" vote.



For what it's worth, I'm playing Hellgate London on a single 8800GTX at 1680x1050 with all the eye candy maxed, and the card is good enough for it. If only the game had fewer bugs I'd be very happy with this setup. An 8800GT should do almost as well at that resolution.
!