Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Generally speaking, How good is Good enough?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 31, 2010 5:38:53 PM

All,

In looking through the most recent graphic card roundup (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,...) I see that it's possible to get "Excellent 19x12" performance for ~$200 - $250. Since 19x12 is the native resolution (NR) for a 23" LCD why go further?

Where are people using the 25x16 resolution are you just going past the panels NR? Are the results noticeable or do they improve game play in some other way? Is there an advantage to 25x16 when connecting to a HDTV?

What panel size would have 2x16 native resolution? The step up to 25x16 from 19x12 is huge from a total pixel aspect so I'm trying to understand if 25x16 is important.

Thanks,
Ski
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 5:54:03 PM

2560 x 1600 is native on 30 inch LCD's, there are some 27/29 inchers too. They often cost $1000, so I would get 3 x 24 inch (1920 x 1200) a 5870 (preferably a 5970) and use Eyefinity. A 5870 will play Crysis on medium at 5760 x 1200. A 5970 plays that on high.
m
0
l
January 31, 2010 8:17:20 PM

Sabot,

Thanks for the response. When I took another look at the review I find the following statement under the discussion of the 5870:

"for $100 less, a couple of Radeon HD 5770s in CrossFire will keep up with the 5870 and offer the same DirectX 11 capability to boot"

They recommend it only for those that want a single card.

The 5970 appears to basically two 5870's strapped together but at >$600 it would be a real luxury.

Personally, I don't think I'd really like to play a game on a 30" unless I was sitting back 5 feet or so. I suspect I'll target "great" or Excellent" 19x12 performance.

Ski
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 8:20:39 PM

Yeah, to me Eyefinity is much better, the 2 side monitors go into your peripheral vision. 2 x 5770's probably will give you as much performance as a 5850 or 5870 but use more power, need a CF compatible mobo, may be CF issues, as many people said and a saying "Get the most powerful single-GPU card".
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 8:20:59 PM

Buy a 5850, call it a day and max some games.

Tom's isn't law, I disagree with a few of their choices to be honest.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 8:23:41 PM

Me too, they are far too liberal in recommending CF/SLI setups without properly illustrating the many flaws, sure in this day most games support them quite well but you need a good solid PSU, motherboard, etc.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 9:12:07 PM

Crossfire is flawed and it probably always will be. On the other hand, you do get better performance for less cost.

I can play DA: Origins on absolute max settings, 5040x1050 with two 5770's and it very rarely drops below 30fps. Suffice it to say it looks quite incredible. Mass Effect 2 should be the same once it gets the eyefinity patch.

But if I was to be honest, I'd advise a 5850 before crossfired 5770's, if only because you can crossfire another 5850 later.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2010 11:56:45 PM

jennyh said:
Crossfire is flawed and it probably always will be. On the other hand, you do get better performance for less cost.

I can play DA: Origins on absolute max settings, 5040x1050 with two 5770's and it very rarely drops below 30fps. Suffice it to say it looks quite incredible. Mass Effect 2 should be the same once it gets the eyefinity patch.

But if I was to be honest, I'd advise a 5850 before crossfired 5770's, if only because you can crossfire another 5850 later.


FYI, I noticed Mass Effect 2 to run smoother than DA: Origins, so it should be fine.

Oh and crossfire/SLI is not as bad as it used to be, but the single card equivalent should ALWAYS get the recommendation since most wont be able to utilize two cards. Not only that but there is much less to worry about like PSU, driver issues, and driver support in the late game when going with a single card. That said, I'll take my 2 8800 GTS 512s over a GTX 285 any day, but I have the resources to use them.
m
0
l
a c 277 U Graphics card
February 1, 2010 12:04:03 AM

Skibumtx said:
All,

In looking through the most recent graphic card roundup (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,...) I see that it's possible to get "Excellent 19x12" performance for ~$200 - $250. Since 19x12 is the native resolution (NR) for a 23" LCD why go further?

Where are people using the 25x16 resolution are you just going past the panels NR? Are the results noticeable or do they improve game play in some other way? Is there an advantage to 25x16 when connecting to a HDTV?

What panel size would have 2x16 native resolution? The step up to 25x16 from 19x12 is huge from a total pixel aspect so I'm trying to understand if 25x16 is important.

Thanks,
Ski


I use a 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor. That is the native resolution. You can not go past that. It will have about twice the pixels of a 1920 x 1600 monitor.
For web surfing, you can have two full pages side by side. The pixels are a bit smaller than on a 24" monitor, so text may be harder to read for some, me included. I will use the zoom feature of IE8 or games to change the size things as necessary. I have it on a desk at a normal viewing distance. One reason that the 30" monitors are expensive is that they use the best panels with a wide viewing angle. 178 x 178. Cheaper monitorw may look washed out if you have to look at them much to the side.

For gaming, the added pixels give you a wider field of view. If you can afford one, it is great. It does take a stronger graphics configuration to manage all that real estate. I use a 5870 which seems to work well for me. I have a hard time believing that the card would not be more stressed by 3 1920 x 1600 monitors.

HDTV 1080P best resolution is 1920 x 1080. It is nice that you can get it in any size you want. I wish that 2560 x 1600 came in a larger size. About 40" would be right.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
February 1, 2010 12:04:09 AM

jennyh said:
Crossfire is flawed and it probably always will be. On the other hand, you do get better performance for less cost.


One thing not considered in their Crossfire costs, is that crossfire motherboard cost more than single PCIe slot mobos. You also have to spend a little more on the PSU too. Not to mention it does hamper your upgrade path as well.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 1, 2010 12:09:41 AM

geofelt said:
I use a 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor. That is the native resolution. You can not go past that. It will have about twice the pixels of a 1920 x 1600 monitor.
For web surfing, you can have two full pages side by side. The pixels are a bit smaller than on a 24" monitor, so text may be harder to read for some, me included. I will use the zoom feature of IE8 or games to change the size things as necessary. I have it on a desk at a normal viewing distance. One reason that the 30" monitors are expensive is that they use the best panels with a wide viewing angle. 178 x 178. Cheaper monitorw may look washed out if you have to look at them much to the side.

For gaming, the added pixels give you a wider field of view. If you can afford one, it is great. It does take a stronger graphics configuration to manage all that real estate. I use a 5870 which seems to work well for me. I have a hard time believing that the card would not be more stressed by 3 1920 x 1600 monitors.

HDTV 1080P best resolution is 1920 x 1080. It is nice that you can get it in any size you want. I wish that 2560 x 1600 came in a larger size. About 40" would be right.


The jump from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600 is twice that of the jump between 2560x1600 to 5760x1200. There will be a larger performance hit, but not by as much as you might think.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 1, 2010 12:24:12 AM

1920 x 1600 is 6:5, I haven't ever heard of that.
m
0
l
!