1900x1200 best for 6850? (It runs Crysis!!!)

[varis]

I'm shopping for a LCD soonish, and my question is: Should I go for a 1900x1200 screen?

1) I think I'll replace my next LCD in about 5 years.

2) I'm building a new system now that I'll use for gaming at least 2 years. Preferably 4-5 years - I'll have the options of sticking to older "classic" games near the end of the life-cycle, or upgrading the system to a new one if I feel like it. System is linked in sig.

3) I do other stuff than gaming. My desktop is usually a huge clutter and I'd really like some serious screen real estate.

4) 24" screens with 1900x1080 resolution and good quality/features seem common nowadays, and don't cost a lot. I could go even higher if I see a real benefit there - but coming years always bring better tech at lower prices.

5) My build has a stock clocked AMD 6850 GPU (slight overclocking might be an option later on).

Looking at Anandtech, a 6850 runs Crysis rather nicely! Full blown settings:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-6870-6850-renewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market/8

Talking of 1900x1200,
framerate = 36.1 fps
min. framerate = 24.1 fps

6) When the first generation of Geforce cards came out, I put Unreal Tournament on 1600x1200 and full settings. The system ran it at about 30 fps, or slightly above. You couldn't call it totally smooth, but I still experienced it as playable. Much lower FPS than this, and I'd say it's not worth it.

7) Gameplay is much more important for me than eye candy, when it comes to games. If it doesn't run otherwise, I'll happily lower my settings to Low, maybe leaving some to Medium to have tolerable quality.

8) I play other games than shooters, too. Strategy games could place less emphasis on 3D performance and could be an option to extend the life cycle. Twitch games are for kids, and all that, anyway

Based on this data, I'd expect a 6850 to manage any upcoming titles in the next 2 years quite well. And still survive for the years after that - after all it seems games scale quite nicely nowadays. It would totally make sense to get a 1900x1200 screen, and perhaps even larger if good offers are available.

Would you agree?

 

[jyjjy]

Yes, an HD6850 should be quite capable for 1920x1200 if you aren't the sort that needs to max out every game.

 

[purple stain]

You can fine some good deals on 5850's nowadays they are close to $200 if you wanted to look into that.

 

[varis]

I take the next step higher in resolution is 2560 x 1440? If you want that, you're typically going for a bigger screen, much higher price tag and a very limited range of options. Based on a very quick look around, the best price point for that reso would be something like Dell U2711:

http://www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=32526&agid=424

 

[purple stain]

you would need a 6870/5870 or a crossfire/sli setup to get good FPS at that resoultion,in my opion running three,1080p monitors would be a better choice than buying a 2560x1440 single monitor.

 

[wh3resmycar]

5) My build has a stock clocked AMD 6850 GPU (slight overclocking might be an option later on).

Looking at Anandtech, a 6850 runs Crysis rather nicely! Full blown settings:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987 [...] e-market/8

Talking of 1900x1200,
framerate = 36.1 fps
min. framerate = 24.1 fps

look at the graph. that's not "FULL BLOWN SETTINGS".

i can picture the disappointment in your face when you play crysis @ enthusiast and it's not giving you 35ish fps.

 

[bystander]

Even then, I think you really need over 40 for a more comfortable gaming experience. The mins on that setting was also in the mid 20's, which is not fun.

But even on high settings, Crysis looks good.

 

[microterf]

if you say that you have a lot of clutter, I would strongly consider at 2560*x display (27 or 30") not so much for the gaming, but more for the screen estate. You can't beat it. Of course that's why the price is that much more expensive.

For gaming though, I would stick with 1920*1200/1080 as it will get very expensive for the power to push 2560

 

[purple stain]

if you say that you have a lot of clutter, I would strongly consider at 2560*x display (27 or 30") not so much for the gaming, but more for the screen estate. You can't beat it. Of course that's why the price is that much more expensive.

For gaming though, I would stick with 1920*1200/1080 as it will get very expensive for the power to push 2560

^i agree,you have to choose between playable FPS and good graphics or a large screen to display everything.You would have to buy a very large card to run games as good as you want at that resoultion.

What monitor resolution are you upgrading from?

 

[microterf]

^ Yes, but the quality is going to be a lot worse. The other problem is if he has a monitor that only does that resolution, he will have a TON of clutter as those are very low resolutions nowadays.

 

[bystander]

Perhaps if you have poor eye site, you might not notice a big difference. But even then, those are small monitors. The smaller the monitor, the lower the resolution you need for decent visuals. If you are playing at 24" or greater, those resolutions don't cut it.

I personally find 1920x1200 amd 1920x1080 to be good. Higher is obviously better, but as mentioned above, you have to have some expensive graphical setup to handle it (although my system probably can non the less.) I'd be more insterested in a 120hz monitor at 1920x1080 however.

 

[bystander]

I remember back in the 90's, I had a 15" monitor. When I upgraded to a 17" monitor, it was so awesome. Then I had a 19" monitor and a few years ago, I had a 21" monitor. Now I have a 24" monitor and believe me, it's awesome.

In real life, you see a huge view, at leat 8 feet at monitor distance. That extra view area on larger monitors helps immerse you into the game. That is why people like eyefinity. You have an immersion factor that you don't get from a single small monitor.

Try it for yourself.

As far as resolution goes. If you like to use AA levels, then you obviously can tell a difference between higher and lower resolutions. Otherwise you'd have no use for AA.

 

[microterf]

Oh no , i saw with my Own eyes that Higher rez brings no Difference in Quality , its first time that i hear this thing ( lower rez = lower Quality !!!! ) its false !

i compared them , 19 inch , 17 inch , 20 , 22inch before !

I really wish you lived in Ohio an could come see my set up. Huge difference between low res and high res gaming... if there wasn't, we'd all be at 320*200 still. Plus, wasn't part of his problem desktop clutter?

 

[purple stain]

Only difference in quality i see, is using a DVI vs RGB cable.

 

[bystander]

Depending on what type of gaming you do, you may prefer 1920x1200 on a 24" or higher monitor. The main difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 is more up and down viewing. RTS's feel better on 1920x1200, but first person shooters feel just fine on 1920x1080.

I wouldn't go into the 2560x1600 range unless you are prepared to spend the money on 2 higher end video cards.

 

[varis]

look at the graph. that's not "FULL BLOWN SETTINGS".

i can picture the disappointment in your face when you play crysis @ enthusiast and it's not giving you 35ish fps.

Oh, I think you're right. What's the max settings in Crysis - I suppose Enthusiast Quality would be an upgrade from Gamer Quality?

Personally I've never used AA (larger reso always seemed better for fps+quality), so 4xAA is a lot, though not the maximum for Crysis?

So far I've mostly used 1280x1024 for gaming in the recent years, though the Mac is 1440x900. Have a nice 24" at work though.

Your arguments for sticking with 1900x1200 are quite convincing 1900x1080p I take is a bit funny resolution - for most games, reading web pages, etc. But it seems majority of monitors are going for 1080p not 1200 - maybe because people watch BR movies on their puters nowadays? (Or, at least those people who can afford a 24" screen but not a full blown home theater system with 42" plasma screens etc )

 

[bystander]

For a lot of years, I never used AA either. Mostly because my system wasn't powerful enough. It never bothered me. Once I did start using AA, it drives me nuts to see a game without AA levels. Some games are also worse than others.

It's not so much about the jagged edges that I dislike, it's that as things move, those jagged edges flicker and look like they move up and down around items. This is obviously a personal choice, but if you do get used to it, I doubt you'd ever not use AA again.

As far as why 1080p is becoming more common. I believe it's due to mass production. They don't have to design two different screen sizes, so the costs are cheaper to stick with 1080p.

 

[jyjjy]

A monitor with a resolution above 1920x1200 is going to be very expensive. It would very likely be cheaper to upgrade to a 3 monitor setup, aka eyefinity. You will want to crossfire the HD6850 for that but once you do so it should handle it pretty well.

 

[varis]

Best answer selected by varis.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey