• 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.

OCUK: Love you guys: gtx 480 versus my twin 6800's

Predicament said:
I was struggling to play CoD series games on 1024x720 on lowest settings.

Now I am rocking super maxed settings obviously.
Click to expand...

I like how you guys have been getting worked up over this when the guy didn't explicitly say he was using the 480 at 1024x768... He used his old SLi setup at that res, I would assume that now he games at 1080p or higher, hence "super maxed settings".

oh you silly people :p
 
dan1903 said:
I like how you guys have been getting worked up over this when the guy didn't explicitly say he was using the 480 at 1024x768... He used his old SLi setup at that res, I would assume that now he games at 1080p or higher, hence "super maxed settings".

oh you silly people :p
Click to expand...

This. I keep waiting for someone to point it out!
 
Mr Krugga said:
1) I'd take 1680x1050 any day over 1920x1080. 16:9 is a failed aspect resolution for monitors.

2) 1680x1050 is the most popular resolution according to many sources (one of them being Steam).
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on this a little more as I can't seem to get my head round why 1680x1050 is preferred over 1920x1080? I do all my gaming at 1920x1080 and it looks great so hence me being a little confused.

Thanks!

Stoner81.
 
Stoner81 said:
Could you please elaborate on this a little more as I can't seem to get my head round why 1680x1050 is preferred over 1920x1080? I do all my gaming at 1920x1080 and it looks great so hence me being a little confused.

Thanks!

Stoner81.
Click to expand...

The minor reason might be that 1080p seems a little stretched. The screen is rather "short" in comparrison to it's width. They are however more defending 1680x as being a perfectly ok res rather than something that's a little "old hat" which is what was being implied.

It's not the case that you are doing something wrong or missing out at 1080p, it was more a case was being made for 1680x being "ok".

As for the 16:10 (aspect ratio width:height) screens being rather expensive - indd. Went looking for another 2405fpw a year or 2 ago and considering they are quite an old screen found them to still command more than a 1080p new.
 
Last edited:
16:10 just looks more natural to many people compared to 16:9.

That said, I'd take a 1920x1080 panel over a 1680x1050 one any day of the week, purely for the higher res and the fact that 1080p is such a common resolution, it will be better supported in the future.
 
i use overclocked 6970 on 1680x1050 don't see problem with that, and i dont want to rush in and buy bad quality 1080p monitor . i would rather wait few months for S23A950D and other new 120hz monitors to get best quality (gaming monitor) for buck.
 
Mr Krugga said:
You were disappointed by that?



Just admit you overreacted, Raven had a point (a valid one, may I add) and you disliking his other posts should not be a reason to call him a troll.

And there's a massive difference between 1680x1050 vs 1024x768 (124% larger screen area) and 1920x1200 vs 1680x1050 (30% larger).
Click to expand...

Raven assumed he was still playing at 1024x768 on his new 480, he never actually mentions that he is, just that he's rocking maxed out, i myself assumed he was now also gaming at a much higher resolution.

The pair of them should put their handbags away.
 
titaniumx3 said:
16:10 just looks more natural to many people compared to 16:9.

That said, I'd take a 1920x1080 panel over a 1680x1050 one any day of the week, purely for the higher res and the fact that 1080p is such a common resolution, it will be better supported in the future.
Click to expand...

Still happy with my 16:10 screen, although I did buy it when 1920x1200 was the standard for 24" monitors :D
 
Personally I would much rather play at 24 or 30 inch monitor (have both by the way) at say 4x AA than play on 1680x1050 with 32x csaa on a smaller monitor 20 or 22 inch monitor. After 4x AA at higher resolutions jaggies are sufficiently gone so that during gameplay you do not see it much or at all (unless you are the type that does not play and goes up to walls and objects looking for them).

I have also tried 1080p resolution on a 23" on a tn panal and could not get used to it. I was on Dell 20" ultrasharp monitor about 5 years ago so I know that there is a massive impact on gaming going from that to a Dell ultrasharp 24" monitor, both in resolution and in size of monitor. Would never go back to a smaller monitor and smaller res just to game at 100+ fps with insane amounts of aa.

I do understand that some people have the need to max out every game before moving up a resolution. There are handful of games my Dell 30" cannot play with maximum settings and 4x AA without lagging.

Anyway. Each to their own I guess. Did not reply to raven expecting people to get wound up so much that they would start getting rude. Was just a quick impulse reply :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom