Will my Nvidia 7900GTO handle 24" monitor?

kingy666 · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:28

Hi all, as the title suggests i have a 7900 GTO which has done me proud on my 19" Hanns-G HW191D monitor at 1400x900 but i feel i need a bigger/better monitor. The 24" OCUK (DGM) with VA panel seems to be a bit of a bargain so i am a bit scared that my GPU will not cope with the higher native resolution of the 24" monitor (1920x1200).
I mainly play games (Crysis, CoD 4, Trackmania nations .......e.t.c.) and also watch films so do you think it is worth me upgrading my graphics card now or should i wait as i think the prices are still too high on the nvidia GT/GTS. I could at a push go with a ATI 3850 pro but is it worth it over the 7900GTO.

Help me please. :confused:

sig has my spec

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:30

IMO no, not on new decent games.

I had a 7900GTX and on a 46" 1080p HDTV @ 1920x1080 I got 10FPS-15FPS in Trackmania games lol, same on my PC Monitor at 1920x1440., both with all eyecandy up full.

kingy666 · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:43

Thanks for the reply. How would running the 24" monitor at a lower res look, mind you it would be different for different monitors as i dont think the OCUK 24" does 1:1 pixel mapping.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:50

I dont think most LCD look good at non Native, the OCUK is good for the price and does look ok at non native so say peeps, and it was not confirmed to be or not to be 1:1 by time I stopped reading the thread (weeks ago).

MHayes · 31 Dec 2007 at 14:59

I have a 7900GTX, 8800GT, a 20" and a 24" so I know the score

The 7900GTO is very similar to the GTX. It was fine on all games until the UT3 Engine came out and obviously Crysis.

It runs UT3 games fine, I just like AA + AF and extra frame rates for multilayer pwnage.

1050 should stretch nicely as it is the same ratio as 1920. crysis looks cool on my Dell 24" at that res.

unless you can get a 8800GT then stick with what you got and save up for the 9800s,

Margaret · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:15

MHayes said:
The 7900GTO is very similar to the GTX. It was fine on all games until the UT3 Engine came out and obviously Crysis.

The 8800 GTX, GT, GTS are all fine on UT3 engine games!! :confused:

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:19

God knows what he means and what FPS he likes, cause a 7900GTX is far better than a GTO and I got ill FPS as I stated above at 1920's, and Trackmania is a good looking game but not as stressfull as others that I tried.

1920's are for Single 8800 cards or SLI 7900's.

Indy500 · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:23

The GTO is a GTX with 150mhz lower memory clock...how does that suddenly make it miles worse :confused:

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:29

Did I say it was miles, its a lesser card end of story, the GTX was the flagship.

Either way it wont get good FPS at 1920's with eyecandy turned up even back then nevermind with todays games.

Im trying to actually answer the OP as I tried it, whats are you bringing to the thread m8 ?

To the OP, try stretch to a newer Gen ATI or Nvidia, a 8800GT 512 would be best IMO.

Give us a budget to work with, even buy a 2nd hand GT from someone who upgraded to GTS 512 as new.

kingy666 · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:31

Thanks for all the replys but i think i will wait this one out to see what price drops come along as i would like a 8800GTS but at the moment they are out of my price range allthough the monitor will not be on sale at overclockers for ever with its va panel i hope i can get hold of one in a couple of months and maybe even (if i am really lucky) at a lower price. Happy new year

Fire Wizard · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:32

I could surprisingly play Call of Duty 4 with a X1950XT on my 24" screen at the native resolution. I obviously didn't apply any Anti-aliasing but as for the other settings like shadows, they were all enabled and in my opinion, the game looked fantastic.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:34

Sure no Eyecandy and it will play better FPS, I stated I wanted my normal Eyecandy and the 1920's and the 7900GTX just could not cut it, the 8800GTX is 2x more powerfull.

CoD4 was a remade CoD2 engine, it looks good and runs well on older rigs, I got 60-80+FPS at 1920x1440 all eyecandy.

To the OP, the new GTS 512 is good but cost over the GT esp 2nd hand is not what you wanted.

Indy500 · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:35

helmutcheese said:
Did I say it was miles, its a lesser card end of story, the GTX was the flagship.

Either way it wont get good FPS at 1920's with eyecandy turned up even back then nevermind with todays games.

My suggestion would be to wait until he can afford to upgrade both, or just get the graphics card and turn up the eye candy at 1440 instead.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:39

Bit better input m8

Indy500 · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:41

helmutcheese said:
Bit better input m8

Right....but his existing card isn't rubbish. If it was a HD2600 or something I would understand, but it is far from down and out yet. Look at the amount of people playing HL2 with a Geforce 4 MX..

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:44

Lets get something 100% straight now m8.

I did not say his current card is rubbish, I did state a GTX is better than a GTO be it 1% or 1000% that fact remains.

I also have ran the situ he want but with a GTX not a GTO and it was dire at my eyecandy settings, 1920's is about the limit of a 8800GTX in todays high performing games with lots of AA+AF (ignoring buggy Crysis and a few bad Console Ports).

Some lesser games will run at 2560's on them though (IMO thats massive 30" LCD and SLI area though).

Indy500 · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:46

helmutcheese said:
Lets get something 100& stright now m8.

I did not say his current card is rubbish, I did state a GTX is better than a GTO be it 1% or 1000% that fact remains.

I also have ran the situ he want but with a GTX not a GTO and it was dire at my eyecandy settings, 1920's is about the limit of a 8800GTX in todays high performing games with lots of AA+AF (ignoring buggy Crysis and a few bad Console Ports).

Really? It wasn't long ago that a GTX was maxing nearly every game at 2560x1600, and still getting >30fps, apart from Oblivion.

helmutcheese · 31 Dec 2007 at 15:49

Games move on and again a GTX with all eyecandy on will not get good FPS in games back then or now at 1920's nevermind 2560's.

Must have been some really non demanding games with no/little AA+AF, the GTX was still the offical Flagship (ignoring X2) till 8800 came out so approx say Sep 2006 it coulds play new games at 2560's or even 1920's with all eyecandy full?, I say I very much doubt it

None of this helps the OP, he ideally needs a newer Gen GPU.

fraps · 31 Dec 2007 at 16:10

kingy666 said:
Hi all, as the title suggests i have a 7900 GTO which has done me proud on my 19" Hanns-G HW191D monitor at 1400x900 but i feel i need a bigger/better monitor. The 24" OCUK (DGM) with VA panel seems to be a bit of a bargain so i am a bit scared that my GPU will not cope with the higher native resolution of the 24" monitor (1920x1200).
I mainly play games (Crysis, CoD 4, Trackmania nations .......e.t.c.) and also watch films so do you think it is worth me upgrading my graphics card now or should i wait as i think the prices are still too high on the nvidia GT/GTS. I could at a push go with a ATI 3850 pro but is it worth it over the 7900GTO.

Help me please.
sig has my spec

based on my experience:

Quake 4 - yes (even higher res than 1900x1200)
Unreal 2004 - yes
CoD4 - have not tried (runs well 1280 x 1024)
TMN - should be able to but I have not tried (I personally think AA is not needed at that res because of the number of pixels...)
Crysis - deleted the demo

you could have fun running 1-2 year old games at 1920x1200, some new games might run on that too

Anyway, I have been pondering the same upgrade to 3850 512 but there may be something better around the corner/ gets cheaper

fraps · 31 Dec 2007 at 16:12

you can overclock your 7900gto to close/ same as 7900GTX (it is only the memory clock which is different otherwise they are identical)