why do people say 1 mid/high end card is enough for 1920 x 1200?

Vince · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:08

Even my old cards manage 1680x1050 with every game I own at max settings or there abouts. I really have thought about a new card but until I need the power there is no point.

Emlyn_Dewar · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:10

I say that 1 mid/high end card is enough for 1920x1200 because... It is...
I've not had a single issue running the 4870 @ 1900x1200.

TJM · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:13

I've got an 8800 GTS 320 and I can run all Source engine games in 1920x1200 with all settings to maximum and AAx2. COD4 runs fine in the same res with maximum settings.

Aside from a few poorly optimised games like Crysis and GTA IV, most decent graphics cards from the past two years can handle just about everything in 1920x1200.

Rybo89 · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:13

because we can?

timciren · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:15

+1 for 4850 running everything hi, why spend more unless u have money to burn ?

Corasik · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:21

I started out with a 7900GTX on my 24inch screen and it handled Oblivion(the game of choice for stressing graphics back then), running 1920x1200 with HDR/Bloom and all the eye candy etc.

Since then I have moved up to an 8800GTX, but have yet to really find any need to upgrade any further, it runs all the games I've tried really well, normally with 4xAA without any problems. I passed on Crysis because it really wasnt written so well, and I dont see the point in tossing overkill hardware at a poorly written application.

dovey · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:21

TJM said:
I've got an 8800 GTS 320 and I can run all Source engine games in 1920x1200 with all settings to maximum and AAx2. COD4 runs fine in the same res with maximum settings.

Aside from a few poorly optimised games like Crysis and GTA IV, most decent graphics cards from the past two years can handle just about everything in 1920x1200.

I was playing portal on a friends pc, gts 320 at 1650*1050 and there was noticeable lag without any AA. You're either joking, lying or have some kind of superkarrd

icey_haj · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:36

dovey said:
I was playing portal on a friends pc, gts 320 at 1650*1050 and there was noticeable lag without any AA. You're either joking, lying or have some kind of superkarrd

To an extent, I would have to agree.

Corasik · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:39

dovey said:
I was playing portal on a friends pc, gts 320 at 1650*1050 and there was noticeable lag without any AA. You're either joking, lying or have some kind of superkarrd

The biggest problem with the GTS320 is lack of ram, 1920x1200 with AA starts to gobble up the ram on GPU's. Thats why the 768Mb 8800GTX still does well at high resolutions.

ATi apply their shader based AA, which is done in realtime, without the need for extra memory, but Nvidia cards still benifit from having a ton of ram on them.

IMHO the 320's are cracking cards for 1280x1024, but even at 1650x1050 the lack of ram is starting to show. Not that every game will gobble up ram, and be slow on an older card even at 1920x1200. World of Warcraft for example is often CPU bound, with the GPU flopping around waiting around doing nothing.

TJM · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:49

dovey said:
I was playing portal on a friends pc, gts 320 at 1650*1050 and there was noticeable lag without any AA. You're either joking, lying or have some kind of superkarrd

Perhaps the rest of his computer sucked. I have L4D in 1920x1200 with 4xMSAA, Anisotropic x4, Vsync disabled, multicore rendering enabled and all other settings on very high/high. I play TF2 every day on the same settings, except with 2xMSAA and Anisotropic x2. Both are perfectly playable.

AMG · 16 Apr 2009 at 12:54

well I only have 512 HD4870 okay I have two of them, I did notice most who posted heere have 1Gb versions through

Richdog · 16 Apr 2009 at 16:09

TJM said:
I've got an 8800 GTS 320 and I can run all Source engine games in 1920x1200 with all settings to maximum and AAx2. COD4 runs fine in the same res with maximum settings.

Aside from a few poorly optimised games like Crysis and GTA IV, most decent graphics cards from the past two years can handle just about everything in 1920x1200.

The GTS 320 struggles even at 1680*1050 due to the low VRAM, I used to have one. Modern games with that card at max details at 1900*1200? Not a chance.

TJM · 16 Apr 2009 at 18:48

Richdog said:
The GTS 320 struggles even at 1680*1050 due to the low VRAM, I used to have one. Modern games with that card at max details at 1900*1200? Not a chance.

The Source engine, although updated every now and again, is hardly cutting edge. It runs in 1024x768 with medium details without AA/AF on a Radeon 9700, and my 8800 GTS only struggles with it when I raise AA over x4. COD4 is just a game that runs extremely well for whatever reason - I slightly reduced my AA when I went from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200 and the performance drop was minimal.

The only games that are completely unplayable in 1920x1200 for me are poorly optimised or bug riddled releases like ETW, GTA4 and Crysis. Everything else I play is fine, including UT3, Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2 (with the last two on minimum AA/AF and mid/high settings).

Richdog · 16 Apr 2009 at 18:53

TJM said:
The Source engine, although updated every now and again, is hardly cutting edge.

TJM said:
Aside from a few poorly optimised games like Crysis and GTA IV, most decent graphics cards from the past two years can handle just about everything in 1920x1200.

There's no way the GTS 320 can handle just about everything in that rez... it used to struggle for me at 1680*1050 with AA on. VRAM is a huge limiting factor for this card, many tests and reviews have proved it conclusively.

FrenchTart · 16 Apr 2009 at 18:57

Richdog said:
There's no way the GTS 320 can handle just about everything in that rez... it used to struggle for me at 1680*1050 with AA on. VRAM is a huge limiting factor for this card, many tests and reviews have proved it conclusively.

Agreed. My old GTS640 started to struggle in some games at 1920x1200 (without AA) and I can't really see the 320 being faster than it

That said, the 640 did manage to run most games pretty well.

TJM · 16 Apr 2009 at 19:03

Richdog said:
There's no way the GTS 320 can handle just about everything in that rez... it used to struggle for me at 1680*1050 with AA on. VRAM is a huge limiting factor for this card, many tests and reviews have proved it conclusively.

I didn't say the 320 could run almost everything with max details and AA at 1920x1200, I just said it could run them in 1920x1200. I gave examples (Source games, COD4) where it doesn't struggle at all even with high details and AA on to make my point - you certainly don't need two mid/high-end cards to play in 1920x1200, which was what the OP was asking.

reflux · 16 Apr 2009 at 19:07

edit: brain memory fail. return post to manufacturer stating error code 0x001.

Orangey · 16 Apr 2009 at 19:27

People who claim to get 30/40fps+ with 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF and ultra settings (in games like Crysis), with a 4850/70 or 260 are chatting vast amounts of ess-aytch-one-tee.

If you ask them how they measure it, they always reply "my eyes". :rolleyes:

gurusan · 16 Apr 2009 at 19:30

Who said they could get 40+ fps with 4xAA in Crapsis? :confused:

I seem to recall people saying that they get high framerates in everything except Crysis.

Orangey · 16 Apr 2009 at 19:34

Like.