Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Wich would yeild a better picture monitor or graphics card

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 31, 2009 9:52:25 PM

hello i am wondering wich would yeild a better picture. here is what i have now i have a 1680x1050 22inch wide screen monitor 3000:1 contrast ratio .
and a 9800gtx+ graphics card. with the slowerr graphics card i cant turn all settings on high but can get close cause i have a overclocked core i7 920. but i am wondering wich would yeild a better picture a faster graphics card to crank settings a little higher or a 1080p monitor with 1900x1200 screen resoltion. wich of these would make the picture better cause i can only afford one.

thanks
sincerly
daniel
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
December 31, 2009 9:55:05 PM

If you are talking about gaming a faster GPU will improve on the settings that you can put on in a game. Going to a bigger resolution will make the GPU work harder. A 1080P monitor is going to be more pleasant to look at.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2010 12:15:59 AM

depends on the budget and the games you play. I use a 42 inch TV for my main monitor. Sitting 4 feet away from it, I notice more detail then my old 24 inch monitor.

But if you card can barely handle the games you play at 1680 x1050 a larger LCD may do more harm because you'll have to run your games outside the native rez. If you can buy an ati 4850 or better then I would suggest you get the graphics card. If that's outside your budget ($350) then I would just keep saving.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
January 1, 2010 12:23:06 AM

PsyKhiqZero said:
depends on the budget and the games you play. I use a 42 inch TV for my main monitor. Sitting 4 feet away from it, I notice more detail then my old 24 inch monitor.

But if you card can barely handle the games you play at 1680 x1050 a larger LCD may do more harm because you'll have to run your games outside the native rez. If you can buy an ati 4850 or better then I would suggest you get the graphics card. If that's outside your budget ($350) then I would just keep saving.

What is the performance difference between 9800GTX+ and HD4850?
Here I answer for you 9800GTX+ =gts250 = HD4850 = HD5750. Less than 5% difference does not count!
m
0
l
January 1, 2010 4:27:01 AM

well as for this trhread im not worried about expinse cause ill evetualy get both, i have a 9800gtx now though. but im wondering if a 1920x1200 would show better graphics then my monitor or if id be better of going for the higher graphics card first say a 4890. wich would yeild a better look you think
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 1, 2010 6:06:52 AM

WINTERLORD said:
hello i am wondering wich would yeild a better picture. here is what i have now i have a 1680x1050 22inch wide screen monitor 3000:1 contrast ratio .
and a 9800gtx+ graphics card. with the slowerr graphics card i cant turn all settings on high but can get close cause i have a overclocked core i7 920. but i am wondering wich would yeild a better picture a faster graphics card to crank settings a little higher or a 1080p monitor with 1900x1200 screen resoltion. wich of these would make the picture better cause i can only afford one.

thanks
sincerly
daniel


More than likely all your games are GPU bound, meaning no amount of Overclocking of an i7 920 (nice chip btw) will improve performance with most games. Your GPU is holding you back from turning up your visuals.

A larger new monitor might be nice, if seeing everything larger is more appealing, but as others have mentioned, this will point out your current GPU's weakness even more, forcing you to lower graphic settings even more.

Do you feel your 22" screen is small to you? If it feels comfortable, get the graphics card first.
Share
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2010 8:12:10 AM

lol excuse me I meant to recomend a ati 5850 not a 4850.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 1, 2010 8:53:33 AM

a balance of both
m
0
l
January 1, 2010 9:02:58 AM

getting a higher res monitor might force you going out of native res to keep fps steady, and belive me you do not want to go out of native, the pic becomes crap!
m
0
l
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2010 10:43:30 AM

Wait a moment. Since when is a 9800GTX/GTS250 not enough for 1680x1050? I've seen reviews where that card can handle 2650x1600 with the details turned all the way up. If you honestly can't game at 1680x1050 with the details on I'm inclined to think you have a problem with your system/card. Your card should handle 1680x1050 just fine, and 1920x1080 for many games as well.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 1, 2010 3:48:54 PM

4745454b said:
Wait a moment. Since when is a 9800GTX/GTS250 not enough for 1680x1050? I've seen reviews where that card can handle 2650x1600 with the details turned all the way up. If you honestly can't game at 1680x1050 with the details on I'm inclined to think you have a problem with your system/card. Your card should handle 1680x1050 just fine, and 1920x1080 for many games as well.


Maybe a couple years ago, or maybe with it in SLI, but not today on a single card.

He already mentioned he doesn't max his settings due to a lack of FPS, so he has 1st hand knowledge.
m
0
l
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2010 1:50:27 AM

Dirt two. Maxed, with 12CSAA. 35FPS avg.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/12/23/dirt_2_gamepl...

Borderlands. Maxed (no AA though. 59FPS avg.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/30/borderlands_g...

NFS shift. Maxed, 8x MSAA. 46FSP avg

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/10/need_for_spee...

RE5. Maxed, 8x MSAA. 43FPS avg

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/03/resident_evil...

Shall I keep going? For every game its been maxed on details, and most can handle many levels of AA. I say again, if he can't do this with his system, there is something wrong with it.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:04:24 AM

I'm not sure I'd call any of those very playable at max settings except the Boarderlands one. 35 FPS will make most people get sick. 43 and 46 is borderline, and the minimum FPS in those games are pretty low in the 20's. Depending on how often, I wouldn't consider that good playable frames.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:06:47 AM

There are also other more demanding games not listed there.

Keep in mind, the person asking for advise is the one telling us he is NOT able to max out the visuals now, with his current card. If he increases his video resolution, it will NOT improve, but get worse.
m
0
l
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2010 3:49:23 AM

But if his system should be able to max it and it can't, then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG. Yes, increasing the res will make things worse. I never said it wouldn't. I'm trying to ask him if everything is really working as it should. His system should be find running most games maxed, with either 2x or 4x AA.

Quote:
35 FPS will make most people get sick. 43 and 46 is borderline, and the minimum FPS in those games are pretty low in the 20's. Depending on how often, I wouldn't consider that good playable frames.


Noted, but I linked to HardOCP for a reason. They claim they play those games and thats the best PLAYABLE settings for that resolution. Considering the abilities of the 9800GTX/GTS250, it should handle 1680x1050 with more or less ease. (excepting Crysis ofcourse.)
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 4:11:48 AM

If you enjoy those fps, that's your choice. I personally get sick below 40 FPS and am bordling until 50 FPS. I know many others who have the same experience.

It's not even like the OP mentioned he can't set everything high, but can get close. If he's playing Crysis or other more demanding games that what you listed, it's quite resonable.

And just because HardOCP says something is "playable" doesn't even mean it's the most enjoyable setting, or even the setting they'd choose to play it at. "Playable" just means it can be played at that setting. Most people I know get sick at many of those frame rates posted if played more than a few minutes.

Anyways, I've argued too much on this silly topic.
m
0
l
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:37:12 AM

Quote:
And just because HardOCP says something is "playable" doesn't even mean it's the most enjoyable setting, or even the setting they'd choose to play it at. "Playable" just means it can be played at that setting. Most people I know get sick at many of those frame rates posted if played more than a few minutes.


Then I suggest you spend more time reading at hard. If it isn't REALLY playable, they will adjust things until they are. When they list those settings, its the max they could get and still have it be fluid. We aren't talking just above slide show here. Thats also why playable was in caps.

For the OP, some people feel that seeing as you can't get what you want, getting a better video card is the way to go. Increasing the monitor will only make your problem worse. I feel that you should be able to play the games maxed out with what you have, and feel investigating why you can't is a good idea. 9800GTX @ 1680x1050 is perfect, 1920x1080 should be okish. You won't be able to max out, but if you don't enable AA you should be ok for most games. I guess this doesn't help you much as one camp says get better GPU, while the other says monitor.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:48:08 AM

Playable and enjoyable to play at are two different things. Just keep that in mind the next time you feel queezy at 35 fps.

That sick queezy feeling isn't a result of a slide show. It's the result of barely being fluid.
m
0
l
a c 176 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2010 8:49:23 AM

Sigh.

Quote:
And just because HardOCP says something is "playable" doesn't even mean it's the most enjoyable setting, or even the setting they'd choose to play it at... Playable and enjoyable to play at are two different things. Just keep that in mind the next time you feel queezy at 35 fps.


Its comments like these that make me think you have no idea what goes on at HardOCP. Seeing as you refuse to educate yourself, let me show you. (if your willing.)

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/12/23/dirt_2_gamepl...

Quote:
Evaluation Method

We evaluate what each video card configuration can supply us in terms of a playable gaming experience while supplying the best culmination of resolution and "eye candy" graphical settings. We focus on quality and immersion of the gameplay experience rather than how many frames per second the card can get in a canned benchmark or prerecorded timedemo situation that often do not represent real gameplay like you would experience at home.


Again, we aren't talking slide show here. They do the testing and find out what looks best at what res with what enabled. Take a look at the higher resolutions to see where they talk about disabling things to make it playable.

I'm not sure why we've got so off track about this. All I'm suggusting is the OP look at his system to see if there is a reason why he can't play smothly maxed out at 1680x1050. I am really unclear as to why you think this is such a bad idea. I'm not sure if your posting because you want to troll, or if you don't understand what I'm saying. (I suspect its a bit of both.)

Seeing as you lack the ability to stop posting on this "silly topic", I'll do you the favor and stop. I believe I have made my point. Sure you can go out and throw more hardware at a problem. I for one believe you should stop and make sure your buying the right hardware. If he computer is running slower then it should because of a virus, bad card that can be RMA'd, or move to the correct slot to get 16x lanes instead of 1x or 4x then he should check those things. I'm sorry you feel he should ingore Hard and just go buy a better GPU.

m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:20:28 PM

Clearly you don't understand what I'm talking about either. You either play at higher FPS than 35 all the time, which strengths your stomache, or you just have a higher tolerance than many.

Just because their tester doesn't get queezy at a setting, doesn't mean thousands of others don't.

I used to play Farcry 1 and Crysis at an average FPS of 35. I thought that was "playable", the interesting thing is, I always get sick within 30 mins and if I played longer than an hour, I'd have something resembling a migrane. I'd take a break and return.

After a few days of doing that, I could tolerate 35 fps. It was "playable". I'm not saying it's not playable. However, I have learned later, that is not the most enjoyable experience either.

Most my friends get sick below 40 FPS and some require over 50 FPS before they are not getting sick on me.

Their tester(s) apparently don't experience that, or they don't play the game long enough between tweaking to experience the sickness most those I know, will experience.
m
0
l
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:24:46 PM

bystander said:
Clearly you don't understand what I'm talking about either. You either play at higher FPS than 35 all the time, which strengths your stomache, or you just have a higher tolerance than many.

Just because their tester doesn't get queezy at a setting, doesn't mean thousands of others don't.

I used to play Farcry 1 and Crysis at an average FPS of 35. I thought that was "playable", the interesting thing is, I always get sick within 30 mins and if I played longer than an hour, I'd have something resembling a migrane. I'd take a break and return.

After a few days of doing that, I could tolerate 35 fps. It was "playable". I'm not saying it's not playable. However, I have learned later, that is not the most enjoyable experience either.

Most my friends get sick below 40 FPS and some require over 50 FPS before they are not getting sick on me.

Their tester(s) apparently don't experience that, or they don't play the game long enough between tweaking to experience the sickness most those I know, will experience.

If you are getting sick in front of the computer screen it is time to turn of the computer!
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:32:15 PM

Easier sad than done. I just have a better system now, and not afraid to lower settings a little now. (When I say sick, I mean queezy.)

The part that really anoyes me about this arguement, is he's quoting a site to tell me what is "Playable". "Playable" is a personal opinion. Not a fact. A site telling you that they find X playable, does not make it playable for the end user as we all have different tolerances.
m
0
l
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 2:41:12 PM

Agreed! But it is generally accepted fact in the industry that 30fps is considered very playable.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 4:57:34 PM

Maybe I read the articals on TH a little different than most, but it always felt like when they said a 30 fps game was playable, that they seem to be saying it as if it's kind of playable, but not actually what they'd use, but some people might regardless.
m
0
l
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:00:53 PM

bystander said:
Maybe I read the articals on TH a little different than most, but it always felt like when they said a 30 fps game was playable, that they seem to be saying it as if it's kind of playable, but not actually what they'd use, but some people might regardless.

Take Crysis as an example how long ago did we get single GPU cards that could play it at over 30fps?
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:15:12 PM

We still don't have one. I have an i7 and a 5870, and it still doesn't play Crysis at Very High with playable Frames. I can run it at high, mostly. Although lastnight, I did experience a few minutes of queeziness even then (FPS were between 35-40 during that time).
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:21:06 PM

I always considered games like Crysis and Farcry at the time to be games designed to run at Medium and at most high settings with the ability to scale to higher visuals as hardware advanced.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:34:06 PM

Yeah, I am aware, but it works differently in games. I'm not the only one. When I played WoW, we had several guildies who would get sick below 40 fps.

I have wondered how movies have no effect, but video games do. I believe it is due to you controling the camera angle.
m
0
l
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 103 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:38:44 PM

I believe it is the concentration you have when playing a game. It is like reading, the frequency that you blink your eyes goes down and it will dry out the eyes which can lead to other discomfort.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 133 C Monitor
January 2, 2010 5:43:09 PM

It feels like like motion sickness. Your mind is being tricked into thinking you are moving when you aren't. It's like being on a boat at sea (I've done a bit of sailing), and if you focus on the boat, you get sick, but if you watch land, your mind adjusts for the swelling of the sea since you now see how the swells are moving you.

Although that doesn't acount for low FPS vs higher FPS. Maybe it's just the slight delays causing the mind to over compensate or something.

I honestly don't know why, just that many people experience this.
m
0
l
!