Are my specs good enough for 1920x1200 gaming?

I have some decent specs for gaming at low resolutions, but I want to get a 24 inch monitor for Christmas. What should I expect with the following specs ? :

-2 gigs DDR2 ram
- Amd 64 X2 3800+
- Nvidia GTX 260 core 216 superclocked

The monitors I want to buy are :

Samsung T240 HD or ASUS VH242H (1920X1080)

I am looking for at least 30-40 fps in crysis at max settings no aa or af.
18 answers Last reply
More about specs good 1920x1200 gaming
  1. spartan1081990 said:
    I have some decent specs for gaming at low resolutions, but I want to get a 24 inch monitor for Christmas. What should I expect with the following specs ? :

    -2 gigs DDR2 ram
    - Amd 64 X2 3800+
    - Nvidia GTX 260 core 216 superclocked

    The monitors I want to buy are :

    Samsung T240 HD or ASUS VH242H (1920X1080)

    I am looking for at least 30-40 fps in crysis at max settings no aa or af.


    Dream on.
    You have:
    - ONLY 2GB of RAM
    - an OLD CPU that can't power that GPU
    - a medium-high end GPU which if you haven't heard won't give you more than 20 FPS in Crysis with all high at that resolution with that CPU
  2. If you like stutter and choppy lag then it's good enough.
  3. 1. 4GB is the min these days

    2. Good luck with all max on Crysis.

    3. You got a 2-3 generation old CPU.
  4. rolli59 said:


    thanks for the advice, I guess my crappy motherboard will support that processor, so is that all I need? Some people are telling me I need more ram, isn't 2 gigs of ram enough? Even gamespot gets the same amout of frames rates using 2 gigs compared to 4 gigs
  5. Your video card is pretty decent for that res but your processor is weak as others have said. That processor rolli linked would definitely help but your motherboard may be able to handle better chips. Tell us the brand and model. If you don't know it use this;
    http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
    Another gig of ram would be a good idea, 2 if your windows is 64 bit.
  6. If you can play your games fine with a low resolution then you can play at 1920x1200 without losing too much performance or not losing at all.

    Because:

    a) 1920x1200 fast CPU + fast GPU
    b) 1920x1200 slow CPU + fast GPU

    c) 1280x800 fast CPU + fast GPU
    d) 1280x800 slow CPU + fast GPU

    System (a) will perform very similar with System (b). Because the GPU do a hard work to render at 1920x1200 and CPU do not do much.

    System (c) will perform significantly faster than System (d). Because the GPU don’t work very hard to render at 1280x800 and the CPU is work very hard to feed data to the GPU.


    All that signifies that if you play at a bigger resolution with that system (Amd 64 X2 and a GTX 260) you will reduce you bottleneck and that is a good thing, because you will get better image quality without losing performance.
  7. jyjjy said:
    Your video card is pretty decent for that res but your processor is weak as others have said. That processor rolli linked would definitely help but your motherboard may be able to handle better chips. Tell us the brand and model. If you don't know it use this;
    http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
    Another gig of ram would be a good idea, 2 if your windows is 64 bit.


    Its a RY206 motherboard
  8. Being a Dell Motherboard there probably is no support for better CPU's than AM2. some of the fastest AM2's might not be recognized correctly.
  9. According to this http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=dhs&c=us&l=en&cs=19&k=inspiron+531+cpu+support&cat=all&x=5&y=7 couple of people got 6000+ brisbane core 89watt to work with a bios update.
  10. The ASUS V242H is a good choice I have one and I absolutely love it :D
  11. 2GB of RAM is fine for XP
    2GB is fine, but 3GB of RAM is recommended for Vista 32bit
    4GB is recommended for any 64bit OS
  12. Bluescreendeath said:
    2GB of RAM is fine for XP
    2GB is fine, but 3GB of RAM is recommended for Vista 32bit
    4GB is recommended for any 64bit OS


    +1
  13. U can but only aftr the cpu upgrade,Ur old cpu will definitely bottleneck the gpu,So u cant play at that res!
  14. 3.2ghz i7s with 6GB of ram and ATI 5970 with cross fire are barely pulling 40fps in Crysis with no AA and 1920x1080 at max graphics. AA and AF makes almost no diff on current gen GPUs, small percentage.
  15. Kewlx25 said:
    3.2ghz i7s with 6GB of ram and ATI 5970 with cross fire are barely pulling 40fps in Crysis with no AA and 1920x1080 at max graphics. AA and AF makes almost no diff on current gen GPUs, small percentage.


    That's a bit slow for a build of that calibur isn't it? (Not meant offensively or anything like that just asking) I get ~25 fps at 1920x1080 with all settings maxed and 2x AA. And I have a Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66Ghz, 6Gb of ram, and a single Radeon HD 5850 O.o

    Maybe Crysis really is poorly coded lol
  16. the cryengine was never coded with gaming in mind, but i crank crysis down to 1600x1080 with 4 aa with my 5870 amd 965@3.8ghz 4gd ram on gamer settings to get 40+fps
  17. edeawillrule said:
    That's a bit slow for a build of that calibur isn't it? (Not meant offensively or anything like that just asking) I get ~25 fps at 1920x1080 with all settings maxed and 2x AA. And I have a Core 2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66Ghz, 6Gb of ram, and a single Radeon HD 5850 O.o

    Maybe Crysis really is poorly coded lol


    I was either reading Andtech or TomsHardware, but the 59xx review said the engine enabled something like 20 new graphics features that it detected with the new card. So it's not apples and oranges. I guess you could lower the graphics a bit on a 59xx and it's still look as good as the 58xx but run faster but not sure by how much since the review didn't go there.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Gaming Monitors Graphics Product