Lack of non-widescreen monitors...?

[Mr Jack]

I don't agree, the lighting and transform overhead is per pixel,

1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000

those calculation are per pixel, so the WS will be faster, doesn't matter about wide angles, correct me if i'm wrong, though.

I write computer games for a living, btw.

It depends on how the widescreen has been implemented but, in most cases, you have a higher overhead for widescreen than for 4:3. The wider viewing angle will show more geometry, this geometry needs to be transformed and lit for each vertex, then pixel shaders are applied over this. There may also be additional depth sorting going on if transparencies are involved, and more lod calculations and shadowing, etc. So, wider viewing angles will often hit the processor more too.

Of course, it does depend on the exact game you're playing, how's it been implemented, what effects it uses and so on, but, in my experience, widescreen will tend to produce a slightly lower fps than 4:3. The effect, however, is minimal.

So, really, er, don't worry about it.

 

[fish99]

Widescreen at the same resolution will be slower of course, I'm just saying it's probaby in the order of a few percent difference in modern shader intensive games. And as said in the above posts, 1440*900 and 1680*1050 have less pixels than their non-widescreen equivalent resolutions. Certainly no one currently running games at 1280*1024 should worry about running them in 1440*900.

 

[Mr Jack]

Widescreen at the same resolution will be slower of course, I'm just saying it's probaby in the order of a few percent difference in modern shader intensive games. And as said in the above posts, 1440*900 and 1680*1050 have less pixels than their non-widescreen equivalent resolutions. Certainly no one currently running games at 1280*1024 should worry about running them in 1440*900.

Yup.

It's a much bigger issue in Console games, where widescreen means a considerably higher pixel count also.

 

[Delvis]

Awesome

Thanks guys, I might have to see what I can scrape out of my pocket in the next coming months perhaps.

Just have to see what I actually want to get now though...That and see how much i can flog my crt for.

 

[peetee]

Exactly my point...If I have a graphics card that cant handle the resoloution...Then surely that's just...annoying to say it nicely?

I currently game at 1280 x 1024, no matter what game I play really, apart from 1.6 which I no longer play any more really.

If it's anything to go by my current setup consists of an x2 4400, 2 gb of ram, a x1900xtx, and an A8N-sli motherboard. I'm just thinking of the future, If I was to get a standard 19" LCD thing's shouldn't really change regarding performance...However If I purchased a widescreen variant, my performance in game WOULD drop on my current setup.

if you got a 19" widescreen it would be 1440x900, thats less pixels for your card to spit out

 

[HangTime]

I made a thread about this a while back: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17676581

One concern which I think is sometimes overlooked is that some (badly coded) older games don't support widescreen (or do so very badly). So on a 1680x1050 screen you end up using 1152x864 or similar.

The only reason I have a WS monitor is due to price, I'd rather have a 4:3 one like I use at work.