Anyone running FullHD with 8800/9800GTs in SLi??

As per the title I have 2x Inno3d 8800GT 512 OC (650/1900) in Sli. I'm currently running a 17" 1280x1024 panel which I'm looking to upgrade to a 22". I'm torn between a few models and my main decision is whether I go 1080p or 1680x1050.
Is there anyone else running 8800GT Sli with a full HD panel? Will my GTs hack 1920x1080? I'm not expecting to run Crysis in VHQ with filters, but would like to run most other titles at the new resolution with high details and some filters if possible!

Spec:
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz (will probably look at squeezing 3.6-3.8Ghz out of it when I upgrade the panel.)
P5N-T Deluxe 780i
4Gb 1066 DDR2
2x 8800GT
XP32 (May go to Vista64…)

I'm hoping there should be enough horsepower to supply the gfx cards, I'm just wondering if the GTs are a little too long in the tooth to be expecting decent 1080p frames in today's games, and whether 512Mb Vram is not enough for full HD and I'd therefore be better getting a 1680x1050 screen.
For info I play shooters and driving games mostly, Dirt/Grid, Crysis, FC2, GTA IV etc.
(I did look at THG's VGA charts but their titles are a little out of date now!)

Message quoted 1 times

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

I have almost that exact same setup (q6600@3.6), 2x evga 8800gt 512, and I have a samsung 22" 1680x1050. I play gta4 at decent settings, which from what I hear requires more from the cpu than gpu. Crysis runs fairly well on high. Most new games I can run at high settings well enough.

So the point is, I think your setup is fine and should do everything you need it to.

Reply to skjold

But yeah, dunno about 1920x1080 . I'm tempted to say it might not perform like you'd want.

Reply to skjold

MMclachlan wrote :

As per the title I have 2x Inno3d 8800GT 512 OC (650/1900) in Sli. I'm currently running a 17" 1280x1024 panel which I'm looking to upgrade to a 22". I'm torn between a few models and my main decision is whether I go 1080p or 1680x1050.
Is there anyone else running 8800GT Sli with a full HD panel? Will my GTs hack 1920x1080? I'm not expecting to run Crysis in VHQ with filters, but would like to run most other titles at the new resolution with high details and some filters if possible!

Spec:
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz (will probably look at squeezing 3.6-3.8Ghz out of it when I upgrade the panel.)
P5N-T Deluxe 780i
4Gb 1066 DDR2
2x 8800GT
XP32 (May go to Vista64…)

I'm hoping there should be enough horsepower to supply the gfx cards, I'm just wondering if the GTs are a little too long in the tooth to be expecting decent 1080p frames in today's games, and whether 512Mb Vram is not enough for full HD and I'd therefore be better getting a 1680x1050 screen.
For info I play shooters and driving games mostly, Dirt/Grid, Crysis, FC2, GTA IV etc.
(I did look at THG's VGA charts but their titles are a little out of date now!)

You have more than enough power. I have a single Radeon 3850 512 MB (a fuzz slower than a single 8800 GT) and an old-school Socket 939 X2 4200 at stock (a LOT slower than your 3.4 GHz Q9550) and play games like ETQW at high settings at 1920x1080 with no problems. I have Vsync enabled, so it says my framerate is 60 fps almost all of the time, but it might dip to 40 fps at the minimum. So I'd say you're more than fine with your setup.

------------------------------ Upcoming Overdue Build: Dual-socket workstation, ~32 GB DDR3, OS on a fast SSD, high-end GPU, all wrapped up in a huge tower case. Coming H2 2011.

Yes, I am actually still running the Pentium III 1.0B Coppermine in the picture.
Reply to MU_Engineer

Thx for the replies. It is a bit of a dilemma, I know I can’t be using the full potential of the cards in 1280x1024 but then I am used to running everything in ultra with filters and silky frames at the moment (even Crysis in VHQ with 2xAA 25-60fps.) I’m thinking that if I jump to 1080p then I could have to make a trade-off - less candy for extra pixels. Then wondering if 1680x1050 might be the sweet-spot where I can keep my candy and still get the extra pixels! Driving games are also pretty frame sensitive and the difference between a constant 60 and 30-40-60 is really noticable - honestly you'd never want to go back.
That said, in the Tom’s charts some games only drop 1-2fps going from 1680-1920 at the same detail, and those with larger drops of 10-15 frames all tended to be above 60fps anyway. I guess I’ll just have to look at the monitors and see. A 22” full HD will have a smaller pixel pitch than a 1680x which may mean it will look almost as good with lower levels of filters and that may in turn compensate for the frame rate. .. And I suppose if the GTs can't cut it It'll give me a good 'reason' to save for the next gen!

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to MMclachlan

MMclachlan wrote :

Thx for the replies. It is a bit of a dilemma, I know I can’t be using the full potential of the cards in 1280x1024 but then I am used to running everything in ultra with filters and silky frames at the moment (even Crysis in VHQ with 2xAA 25-60fps.) I’m thinking that if I jump to 1080p then I could have to make a trade-off - less candy for extra pixels. Then wondering if 1680x1050 might be the sweet-spot where I can keep my candy and still get the extra pixels! Driving games are also pretty frame sensitive and the difference between a constant 60 and 30-40-60 is really noticable - honestly you'd never want to go back.
That said, in the Tom’s charts some games only drop 1-2fps going from 1680-1920 at the same detail, and those with larger drops of 10-15 frames all tended to be above 60fps anyway. I guess I’ll just have to look at the monitors and see. A 22” full HD will have a smaller pixel pitch than a 1680x which may mean it will look almost as good with lower levels of filters and that may in turn compensate for the frame rate. .. And I suppose if the GTs can't cut it It'll give me a good 'reason' to save for the next gen!

I would say go for the 1920x1080 over the 1680x1050. The smaller pixel pitch of the 1920x1080 makes for some very crisp text and graphics. The 1920x1080 resolution lets you play back full 1080p video at full resolution and more pixels are more useful for work, assuming you intend to do work with this machine. Besides, with a greater number of smaller pixels, antialiasing is a much smaller issue and you can get away with less or even no AA than at lower resolutions, which reduces the strain on the GPU.

I got a 22" 1680x1050 after my original 20" 1600x1200 bit the dust and sold it after a few weeks to get a 23" 2048x1152 (Dell SP2309W). The smaller pixel pitch and considerably larger amount of pixels of the 23" 2048x1152 unit was so much nicer to have. The SP2309W is a very nice monitor and currently a very good deal at $320 (I paid $370 when I got it a month ago :cry: ) although it's probably not the greatest unit to use for gaming at the moment due to its uncommon high resolution. Few games have 2048x1152 as a default resolution so when I play games, I do at 1920x1080. It looks pretty decent, although it's not quite as sharp as things that run natively at 2048x1152.

------------------------------ Upcoming Overdue Build: Dual-socket workstation, ~32 GB DDR3, OS on a fast SSD, high-end GPU, all wrapped up in a huge tower case. Coming H2 2011.

Yes, I am actually still running the Pentium III 1.0B Coppermine in the picture.
Reply to MU_Engineer

I am looking at the Asus VH226H. It's 1920x1080 at 21.5" so it should be ultra sharp and with 2ms response it is ideal for gaming. Xbitlabs reviewed Asus' VW222U a while ago and said the overdrive was very good so I expect it should be near that response time in the real world! My other full HD option is the larger Samsung 2333SW, but response time is not so good at 5ms.
Dell do make nice monitors and the S2309W is native 1080p but is a bit of a price premium over the others here in the UK so I can feel myself leaning towards the Asus as the cheapest with the quickest response time.

Reply to MMclachlan

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applica [...] CatId=2775

Good monitor good price.

Reply to The_Blood_Raven

Don't be tricked by the 2ms and dynamic contrast ratios, they mean nothing. My mother's old ass 8ms 17" LCD doesn't ghost, but here 5ms 24" does.

Reply to The_Blood_Raven

That Acer isn't available in the UK it seems.
Re: the response times I was simply going by Xbitslabs review of previous model 22" panels. They tested a Samsung 2232BW and the Asus VW222U amongst others.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/m [...] nch-2.html

The conclusion in all tests was that real response time was higher than stated because the ISO standard that governs it is too loose. There is also overdrive or RTC (response time compensation) to factor in. Some panels have it some don't. General rule of thumb is those with sub-5ms responses are RTC enabled panels. RTC is great as it reduces ghosting but can also introduce its own artifacts and in that review I read the Asus had a lower level of artefacts than the Samsung model. I'm guessing that the new models will be based on the same RTC systems so hence thinking about the Asus screen.
Xbitlabs seem to do a really good job of testing the screens they review. They actaully test timings, colour reproduction etc where 99% of all the other reviews I've read don't try and measure any of the supposed specs. Its a shame they don't do them more regularily.
If anyone else knows of a review site that does in-depth testing like this I'd be interested to see...

Reply to MMclachlan

…Went with the VH226H in the end. Very pleased, super sharp monitor due to the tiny pixel pitch - it does mean you'll want to up the font size though if your eyesight is less than average! Response time is great, smooth as silk, the colours aren't bad either, only gripe is its only got tilt adjust and the splendid modes are pretty useless.
As far as the GTs go, they seem to be holding their own at 1080p. Grid and Dirt are still a constant 60fps in ultra detail with 8xCSAA and 4xAA respectively. COD5 and Mirrors Edge the same, plenty of frames looking great in full with 4xAA. GTA IV runs alright with slightly reduced view distance because of the extra pressure on Vram. Crysis however, as expected, is the killer with 1680x1060 being just playable in VHQ no AA about 25-45fps, no chance at 1080p!
So, in answer to my question, I think two 8800GTs are alright for 1080p at the moment!

Reply to MMclachlan

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - Anyone running FullHD with 8800/9800GTs in SLi??

Please mind

Focus On

Anyone running FullHD with 8800/9800GTs in SLi??

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - Anyone running FullHD with 8800/9800GTs in SLi??

Please mind