Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why go higher?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 13, 2009 8:47:21 PM

I gotta question for all you gamers out there..

I'm a gamer myself.. I don't play a lot, but every few months I get a game I really love and finish it.. a few of the games I've played in the past year are:

Call of Duty - Modern Warfare
Call of Duty 5
GTA - Liberty City
FEAR 2
The Sims 3
Spore
Wolfenstein
Batman - Arkham Asylum

Now, I have a pretty good computer system. It's not the BEST gaming rig out there, but it's certainly fast and adaquate, comprised of:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHZ
4GB DDR2 800 Ram
Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTS 512MB
2 320GB 7200rpm hard drives (working at RAID 0)

I know I can go a lot higher when it comes to performance.. there are 10,000 rpm drives out there, better processors, DDR3 memory and much faster graphic adapters..

What I really don't understand is - W H Y

Every game I ever tried to run on this machine works FLAWLESSLY, looks GREAT, and works at maximum details at 1400x900 resolution (which looks very nice on my 24" monitor).

I'm a total geek and I love upgrading my machine, but if I go out today and buy a new motherboard with DDR3 memory, and 2 graphics cards working in SLI, What will that give me??

I know the games can't run any better (any higher FPS would go unnoticed)... but will they look better? "feel" better?

What will be the difference? what are all these new graphic chips for??

More about : higher

a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 8:51:21 PM

why build a 10000 bhp car to drive a quarter mile why hit mach 3 in an plane for only 2 ppl why buy the i7 975 with 4 gtx 285's on a 32" 1080p monitor bragging?instinct?no just cuz it feels good to know you can
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 8:58:27 PM

because i like having all of the eye candy at native res (1920x1080)
because i am a programmer and use ATI Stream or CPU intensive programs
because i use VM's an actually need 8GB of memory
an best of all - because i am an enthusiast

i have a felling at 24" you are not using native res, the 1920x1200 will look better on the panel then 1440x900 (though at least it is the same aspect ratio)
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:01:06 PM

beacuse most of us are enthusiast!
my rig is
*G.Skill 4gb ddr2 800 @954mhz
*Vista 64bit
*Intel Core2Quad q6600 @ 3.4ghz
*Antec TwelveHundred full tower case
*Silverstone 700w modular striker series
*Coolermaster v8 heatsink
*Power Color Ati 4870 1gb ddr5 edition (800core/1090memory)
*ASUS 20X DVD±R DVD Burner
*Seagate Barracuda 500gb HD (2x)
*P45 ASUS P5Q SE
*Acer 22"


im thinking about getting 5870 when it comes out
why?
because i can :p  it feels good.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:11:03 PM

Obviously better cards are intended for higher resolutions and/or more demanding games like Crysis. In fact if that's GTA IV you are talking about I'll bet you definitely would've noticed the improvements a better card would bring if you are running with the settings maxed as you say, even at that resolution.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:12:12 PM

i could get a dual i9 hexacore setup with hexafire 6 5870x2's with 72 gigs ram get 500fps with full aa max quality crysis on a 100" 7000x4000 screen and would be looking to upgrade an hour after its built cuz i damn well can
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:16:18 PM

obsidian86 said:
i could get a dual i9 hexacore setup with hexafire 6 5870x2's with 72 gigs ram get 500fps with full aa max quality crysis on a 100" 7000x4000 screen and would be looking to upgrade an hour after its built cuz i damn well can


72GB of memory, why stop there

can support 144GB of DDR3 and CrossFire ftw: SUPERMICRO MBD-X8DAH+-O
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:20:13 PM

:lol:  Why? Because we can. And also, if we don't the tech field as you know it would be stagnant. The enthusiast drive the tech arena. With out us we'd still be on P4s and x800s!

Quote:
2 320GB 7200rpm hard drives (working at RAID 0)

Bad idea bro, go RAID 01 or RAID 1. If one drive dies your data is HISTORY. Make SURE you backup the important stuff at lease once a week.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:22:23 PM

Shadow703793 said:
:lol:  Why? Because we can. And also, if we don't the tech field as you know it would be stagnant. The enthusiast drive the tech arena. With out us we'd still be on P4s and x800s!


i on't know if it would be that bad, though we wouldn't be as far as we are without us
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:27:31 PM

mindless728 said:
i on't know if it would be that bad, though we wouldn't be as far as we are without us

Oh, but we sure will be. Either that or ridiculously EXPENSIVE CPUs/GPUs.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:29:18 PM

hmmm 140gigs ddr5 3000mhz cas 10 ?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:33:15 PM

Shadow703793 said:
^True that. Can't stand any thing below 1680*1050.

lol, true that. After all we do have 8GB DIMMs now: http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/258262-si...


yeah, newegg pulled the 24GB (3x8GB) ECC registered memory from there site a little while back

as for res, i can't stand anything below native resolution (1920x1080)

EDIT: if i miss any 'd' keystrokes, i think that key is dying on my keyboard
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:40:57 PM

Glad your happy. I wish I was as content with my pc as your are with yours, it sure would save me a lot of money.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2009 9:45:02 PM

there are people with billion dollar super computers who are willing to spend another billion to save a few minutes of calculation time
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 10:17:57 PM

It's because we can, and because we WANT to. Some people have boats, some people have beer. I have my PC. It's cheaper than a boat, or drinking all the time, so WHY NOT?
Cheaper than my ex wife, that's for sure
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 11:40:02 PM

Well...upgrading for me would be fully justified seeing as my hd2900xt is really starting to show the rust ,it could barely hold when I had a 19" monitor with 1280x1024 res .And now that I got a new screen and a resolution of 1920x1080 ,hd2900xt is finally strugling for survival and whats worst lately its been showing these strange dots artifacts or long lines artifacts which are also the first sing of dying...so yeah my case is just and meeting is adjurned
m
0
l
September 14, 2009 12:07:31 PM

Good Lorik, put the 2900 out to pasture. Get a couple 4870x2s ;) 
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 12:21:09 AM

well, I wanted to say THANK YOU for convincing me there really is NO difference between your super computers and mine.. When I change the resolution to 1680*1050 it looks good, but frankly - not that different than 1400x900, I dare you guys to tell the difference. Seriously - get a friend and ask him to change the resolution on a game, and then see if you can tell.. I bet you couldn't

Anyway, what I was looking for is a more TECHNICAL answer, for example:

If you upgrade to the new Nvidia Geforce cards the games will look better cause they'd support x10 as many shaders, or something...

But they look the same, and they play the same.. I'll spend the rest of my money on beer..

Now if you will excuse me, Arkham Asylum awaits!
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 1:17:00 AM

Yes, you can tell the difference between different resolutions. You have a very solid system that should be able to play most games well to flawlessly, but better resolutions simply look better. Granted, some people's vision is better than others, but there is a case for the supercomputer. And I invite you to try setting the AA to 16X on Arkham Asylum!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2009 1:25:10 AM

Shadow703793 said:
Without us we'd still be on P4s and x800s!


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No more netburst!!! *Hides under table*
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 2:59:14 AM

yoaverez, yoaverez,

I invite you to Ohio to come see my 30" running 2560*1600 in any of those games, and then I dare you to tell me you can't tell a difference than your 1440*1900. To run games at that resolution at very high settings with AA, I need every bit of the 3gb on my trifire setup.

Do you have to upgrade, maybe not. If you are happy with your setup, then that's all that matters. If you're not, it's time to upgrade. I don't understand your reason for this thread at all.
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 3:03:22 AM

Sorry man, just sounds like you're full of it.. :) 

The AA IS on x16 on my machine, and when I raise the resolution on most games, it actually looks WORST, why? because the texture files in the game can only go so far.. at higher resolutions it just makes them look more "digitized", cause you can more clearly see the lines that make them, it looks less natural.

Just finished Batman, MAN what a game!
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 3:12:31 AM

You have a 24" right, raise the resolution to 1920*1200. Put your AA on. If you're saying that you can "see the lines that make them" it means you probably don't have AA enabled. The reason you don't have AA enabled is because your 8800 can't handle it. Moral of the story is that if you're happy with your setup fine. If you upgrade, you WILL notice a difference. Is it worth it to you? maybe not.
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 3:22:05 AM

Ah, I guess YOU should know if my Anti Aliasing is on.. cause you're here at my computer...
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 3:25:28 AM

Look, I'm just going based on the information that you're giving me.

Once again, what is the point of your post here???
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2009 4:04:35 AM

yoaverez said:
well, I wanted to say THANK YOU for convincing me there really is NO difference between your super computers and mine.. When I change the resolution to 1680*1050 it looks good, but frankly - not that different than 1400x900, I dare you guys to tell the difference. Seriously - get a friend and ask him to change the resolution on a game, and then see if you can tell.. I bet you couldn't

Anyway, what I was looking for is a more TECHNICAL answer, for example:

If you upgrade to the new Nvidia Geforce cards the games will look better cause they'd support x10 as many shaders, or something...

But they look the same, and they play the same.. I'll spend the rest of my money on beer..

Now if you will excuse me, Arkham Asylum awaits!



There is a difference in higher res. There higher then native resolution of your monitor the more detail comes through. This is basically the difference between SD and HD, a higher resolution. Standard analog broad cast is at 440×480 while you have HD at 1920×1080 (1080p) that doesn't mean it is HD simply because it is at that res however.

Higher res means more detail of the image on the screen (of course that is if that image is in that res as well as monitor support.) In theory, if it is done right, a higher pixel count means a great level of detail within the image.


What you just said basically means that anything should look the same no matter what. Games do look better at higher resolutions weather or not you might be able to see it, which some people do not. The The reason why you need more power for larger res monitors is more.


I am sure Ape will be along soon to yell at me for something I said wrong here lol but I am honestly having a hard time trying to over simplify this and have no idea how.
m
0
l
September 21, 2009 4:40:36 AM

All that matters is that you are happy with your setup.

You are going to find ppl on these enthusiast forums who have the extra money to spend on having the best and latest.

I have 1 GTX 285 right now and it runs most of my games decently well at 1080i on a "modest" 22" display. Sure I could get more FPS playing CoD with AA all the way up, or maybe water reflections in Supreme Commander would look nicer but I frankly don't care.

Usually if I'm staring at pretty water textures it means I need to find something else to do with my time.

I could have spent 4k on my computer... I almost did... then I realized that in 2 years it's going to suck compared to what is out there at that time... just the way it goes

A guy down my hall is buying a 3.5k laptop and my reaction was wtf... waste of money... It isn't even a quad :-P

Just enjoy the games... much better than trying to enjoy the computer and realizing you will never really be happy.



m
0
l
September 21, 2009 5:01:56 AM

^ exactly.

Look, the biggest thing is that you are happy. What I always tell customers is that people need to look at a price point, and a time frame. No matter what you buy now, it will end up being nothing more than a paper weight at some point in the future.

The key is to find a price you're comfortable with spending in a certain period of time (usually 1 or 2 years). This could be $500, or $5000. That's really the only way to stay at roughly the same point consistantly.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2009 5:45:23 AM

Some people have 32" tv's, others 47 or more.
Some people drive sports cars, others SUVs.
Some people only wear blue jeans, others only slacks
To each their own, but dont try telling the people that know it matters that it doesnt, no matter if its pc's or sports cars, cause it does
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 12:00:47 AM

darkvine said:
There is a difference in higher res. There higher then native resolution of your monitor the more detail comes through. This is basically the difference between SD and HD, a higher resolution. Standard analog broad cast is at 440×480 while you have HD at 1920×1080 (1080p) that doesn't mean it is HD simply because it is at that res however.

Higher res means more detail of the image on the screen (of course that is if that image is in that res as well as monitor support.) In theory, if it is done right, a higher pixel count means a great level of detail within the image.


What you just said basically means that anything should look the same no matter what. Games do look better at higher resolutions weather or not you might be able to see it, which some people do not. The The reason why you need more power for larger res monitors is more.


I am sure Ape will be along soon to yell at me for something I said wrong here lol but I am honestly having a hard time trying to over simplify this and have no idea how.



That's a VERY good example. When you watch a movie on TV that was filmed in 440x480, Stretching it to 1920x1080, isn't going to make it look much better because the pixels are just NOT THERE. You need to completely recapture the 8mm film in high definition in order to take advantage of the quality. So when I take this game, and run it at 1440x900 -> I'm already seeing all the detail.. These water textures aren't going to look better at higher resolution because the Data is just NOT THERE, instead the graphic engine will REDRAW them with bigger gaps in between the lines and fill it with more texture. MORE OF THE SAME TEXTURE.
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 2:50:29 AM

I think you'll know when it's time to upgrade. You won't be able to run a game smoothly at the resolution you want. Then you may dither a bit until finally you get to the tipping point. One thing you can't do is get ahead of the curve. It applies to every part of your comp. You buy the best now, it will be cheaper/outdated within 6 months. The closest you can get is to buy the best just before a game you're looking forward to (assuming it pushes the graphical limits) comes out...
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 3:25:37 AM

yoaverez said:
That's a VERY good example. When you watch a movie on TV that was filmed in 440x480, Stretching it to 1920x1080, isn't going to make it look much better because the pixels are just NOT THERE. You need to completely recapture the 8mm film in high definition in order to take advantage of the quality. So when I take this game, and run it at 1440x900 -> I'm already seeing all the detail.. These water textures aren't going to look better at higher resolution because the Data is just NOT THERE, instead the graphic engine will REDRAW them with bigger gaps in between the lines and fill it with more texture. MORE OF THE SAME TEXTURE.
What is "this game" and how do you know the data is just "NOT THERE"?
Most games, on a basic level, are constructed out of polygons with textures applied to the surfaces. Polygons don't have a maximum resolution at which there isn't more data if you magnify them. Even a simple cube with no textures can always benefit from extra resolution to become more accurately defined. It becomes more apparent to the human eye depending on the complexity, size and location of the polygon.
What you are talking about does apply to textures but only up to a certain point. Just play any modern game and look at a simple wall. If you are stand RIGHT next to it perhaps(but perhaps not) the texture used to represent the surface will be viewable in all its possible detail at a low resolution. But when you start backing away from it all the details of the texture will stop being discernible at some point. The higher the resolution the farther you can back away while still being able to see all the details of the surface.
On top of this as cards get more powerful game designers are always increasing the number and complexity of the polygons and the resolution of the textures covering them. Games are NOT similar to movies in the way you are suggesting.
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 4:01:38 AM

listen to jyjjy yoaverez. He is right.

The movie screen example does not apply to the game. The reason why is the SOURCE. You ever notice how your fps drops when you go higher, it's because it's processing a lot more because the source changes the output to a lot more detail. Games now are not made based on current hardware a lot of times, they are made the way they want to be seen. If you can't see it that way b/c of hardware limitations, then once you upgrade you will be able to.

I remember seeing a quote about FSX in 2006 when it first came out by one of the developers saying that "you won't be able to play fsx in all its detail for a few years to come" This is the same as Crysis, and other games, some people like to be able to turn the eye candy up on their games. Some prefer a better resolution than 1440*900. If I had to play everything at that resolution, I would cry. The games are scaled down for YOU, so you can play them at lower resolutions with crappy hardware, not made at 320*200, and then just stretched out to get the higher resolutions.

Find a friend with a 30" Monitor, a nice SLI/Crossfire setup, and play a nice game at 2560*1600 with everything on high, and tell me you don't notice a difference. If you don't, you need to get your eyes checked, or you're a liar.

BTW, you still haven't answered my question as to what is the point of your post to begin with?? Maybe I'm missing something, but what I got out of it is the equivalent of saying "My Geo Metro gets me to work and back so why should I ever get a new car"

m
0
l

Best solution

September 28, 2009 4:10:36 AM

Ignorance is bliss.

My advice to the OP is to walk away from these forums and continue to enjoy your gaming experience on your current machine if you are satisfied with it's performance. Knowledge can be extremely expensive. Once you cross that line over to high-end gaming it's pretty hard to be satisfied with lesser quality.


...saying that 1440 resolution on a 24" monitor using an 8800GTS is as good as it gets is pretty entertaining though.
Share
September 28, 2009 5:43:13 AM

yoaverez said:
What I really don't understand is - W H Y


OMG! :D  I so was going to write up a thread with the same question! Hell, I was even going to write a book! :D  Me and you think alike, I like that!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 9:10:15 AM

yoaverez said:


Every game I ever tried to run on this machine works FLAWLESSLY, looks GREAT, and works at maximum details at 1400x900 resolution (which looks very nice on my 24" monitor).

I'm a total geek and I love upgrading my machine, but if I go out today and buy a new motherboard with DDR3 memory, and 2 graphics cards working in SLI, What will that give me??

I know the games can't run any better (any higher FPS would go unnoticed)... but will they look better? "feel" better?

What will be the difference? what are all these new graphic chips for??

Higher resolution.

There's a massive difference between 1440x900 and 1920x1200 (what I run at). The level of detail is immensely higher, and the overall image quality is vastly improved. I agree that if you can run games smoothly already (and don't need more performance for non-gaming tasks), there isn't any real point to upgrading. However, if you're running at a reduced resolution, you really aren't getting everything you can out of your games.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 10:15:43 AM

Couple of things that occur to me firstly those that posted at the start of this thread saying that people upgrade because they are Enthusiasts need to get a reality check. A true enthusiast doesn't have to have the best of every thing a true enthusiast is interested in the tech and exploring whats possable with today's hardware. True that it leads some up the path of feeling the need to constantly upgrade as they think that's what being an enthusiast is about, having the best of the best doesnt make you an enthusiast no more than having a really big expensive house makes you an architect. You get people on these boards with systems that would make mine go hide in a corner but they don't have a clue how to use it or set up even the very basic applications.
Yes quite a few "Enthusiasts" do have very good systems but lets not make the mistake of using that as the benchmark for defining what an "Enthusiast" is.

Secondly to the OP how close are you sitting to the Monitor ? As the resolution goes up and usually the screen size as well you benefit from sitting further away from the screen. If you are within around 3ft to a meter from the screen then its no wonder you are having a hard time telling the differance in quality settings.
Try sitting at least 1 meter + away from a game running a demo at native res and then tell me you cant see a differance.

Mactronix :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 10:33:20 AM

Regular Joe looks at his PC and sees a tool, and enthusiast looks at his PC and sees potential
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 11:07:06 AM

You guys know I am an hardware enthusiast and an avid gamer (30+ hours a fortnight). I get by with integrated graphics and a 1Ghz dual-core. It's just that I have no need to upgrade. Red Alert 3 looks great at native res. on my 21.6" monitor. My computer is good enough that I can play competitively in competition play in Red Alert 3. It's just that some people like even better graphics... more eye candy.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 9:53:55 PM

I think it also comes down to the enthusiast group as well, even if you are on a low res monitor for most enthusiast (counting myself) building computers is a hobby. A very costly one but still like any other hobby you have to keep going somewhere with it.


That is why you hear about random, normal, people who have a quad sli set up with a 5.7 ghz overclock and running at -200c on a phase charge. It's just something you do.

For most gaming is only a by product of building amazing computers that can play them maxed out (or close too)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2009 11:02:10 PM

Hey, there are people doing retro builds for hits n giggles too
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 29, 2009 7:47:40 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hey, there are people doing retro builds for hits n giggles too



Exactly my point JD.
I know a guy who is actually a tech journalist (a good one)and actually knows a fair bit more than the average journo about computers and his rig is keeping up with every thing he wants to do even though its years old,(yes he games) he has done all sorts to it to get it to run faster even doing hard mods on the motherboard to get it to run faster.
Now thats what i call a true enthusiast.

Mactronix
m
0
l
September 29, 2009 8:41:21 AM

No, i know why, look past 10 years. The quality of games. It went up really fast. Look in 10 years. The nvidia HD SLI series will lag on those games. That<s why.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
September 29, 2009 9:10:47 AM

@maypep_necro, did you ever sell that PC?
m
0
l
October 8, 2009 12:27:31 PM

No. It got dismounted, and i lost the parts in my boxes.
m
0
l
!