Resolution 1920×1200 8800GTS 640MB will run OK? [graphics card] [quot]
Q: hello,
im thinking about getting a 24 “monitor widesceen, but not sure if my graphics card supports 1920×1200 Resolution.
does anyone know? Will the ongoing conflict resolution or that it will be smooth?
Re:i went on BF2 and turn down the scaling to 50% thats it's lowest. the graphics are fine, but i just dont like the big text. is it just be been picky? lol
Re:thanx for the tip guy, i'll give it ago
Re:Quouting "guy"
AF on current gen cards (maybe last gen even) has little to no impact on performance at any resolution. The 640MB GTS tends to hold up better at higher resolutions where the extra texture memory does matter, whether its turning up AA or simply running 1920 acceptably. Generally the 320MB GTS runs into trouble at resolutions greater than 1680/1600 in newer games or turning on AA at higher resolutions in older games.
Agreed. AF causes no worse than 5% impact for most benchmarks.
When people say the 2900XT trumps the 8800GTS 640, I agree except @1920×1200 w/ AA and above for most games save Call of Juarez.
I am tempted just to get a 2900XT or GTS640, but the GTS's are a year old and the XT was supposed to compete/destroy the GTX but didn't; however, pricewise, if saving up for next year's picks becomes my agenda, then I'll go for one of those cards; otherwise, I'll be inclined to buy the GTX.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
i bought the 24" samsung 245B, res at 1620 x1200 runs fine on bioshock, but on colin Mcrae the graphics are no way as clear., battlefield 2, they dont run 1620 x 1200, so you can tell it's been stretched abit, and the typing looks massive! but as CCS it's brill
i just hope it wont let down crysis when it come out. but still i would say your pushing it with a gts, and will need to up grade as new games get better.
If you're running 1600×1200 non-native resolutions on a 1920×1200 native panel, you should try and turn off scaling and run with black bars on the sides. Looks much better despite the slight loss in real estate.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
WIthout AA or AF or HDR, most games will push 30+ fps at that resolution – maybe 40+. But with all of those goodies turned on, no. Most reviews of the 8800GTS 640MB versus the GTX versus 29000XT et al showed the 320 and 640 as floundering with AA & AF turned on.
AF on current gen cards (maybe last gen even) has little to no impact on performance at any resolution. The 640MB GTS tends to hold up better at higher resolutions where the extra texture memory does matter, whether its turning up AA or simply running 1920 acceptably. Generally the 320MB GTS runs into trouble at resolutions greater than 1680/1600 in newer games or turning on AA at higher resolutions in older games.
I've been running 1920 in every game I've played on my 640MB GTS since January and have been thoroughly pleased with the card. Older games allow me to turn on 4x or higher AA, newer games I typically need to turn off AA or lower AA to 2x. I never turn down texture detail and typically leave all shader/lighting/shadow options at their highest settings.
That being said, frame rates in some of the more graphically intense recent releases have begun dropping below 30FPS on avg. with minimums hitting the teens. Ideally you'd want minimum and average FPS to be at least 60FPS on an LCD, but realistically I shoot for closer to 60FPS avg and minimum FPS no lower than 25-30. Not getting that in some of the newer games and the one I currently play the most (LOTRO), so I am looking to upgrade come November when NV's new high-end is expected with the possibility of going SLI and 2x GTS if the price/performance is right.
Re:i bought the 24" samsung 245B, res at 1620 x1200 runs fine on bioshock, but on colin Mcrae the graphics are no way as clear., battlefield 2, they dont run 1620 x 1200, so you can tell it's been stretched abit, and the typing looks massive! but as CCS it's brill
i just hope it wont let down crysis when it come out. but still i would say your pushing it with a gts, and will need to up grade as new games get better.Re:The only recent game I couldn't really do 1920×1200 on my GTS is Bioshock at max detail and this is in Win Vista. I had to run it at 1680×1050. Mostly everything else has been fairly smooth.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
You don't need AA at 1080p
A little AF is always nice..
I'm very happy with my GTS 320 at 650/2000. It's very quick in Supreme Commander, Bioshock, Oblivion, and (lol) Quake 3, all at native resolution.
I might have to go down to 1680×1050 for Crysis – we'll see. Worst case, I can step up in a few months!
I agree – I always prefer higher resolution over AA. I really don't like the soft look that AA put over the entire screen – I like things to stay sharp.
Re:Yeah, jaggies at 19×12 are still there, they're just finer
I much prefer something like 1440×900 (or whatever it is) with playable 2 or 4x AA than 1920×1200 without.16×10 with 2xaa for sure over 19×12 without, assuming your monitor/video card scaling isn't crap.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
You don't need AA at 1080p
A little AF is always nice..
I'm very happy with my GTS 320 at 650/2000. It's very quick in Supreme Commander, Bioshock, Oblivion, and (lol) Quake 3, all at native resolution.
I might have to go down to 1680×1050 for Crysis – we'll see. Worst case, I can step up in a few months!
Jaggies are jaggies – higher resolution itself reduces them a little bit, but they can leap out at your eyes when you least expect it.
Re:You don't need AA at 1080p
A little AF is always nice..
I'm very happy with my GTS 320 at 650/2000. It's very quick in Supreme Commander, Bioshock, Oblivion, and (lol) Quake 3, all at native resolution.
I might have to go down to 1680×1050 for Crysis – we'll see. Worst case, I can step up in a few months!
Re:WIthout AA or AF or HDR, most games will push 30+ fps at that resolution – maybe 40+. But with all of those goodies turned on, no. Most reviews of the 8800GTS 640MB versus the GTX versus 29000XT et al showed the 320 and 640 as floundering with AA & AF turned on.
Re:that depends what you're going to be "running". my old roommate's computer ran command and conquer 3 at 1920×1200 with an 8800GTS 320MB, c2d 6300 @ 2.8ghz, 2GB DDR2 800. it would hiccup and slow down if he was playing with 3 or more other opponents, but other than that, it was pretty smooth. he also used the instant build cheat so him and all computer players had hundreds of units.
Related posts
Tags: graphics card, quot