1680x1050 -> 1080p - More to consider than the 15% increase in pixels?

gregor7777

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2001
2,758
0
71
Other than the increase in pixels by roughly 15% (and the 15% increase in GPU load that comes with it), is there anything else to consider when moving from 1680x1050 -> 1080p? I'm thinking VRAM usage or something else I might not be considering.

I have to keep my current GPU (260x) which plays everything I want to play on high/ultra at 1680x1050, but that LCD is starting to go. Before I commit to buying a 1080p monitor of the same size, I'm wondering if it's as simple as a 15% increase in GPU load across the board. I think my card can handle that, but I'd prefer to game at High settings with a 15% reduction in total pixels than have to reduce my settings.

Apoligies and thanks if the question is silly. :)
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
A 260X should be fine for most games at 1080P. You may have to drop settings a little on some. 2GB of VRAM is plenty for the vast majority of games at that res. In a lot of games you may not even notice the difference. I know when I moved from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 I had an HD5750 with 512MB of VRAM. I did notice the drop in some games, but they were not suddenly unplayable. It was just a drop of a few fps.
 

monkeydelmagico

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2011
3,961
145
106
You'll be fine. I was running a 7770 in 2011. Not as good as your card. It played anything at med settings or higher at 1080. I think it was only 1gb vram too. Stuka nailed it, you might have to tweak a couple settings but no show stoppers.

Enjoy the screen upgrade! That you will probably notice.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
What CPU do you use and what games do you play the most?

Your VRAM wont ever be a problem, and there are only a couple games I can think of that you would not be able to play on Ultra settings based on the GPU, but that shouldn't cause you any issues.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
What CPU do you use and what games do you play the most?

Your VRAM wont ever be a problem, and there are only a couple games I can think of that you would not be able to play on Ultra settings based on the GPU, but that shouldn't cause you any issues.
only a couple of games a 260x cant play on ultra at 1080? um there PLENTY of games a 260x cant play on ultra so I dont why some of you are acting like his card is faster than what it is. its only about half as fast as a 670 or 7970 and even those cards cant max every game at 1080. with a 260x, he will be turning down many settings in the vast majority of modern games out there at 1080.
 
Last edited:

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
only a couple of games a 260x cant play on ultra at 1080? um there PLENTY of games a 260x cant play on ultra so I dont why some of you are acting like his card is faster than what it is. its only about half as fast as a 670 or 7970 and even those cards cant max every game at 1080. with a 260x, he will be turning down many settings in the vast majority of modern games out there at 1080.

Not sure why Ultra came into the convo. The OP was just wanting to play on High, which doesn't require near the horse power to run when compared to Ultra.

EDIT: Fixed typo. Where should be why.
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Not sure where Ultra came into the convo. The OP was just wanting to play on High, which doesn't require near the horse power to run when compared to Ultra.
please look at the very post I was quoting. I even directly replied to him on the part of his post referring to a 260x being able to play all but a couple games on ultra.
 

FalseChristian

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
3,322
0
71
I, too, game on a 22" 1680x1050 LCD. I'm planning on upgrading to a 24" 1920x1080 panel in the near future. You don't want to go higher than 24" because at 27" 1920x1080 is too small amount of pixels to do a big screen real justice.
 

gregor7777

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2001
2,758
0
71
Yeah, Ultra is out of the question really as generally that comes at too severe a penalty. I can do it at 1680x1050 in a few cases, but likely not at 1080p.

I do however find that my 260x is capable of just about every game on High at my current res, and 1080p is only 15% more pixels. Seems reasonable.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
You'll be gaining a lot more width than height and it will seem at first like you've lost vertical space due to the aspect ratio change.
 

Deders

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2012
2,401
1
91
I read somewhere in a game developer's interview that higher res textures are used when both the width and height are above certain figures.

From what I remember the width at 1680 is too low for this to happen but 1920 isn't.

can anyone else confirm this? It may just be for the odd game.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I read somewhere in a game developer's interview that higher res textures are used when both the width and height are above certain figures.

From what I remember the width at 1680 is too low for this to happen but 1920 isn't.

can anyone else confirm this? It may just be for the odd game.
I have never heard of such a thing
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
To the OP's original question, I believe there actual is some significance to the different aspect ratio of 1080p that makes it more than just a simple increase in pixels. What you'll have at 1080p is a wider view in all games, and rendering on either side of an image is more taxing than rendering of additional sky or ground, which is what you have if you were simply enlarging the image equally in all directions. Thus, I'd estimate that 1080p is about 20% more taxing than 1680x1050. It's hard to say, because very few sites bench 1080p and 1680x1050.

Also, I agree that a 260x is probably about the minimum you'd want at 1080p. It will work with high settings in many games, medium settings in demanding games like BF4 and Crysis 3. It's absolutely fine, though, and there's no reason not to replace your monitor with a 1080p model at this point.

By the way, I'd suggest you run at 1080p/medium over 1680x1050/high, due to the scaling artifacts you'll have on a 1080p screen.
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
all else being equal, going from 16:10 to 16:9 is not going to be more taxing in any way that's measurable.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
I dont' think a 260x will do any favors for 1080p, but at least the screen upgrade will be a good excuse to upgrade the 260x at some point?

Given you will be going 1080p, I wouldn't worry about the 260x at all, get the best 1080p screen you can afford and if possible look for 120hz?

GPU's we upgrade much more frequently than screens.