1920x1200 performance hit vs 1900x1080?

Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by Insomniator, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Insomniator

    Insomniator Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    23
    At home I have a 25.5" Samsung 2693HM 1920x1200. Used strictly for gaming... occasional VPN use. At work I have a 24" Dell 1900x1080... used strictly for work.


    Does it make sense to switch these two monitors considering 1920x1200 is better for work and 1080p will save me some pixels while gaming? Is the performance difference worth it (if any)? I have a 560TI 448 which I feel like is on the border of needing an upgrade... 10% more performance would be nice for Far Cry 3 I'm sure.
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads - 1920x1200 performance 1900x1080 Forum Date
    Gaming card for single 1920x1200 monitor, silent preferred Video Cards and Graphics Jul 3, 2016
    Nvidia GPU(s) for 3x 1920x1200 Video Cards and Graphics Nov 22, 2014
    Weird triple-screen issue 2560x1440 + 2x 1920x1200 Video Cards and Graphics Nov 11, 2014
    How "much" video card will I need to get good performance at 1920x1200 resolutions... Video Cards and Graphics Feb 11, 2009
    8800gt - best price/performance for 1920x1200 gaming? Video Cards and Graphics Apr 17, 2008

  3. cmdrdredd

    cmdrdredd Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    25,014
    Likes Received:
    46
    1080p would only serve to be more compatible with in game resolutions.

    Having used both the performance difference was so small to be unmentionable.
     
  4. KingFatty

    KingFatty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    1
    Would you say that it was 10%, the small difference that is unmentionable?

    Maybe bumping from 55 frames per second to 60? Or 30 frames per second to 33?
     
  5. cmdrdredd

    cmdrdredd Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    25,014
    Likes Received:
    46
    I don't even think it was that much.

    Actually let me do a quick test in Heaven with SLI off and report back. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200. Even though I have a 2560x1440 monitor I can run non native resolutions and get an idea for the performance.

    edit: Heaven Benchmark 8xAA, 16xAF, Extreme Tessellation. 1x GTX670 @ 1230/6765

    1920x1080: Min - 30.2fps Avg - 49.1fps Max - 124.6fps
    1920x1200: Min - 24.9fps Avg - 46.4fps Max - 116.6fps
     
    #4 cmdrdredd, Dec 12, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  6. Pia

    Pia Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    You get the same performance increase if you run 1080p resolution on the 1920x1200 display. I'd definitely swap the displays anyway, both to get rid of the black bars while gaming, and to have more screen space for work.
     
  7. KingFatty

    KingFatty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow surprising jump on the MIN framerates, more than 10% difference there. That might be where you really notice it, possibly reducing stutter?
     
  8. postmortemIA

    postmortemIA Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,584
    Likes Received:
    15
    yeah, if your game sucks on 1200p, chances are that it doesn't work to well on 1080p. difference is 11% afterall
     
  9. cmdrdredd

    cmdrdredd Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    25,014
    Likes Received:
    46
    Could be, but even still 1080p is more widely supported. If I remember some games required me to mess around in the .ini files to get 1920x1200 to work.
     
  10. Insomniator

    Insomniator Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    23
    True, but I'm not expecting miracles. Better compatibility and any kind of better FPS increase is good if It'll help hold me over until Crysis 3!
     
  11. Gryz

    Gryz Golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    22
    Three months ago I replaced my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung with a 27" 1920x1080 Asus screen. I am still not decided if it was worth the money.

    My main reason was to get lower responsetimes. My older Samsung 2443BW 24" has 5ms response time. I always found the screen blurry when I moved the camera. So I wanted a monitor with only 2ms. I chose the Asus VE278Q 27". It's impossible to see different monitors in shops these days. And reviews of monitors always seem very subjective. So I had no other choice but to just try.

    Motion in games is indeed a little less blurry. But not by much. Having 16x9 in stead of 16x10 is slightly less enjoyable on the desktop. Maybe also in MMOs, where you have a lot of UI stuff at the bottom. But in other games, 16x9 is just as good as 16x10. There are 2 other benefits to my new screen (besides slightly less blurry). One is the size. 27" is nicer than 24". But I also realize, I don't need anything bigger than 27". I don't think I want a 30" monitor.

    The second benefit is the higher fps. 11% less pixels indeed means 11% more performance ! At the time I was playing mostly Guild Wars 2 and Skyrim. All settings to Ultra. Enabled SSAO on the control panel. Skyrim visuals were heavily modded. Both games ran 60 fps in most places, but some spots had only 50 fps or less. (gtx680 + 3570k@4Ghz). I wrote down numbers in some locations in both games. And after switching monitors (and resolutions), to my surprise I saw a ~10% fps increase in almost all locations ! In theory 10% less pixels means 10% higher framerates. But that doesn't mean you will see that result in practice too.

    For you, the higher resolution also has the larger screen. That is another factor to consider. Do you want a bigger desktop at work, or bigger screen while gaming ? But I would certainly look at response-times. Your Samsung has 5ms response-time. Not sure about the Dell (I see 2 24" 1080p Dells, with 5ms and 6ms delay). But if both have 5ms delay, and you find 10% higher fps useful, I'd certainly swap the monitors.
     
  12. PrincessFrosty

    PrincessFrosty Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    19
    Games are generally speaking no more compatible with 16:9 than 16:10, in fact 16:10 was around for a LOT longer in the PC space than 16:9, that has only been adopted from the television market in more recent years, almost all modern games read the list compatible screen resolutions from your video card drivers and so both are equally as supported.

    Performance is pretty linear with number of pixels

    1920x1200 is 2,304,000 pixels
    1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels

    The difference is small, maybe unnoticeable in some circumstances, but it does exist.
     
  13. BrightCandle

    BrightCandle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its too late now but for future reference tftcentral.co.uk will fullfill your desire to know exactly how much blur a monitor has, along with a whole host of other important factors to do with the images quality. If the monitor isn't on their list its almost certainly complete rubbish or nothing new.
     
  14. exar333

    exar333 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,513
    Likes Received:
    3
    It is pretty unusual to find game that would only work on 1080p vs. 1920x1200.

    That said, I agree that the difference in performance is negligable. If it runs on 1080P , it will run fine on 1920x1200, and vice versa. The only case I can think of where the difference might be more substantial is where 1080P performance is right at minimum acceptable framerate levels, 30-35fps, and in this case losing 10% performance means much more than going from 75fps to 68fps, for example.
     
  15. KingFatty

    KingFatty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,025
    Likes Received:
    1
    Also, you can always use a 1200p monitor for either 1080p or 1200p, so it's more options if you want them. The 1080p is always stuck at 1080p, which can be limiting for games that are Vert+ (I think that's the term to describe games that show you more of a scene the taller your resolution).
     
  16. Pia

    Pia Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    16:10 is "supported", usually, but a good number of games are optimized for 16:9 (example: Starcraft II) or as wide ratio as possible (example: most first person shooters). So you will generally see less if your screen is 16:10 as opposed to 16:9.
     
  17. BrightCandle

    BrightCandle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    About 6 months ago I went through all the resolutions on the Steam survey and worked out their aspect ratios. I found at that moment that while 16:10 was in decline it was actually the #1 ratio, followed closely by 16:9 and distantly by 4:3. But there are a host of other ratios about now which show up in the data and I counted some that were close to 16:10 as 16:10 and those close to 16:9 as 16:9.

    16:9 is where the industry is clearly headed, 16:10 is IMO better for work and games. I lack vertical visibility as it is, I certainly don't want to loose anymore.
     
  18. skipsneeky2

    skipsneeky2 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have done a little 1080p vs 1200p testing myself with my u2412m and a 7850.

    Found my 1050/1450 7850 in BF3 on the map Operation Metro using all high settings enabled minus msaa would average nearly 8fps higher and saw bare minimums jump from 57fps to about 63fps just switching resolutions.

    Maybe a issue resolution wise but my 7850 seems to be a little jittery when i hit the lower 60s especially outside,dropping it all to medium smooths it out and my minimums never seen under 65fps,nor under 60 on basically the majority of maps.

    Can't wait to pick up a 7970....:p
     
  19. Pia

    Pia Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on your sig it looks like you have a 48:10 screen setup? If you only had a single display, 16:9 would be better for games. :)
     
  20. Gryz

    Gryz Golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    22
    I actually did look at that website to find information. Neither of the two monitors I was dealing with are mentioned there. There are many many different monitors, and only a few (relatively) are there. Also, I feel that tftcentral is mostly concerned with image quality. And less with gaming. The Asus VE278Q was actually recommened by members of these anandtech forums. I think the VE27Q is an good choice for a gaming monitor. But the Samsung was good too, I think.

    My next monitor will probably be an IPS screen.
    But only if there will ever be a monitor that has:
    - 1920x1200 (or 1920x1080)
    - 27"
    - IPS
    - 120Hz
    - 2 ms response-time
    - not ridiculously expensive.
    Even if I drop the price-requirement of my wishlist, there are no monitors that fullfil even 3 out of the remaining 5 requirements. And I think it will be a long long time before we see a 120Hz IPS monitor with 2ms responsetime.

    Just like with videocards (see the "what would you pick" thread), it all depends on your requirements. I think tftcentral on average has different requirements than I have. I can't believe omission from the website means that a product is crap.

    I'm curious what tftcentral would consider the best monitor for gaming. Their recommendation tool does not give *any* suggestions when my input is gaming+IPS.
     
  21. BrightCandle

    BrightCandle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am literally waiting with fist fulls of money for my IPS 120Hz monitors. I would likely replace all three of my 60 hz ones when they finally become available. As long as they don't ghost badly.

    Tftcentral tests just about everything. For gaming in particular you care a great deal about the ghosting and the input latency, both of which they test in detail. They also test the colour quality and contrast etc. If you look at the ghosting comparison they always show it against other monitors in the class as well as the best gaming monitor they know of (a 23" Samsung 120hz TN screen). So if you were looking for the best monitor in that aspect then the samsung would be what they have, but obviously its colour quality is kind of rubbish. Tftcentral don't tell you to take one monitor over the other, what they do is give you all the data and leave it to you to work out if it fits what you want to do with it.
     
  22. pauldun170

    pauldun170 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    137
    I have a Samsung Monitor with a native 1920x1200 resolution.

    I've been playing Far Cry 3 with a GTX570 and on ultra settings the FPS hasn't been "optimal". The game is playable but its obvious the game is dipping into the 20's at times.

    After reading this thread I thought I'd give 1080p a try so I changed the settings in game.
    Game is very smooth now and a VERY noticeable improvement. I can play now without even thinking about the FPS.
     
  23. Aikouka

    Aikouka Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Messages:
    27,469
    Likes Received:
    33
    One thing that I've always found annoying about MMOs and 1920x1200 is how some video authoring software refuses to support anything above 1080p. I've owned a copy of Sony Vegas for quite awhile, and it was always a bit annoying that it refused to render my videos at 1920x1200. I ended up scaling my videos down to 1,728x1080 just so they would retain the same 16x10 frame.

    It is definitely nice to have more room for UI elements though.
     
  24. PrincessFrosty

    PrincessFrosty Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    19
    You're talking about vertical and horizontal FOV.

    You get more in one direction depending on both your aspect ratio and the behaviour of the game, some games are vert- and some are horz+

    With Horz+ you see a wider horizontal FOV with a 16:9 monitor, but if a game is vert- then a 16:9 monitor has more of the vertical field of view chopped off.

    Some (next to none) games are anamorphic and add black bars for anything greater than 16:9 like assassins creed for example, they constitute a tiny fraction of the number of total games, and are generally considered to be poorly designed for widescreen.
     
    #23 PrincessFrosty, Dec 15, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2012
  25. Pia

    Pia Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I just didn't feel a need to pull the technical terms into it. Practically no new games are vert-, and for the rest, 16:9 is better than 16:10. Ergo, these days 16:9 is by far the best choice for gaming.
     
  26. PrincessFrosty

    PrincessFrosty Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    19
    That's not really true, there's still a lot of games that have issues with being vert- you only need to go over to somewhere like the WSGF and check compatibility and there's a lots of problems.

    1920x1200 can of course fit 1920x1080 inside by simply setting the scaling in drivers to 1:1 to get a perfect picture with black bars, so since 1920x1200 can do at least everything that 1920x1200 can do, but more, it's a better resolution.