Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 223
- Location
- cornwall
will a 4870x2 perform better at 1920x1200 then 1680x1050 i herd somewhere on here that they do any one confirm this please.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4870x2 performance
- Thread starter jonathan may
- Start date
Yes. No good buying beefy cards like the X2 or 295 and not giving them a good thrashing. Now I run games at 1920x1200 I can see a difference. 1680x1050 would be the min res I'd recommend for that card.
edit : ideally 1920x1200 though.
edit : ideally 1920x1200 though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 223
- Location
- cornwall
what sort of frame rate diffrence would i see going to 1980x1200 from 1680x1050 on games like arma 2 and crysis
Can't comment on Arma2 since I don't play it. Crysis - well as you probably know this is a game that will run particularly well on nvidia gpu's. Haven't played Crysis for a while and have only played the Dx9 demo therefore some settings just weren't available for me to use. I did manage to have it running playable (bit laggy in all honesty but not too bad considering) with 8xAA and a resolution of 1680x1050, this was before I bought my current monitor which does give me 1920 x 1200. Haven't played the demo at 1920x1200 so, again, I can't really help.
I did, however, play Warhead recently (still Dx9 - I use XP for the mo) and ran it at 1920x1200 with as much eye candy enabled + 4AA I think and it ran rather well. I certainly didn't have low frame rates as I recall.
Though my experience and findings are when you hit this type of res, although nice to enable AA to the max, I generally don't bother with - the resolution takes care of it enough for my purposes. There can be o so a huge performance hit otherwise.
I did, however, play Warhead recently (still Dx9 - I use XP for the mo) and ran it at 1920x1200 with as much eye candy enabled + 4AA I think and it ran rather well. I certainly didn't have low frame rates as I recall.
Though my experience and findings are when you hit this type of res, although nice to enable AA to the max, I generally don't bother with - the resolution takes care of it enough for my purposes. There can be o so a huge performance hit otherwise.
no, there is no card in existence that actually performs 'better' at higher resolutions.
I think what you have been reading is that certain cards potential is only realised at higher res,
e.g at 1680x1050 a gtx 260 gets 30fps at one game and a 4870x2 gets 40fps.
Turn the res up to 1920x1200 and the gtx 260 will get 15fps but the 4870x2 wil hit 35fps.
So it takes less of a performance hit as the res goes up.
Btw deciding what card is also influenced by how long you want it to last and what psu you have.
I think what you have been reading is that certain cards potential is only realised at higher res,
e.g at 1680x1050 a gtx 260 gets 30fps at one game and a 4870x2 gets 40fps.
Turn the res up to 1920x1200 and the gtx 260 will get 15fps but the 4870x2 wil hit 35fps.
So it takes less of a performance hit as the res goes up.
Btw deciding what card is also influenced by how long you want it to last and what psu you have.