Bumping the res on games, big difference?

tomanders91 · 22 Dec 2007 at 16:52

I currently game at 1440x900, and im thinking about getting a 1680x1050 or evven a 1920x1200 24inch after xmas some time, and im wondering how much more detail do you see? Is it a big visual difference? Also what sort of performance loss would i expect with my 8800gts 640? I may get a 512mb GTS soon aswell.

thanks

ttreaders · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:06

The increase in detail is farily substantial depending on the game of course. As for fps, their is a small fps hit and this is where you need more video memory, 512+ is fine. The 8800 320mb for instance gives the 640mb version a run for its money until you start using the higher resolutions then the gap widens.

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:09

At 1600s and 1920's it starts to hit FPS big time if lots of Eyecandy set like AA/AF etc.

Deleted User 234324 · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:11

Luckily though with 1920x1200 AA isnt always needed, although ideally for that resolution SLI/Crossfire is always a welcome addition.

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:14

Na AA is mostly needed unless dark like Doom 3 etc, if you dont need AA get a console they look like they have none but do have it,

1920's is not an issue for a GTX or Ultra.

2500's you need 2 cards in SLI or Crossfire.

tomanders91 · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:18

If i had a 1920 res monitor with my 640mb GTS Would i have to reduce detail in games like CoD4, i take it older games like CSS and Dawn of War dark crusade should still be fine?

And im not really the kind of person that is fussed about AA, even at my current res i have it on about 2x and thats it, i doubt i will need much at very high res.

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:21

Dont know, I can max CoD4 @ 1920x1440 and all settings up full in driver and game and get 60-80FPS, Its not the most stressfull engine.

Same with BioShock and a few other recent games.

Crysis is buggy and some other games that are bad console ports will not run well though.

setter · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:46

this is a bench of cod 4 i ran earlier 1920x1200, 4xaa, all details high

2007-12-22 14:43:15 - iw3sp
Frames: 28695 - Time: 312505ms - Avg: 91.822 - Min: 46 - Max: 204

albeit this was on an 8800gts 512 @780/1090/2000 used to have a 640 gts which averaged about 50fps at the same res with no aa

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:46

snowdog · 22 Dec 2007 at 17:50

Between 800x600 and 1280x1024: Major difference.

Between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200: Barley any difference.

1440x900 should be good enough imo, would be hard to notice much @ higher res.

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 18:02

I think you notice it more at 1600's, bellow it aint as nice. (4:3 for me so would normally be 1280x960 then a jump to 1600x1200).

snowdog · 22 Dec 2007 at 18:06

Well tbh I prefer myself to use 1280x1024 ( tft screen ) + 4x aa +8x AF than 1600x1200 on my crt and no aa & af, think the 1280x1024 is prettier while having better performance.

helmutcheese · 22 Dec 2007 at 18:23

Duke · 22 Dec 2007 at 19:00

Going from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 isn't going to make much difference, but going higher than that you will probably have to drop the detail a touch. I currently run in 1680x1050 with a GTX which is fine with 2xAA & 8/16xAF - you don't really need more than 2xAA with this sort of res.

Dogoid · 22 Dec 2007 at 19:06

since the resolution of the textures used in game never exceed the resolutions used by some gamers, moving to a very high res will not give you more detail but will of course give you the same image minus pixelation . i.e if you have upgraded to a bigger screen.

bumping up the screen resolution in game will not bump up the texture resolution also.

it makes sense if you need higher resolutions for a bigger screen.

tomanders91 · 22 Dec 2007 at 21:04

dont you get more imersed in the games with bigger screens?

skullman · 22 Dec 2007 at 21:41

tomanders91 said:
dont you get more imersed in the games with bigger screens?

Yes. If I were you I'd go for a 1680x1050 screen. Your card can handle it.

Edinho · 23 Dec 2007 at 07:48

snowdog said:
Between 800x600 and 1280x1024: Major difference.

Between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200: Barley any difference.

1440x900 should be good enough imo, would be hard to notice much @ higher res.

Hes about right tbh. Get above 1280 and the big cut in fps (esp. in mp) isnt worth it.

30 fps in SP you can live with. Well I can anyway.

Gackt · 23 Dec 2007 at 07:58

Depends on your card, I guess. I had (have) a 256mb X1800XT and I was originally running a 17" at 1280x1024 - and my card handle most games pretty well, often with a bit of AA thrown in there too.
I then moved to a 24" and was pretty blown away. Partly from the sheer size and partly due to how little of a hit my FPS took. I would rarely have to take down the settings, of course on some, I did anyway. It does, however, still stand up.

Although, with the recent games, my little beast is having trouble coping - I can play Crysis on all low at a nice smooth framerate. Time to upgrade methinks

That said, even though I did take a hit on the fps front, the bonus from having such a huge screen was really amazing - immersion, movies, e-peen.

Tefal · 23 Dec 2007 at 08:10

going to 19200x1200 from 1152x(?) is an amazing difference, makes cod4 and supcom look amazing.

Also try the hl2 high res pack (cinematic mod) if you get a good res monitor.