Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming expierience

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 28, 2012 2:35:13 PM

Ok I'm in a little confusion. I have a choice between a
GTX 670 and a 22" Monitor
or a
27" monitor and a AMD HD 7850?
Which one should give me the better gaming experience also my other specs:

i5 2500k
CM 690 II ADVANCED
WD 500GB HDD
SANDISK ULTRA 120GB SSD
COOLERMASTER 600W SILENT GOLD PRO 80+ GOLD PSU
8GB Crucial RAM

Also the games I'm going to be playing are basically anything really as long as it's fun like BF3, Metro 2033, Assassins creed, Skyrim etc.

More about : gaming expierience

May 28, 2012 2:50:15 PM

Personally I would get the bigger monitor. That is from a happy 670 owner.
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 2:53:34 PM

A 670 is the current best price/performance card of this current gen so far.

I would go for the 670 - then upgrade your screen later.


A 670 should allow you to max out all your games on High/ultra at 1920x1080.

Later down the road get a bigger screen :D  .
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 2:58:04 PM

dilzo said:
Ok I'm in a little confusion. I have a choice between a
GTX 670 and a 22" Monitor
or a
27" monitor and a AMD HD 7850?
Which one should give me the better gaming experience also my other specs:

i5 2500k
CM 690 II ADVANCED
WD 500GB HDD
SANDISK ULTRA 120GB SSD
COOLERMASTER 600W SILENT GOLD PRO 80+ GOLD PSU
8GB Crucial RAM

Also the games I'm going to be playing are basically anything really as long as it's fun like BF3, Metro 2033, Assassins creed, Skyrim etc.


While screen size is quite subjective for gaming [personal preference if you will]. It really depends; I personally found I was performing worse and worse as my gaming monitor increased in size. This is to the limited field of vision when your sitting in front of a monitor; the wider the monitor, the more attention to you have to give to your peripheral vision; it's quite challenging [this negatively impacted by reaction time for FPS games]. What I have concluded is that watching movies/anime/TV shows on a larger monitor [w/ 720P or higher] really heightens the experience while playing games on anything bigger than a 22"[on full screen] can actually negatively affect your gaming performance.

In conclusion, I would recommend the 27" Monitor; however do keep in mind to not play in full screen if it affects your gaming performance [i.e reaction time, map awareness]

~Coffee

Edit: Note: Also, keep in mind that the bigger the monitor, the slower then response time; due to the larger surface area that has to be refreshed. It's not noticiable to most ppl, but championship FPS players would beg to differ.
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 3:41:26 PM

If both monitors have the same resolution, the 22" monitor will have a higher quality image due to smaller pixel size. The 670 is also more powerful card.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 28, 2012 3:47:11 PM

If you already have the 22" monitor, then I'd get the GTX 670 and upgrade the monitor later.

If you have to purchase both, then I'd get the 27" monitor with the 7850.

Monitors stay with you longer than video cards. A compromise with the monitor will affect you much longer.

I personally prefer a 27" monitor. Bigger is better, even if things aren't quite as sharp, it's bigger and more immersive as a result.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2012 3:54:46 PM

alrobichaud said:
If both monitors have the same resolution, the 22" monitor will have a higher quality image due to smaller pixel size. The 670 is also more powerful card.

+1
That's the most wise decision, resolutions is the most determinant factor. If both monitors are 1080P, you won't see the pixels stretched like you'll see in the 27'' monitor.

GTX 670 is 30% faster than HD 7850, this will affect your gaming performance.
Also, why do u have to go 27''? 23-24" are great for gaming.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 28, 2012 4:03:59 PM

ilysaml said:
+1
That's the most wise decision, resolutions is the most determinant factor. If both monitors are 1080P, you won't see the pixels stretched like you'll see in the 27'' monitor.

GTX 670 is 30% faster than HD 7850, this will affect your gaming performance.
Also, why do u have to go 27''? 23-24" are great for gaming.


As someone who went from 23" to 27", I can tell you that I MUCH prefer 27". It's bigger, it immerses you more and I did not notice a drop in image quality. Although I know the DPI does drop, it looks great.

When you play 1st person games, the idea is to feel like you are there. When your monitor is smaller, it feels less like you are there and more like you are staring at a box with images on it.

I'm not saying 23"s is bad, just that 27"s is better for gaming.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2012 4:30:44 PM

bystander said:
As someone who went from 23" to 27", I can tell you that I MUCH prefer 27". It's bigger, it immerses you more and I did not notice a drop in image quality. Although I know the DPI does drop, it looks great.

When you play 1st person games, the idea is to feel like you are there. When your monitor is smaller, it feels less like you are there and more like you are staring at a box with images on it.

I'm not saying 23"s is bad, just that 27"s is better for gaming.

Because DPI drops, jagged edges are kinda noticeable, because larger squares make curves so that image can appear bigger.

Also it depends on how far you sit from the monitor, if you're far from the monitor you may not tell the difference.

I would make a choice of 27" & 30" only if it has 1200P or above.
a c 268 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2012 4:34:05 PM

This is somewhat of an apples and oranges question.

Do you value higher FPS more than a more immersive image?

My take is to find a way to do both.

A great monitor is one future proof pc purchase you can make today. It will be good for several rebuilds in the future.

I suggest you cut back somewhere else to make room for both.
I love SSD's for the os. But it really will have minimal effect on gaming.
Why not defer the SSD until later and spend the funds to buy both the monitor and GTX670.

Are you near a microcenter? They will sell you a 2500K for $170.

You did not mention the motherboard. Any Z77 based motherboard will be good. Are you overpaying there?
Look at M-ATX motherboards, they are usually cheaper.

Do you really need a modular psu?
A non modular 550w psu would do the job for a GTX670
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 28, 2012 4:45:01 PM

ilysaml said:
Because DPI drops, jagged edges are kinda noticeable, because larger squares make curves so that image can appear bigger.

Also it depends on how far you sit from the monitor, if you're far from the monitor you may not tell the difference.

I would make a choice of 27" & 30" only if it has 1200P or above.


Have you actually gamed on 27"s of monitor? A lot of people talk about theory, but experience means more. I play with the monitor about 2' in front of me. Pretty much the same as with a 23" monitor. While each pixel is bigger, I do not notice it in practice. 4x MSAA is more than enough to make up for jaggies.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 28, 2012 4:48:19 PM

Quote:
+1.

AA amount depends on viewing angle and distance... 8xAA gives me the best picture for my eyes :) 


8x AA is better for me too, but 4x AA is the sweat spot in performance vs quality. I also like to turn on 4x SSAA textures. It smooths out textures, in particular, foliage.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2012 5:26:35 PM

bystander said:
Have you actually gamed on 27"s of monitor? A lot of people talk about theory, but experience means more. I play with the monitor about 2' in front of me. Pretty much the same as with a 23" monitor. While each pixel is bigger, I do not notice it in practice. 4x MSAA is more than enough to make up for jaggies.

No Actually I haven't gamed on a 27" monitor before, I just thought of it like 1920x1080 resolution bascially means that the pixel pitch will increase because the same resolution will be stretched across a larger screen. This means images and text will be less sharp but with a resolution of 2560x1440, the images and text should be as sharp or sharper than a 23" monitor.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 28, 2012 5:37:37 PM

ilysaml said:
No Actually I haven't gamed on a 27" monitor before, I just thought of it like 1920x1080 resolution bascially means that the pixel pitch will increase because the same resolution will be stretched across a larger screen. This means images and text will be less sharp but with a resolution of 2560x1440, the images and text should be as sharp or sharper than a 23" monitor.


I don't disagree that the image is less sharp. What I'm saying is a large more immersive image is worth losing some sharpness. I also don't notice the sharpness loss in a game. I would likely notice it with text, though ClearType helps disguise it.

If larger was always worse, we'd still be using 15" monitors. Obviously there is a benefit to having a larger image, and we do have to compromise sometimes. If I planned to use 3 monitor gaming, however, I do believe I'd go with a 23" monitor. 27" x3 seems like it would be too big unless it was put much further in front of me.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
May 28, 2012 5:54:53 PM

bystander said:
If larger was always worse, we'd still be using 15" monitors.

Larger size is always better with a higher resolution, that's my point. I understand that your point is "it won't make a difference while using 27'' monitor" but it will make a difference using larger monitors 30" and above, it will be clearly noticeable. Best examples for this is 40" HDTVs and above, gaming is terrible in such a larger sized screens.

Just wanted to clarify that "larger is not always preferred".
a b U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 11:27:07 PM

I have to agree with ilysaml on this topic. You all know that on a 22" 1080 screen a game looks fantastic. You also know that the same game on a 42" 1080 tv looks like garbage in comparison. So at what point do you say that the larger pixels are starting to become more apparent? For me, it is all about the most clarity in the image and not the overall size. The FOV is the same for the 22" vs 27" screen. The only advantage is that one is simply larger. I know that on both of my 42" tv's if I stand too close I can clearly see the pixels. I am currently sitting with my monitors approx 2' 6" in front of my face and the pixels are too small to make out. Even if I put my nose on the screen, the pixels are difficult to see with perfect vision. I don't think that a larger screen makes a game become more immersive. I think looking closely at a campfire burning in Skyrim and not being able to notice any flaws in the flame or smoke rising makes a game more immersive. If the OP prefers a larger screen then get one but keep in mind that the 7850, even overclocked, probably won't be able to max BF3 at 1920x1080 in multiplayer.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 29, 2012 4:10:54 AM

You said yourself that even with your nose at the screen, you can't see a pixel on a 22" monitor. Adding another 20% size isn't going to make those pixels noticeable when sitting at the distance at 2'. You play on 3 monitors, do you not find that more immersive than 1? You have more viewable area than I do, by more than double. Clearly you find more area more immersive too, I'd think, or why else would you want to play on 3 monitors?
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2012 10:19:41 AM

I certainly do find 3 screens more immersive. I honestly have not tried a 27" monitor either so I am really talking out of my other hole at this point. Perhaps my testing methodology is also flawed but here is how I look at it. Take two 1080 monitors side by side and keep one at 1080 and drop the other to 1680x1050. Both of these monitors are the same size but the difference in the amount of pixels is roughly 20%. Now open anything such as the screen resolution window in windows and drag it to the point where half is on the 1080 monitor and half is on the 1050 monitor. The image on the 1050 monitor is slightly larger and also appears to have lost some clarity. If you look at the text on the screen, it appears more blurry on the 1050 monitor. It is more likely that most people probably wouldn't notice the difference if you had these two monitors in separate rooms and asked them to enter each room separately and give an opinion on the picture. I notice the difference everytime I move a window from one of my 22" 1080 monitors up to my 20" 1440x900 monitor. The image is a bit larger on the screen with the lower resolution and it does appear to be a bit more blurry. My 1440x900 monitor also just happens to have about 20% less pixels per inch than my 1080 monitor. I think that the comparable pixels per square inch would be the same as a 22" 1680x1050 monitor. Does this make any sense?
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 29, 2012 1:45:31 PM

Yeah, that method is severely flawed, because of how LCD's adjust to non-native resolutions. With CRT's, that method would have worked.

The problem is, on an LCD, if you switch to a lower resolution, it'll cause 20% of the pixels on the image to double up on the screen. You still have the same exact number pixels, but they are distorted.
a c 268 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 29, 2012 2:02:56 PM

I think you always want to run your monitor at it's native resolution.

I use a 2560 x 1600 monitor, and normally the text on a web page is smaller than I can read comfortably.
Fortunately, the zoom capabilities let me adjust the window to a comfortable size with no distortion or fuzziness of the text.

Many games will also give you some sort of zoom capabilities while still running at the native resolution. Civilization is one example. It is nice that you can see more detail when you want it, and more of the map if you don't.

I have no problem with a 27" monitor at 1920 x 1200.
But... people differ.
The thing to do is to go to a store and compare the different products in real life.
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2012 2:08:56 PM

I guess that makes sense. I have probably been jaded by my craptacular 20" 1440x900 monitor. It has rougly 20% less pixels per inch than my 1080 monitors which gives it the same pixel desnity as your 27" but with a smaller screen. I find even my wallpaper does not look the same on that monitor.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 132 C Monitor
May 29, 2012 2:29:59 PM

I had a similar experience going from a 1200p 24" to a 27" monitor. Even though I lost DPI, the 1200p monitor looked like crap. The 1200p looks so blurry in comparison to the 27" 1080p monitor. I assume it's just the quality of the build. I also gained 120hz and 3D Vision.
a b U Graphics card
May 29, 2012 4:36:15 PM

bystander said:
I had a similar experience going from a 1200p 24" to a 27" monitor. Even though I lost DPI, the 1200p monitor looked like crap. The 1200p looks so blurry in comparison to the 27" 1080p monitor. I assume it's just the quality of the build. I also gained 120hz and 3D Vision.



That ACER is one of the cheapest I could find as it was to be used solely for hardware monitoring programs. Perhaps that is the reason for the poor quality picture. I grit my teeth a little everytime I open a program and drag the window to that monitor. It is to the point where I am probably going to upgrade it to a 1080 monitor so it looks the same as the other 3.
!