30" Dell on a single 8800 GTS?

[tailwind]

I've been reading quite a few posts and reviews of SLI boards, but one questions and its probably a silly one, has been left unanswered.

Will running a single video card on a SLI board effect preformance?



Basically i've ordered a Dell 3007WFP 30" and quiet a few of the reviews say that single cards sometimes have trouble running some of the video intensive games at that high of a res. I'm building my own and have yet to order the MB. I was going with a p35 board, but thinking now I should go with a SLI board and run a single card till i can afford a 2nd card (depending on what the answer is).

The video card i've already ordered is a EVGA 8800 gts 640mb.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...p?Item=N82E16814130071

Thanks in advance.

Thanks to Keysplayr2003 for answering my first question.

New question.

Will a single EVGA 8800 GTS be enough to run Vanguard or WoW, maybe even Fear on the 30" Dell at 2560 x 1600?

 

[Keysplayr]

What is the native resolution of the 30" monitor?
What games do you play?
That 30" is probably more than a single 8800GTS can handle. Better leave the option for yourself to get a second one.

And no, running a single card on an SLI board will not effect the single cards performance. At all. Just need to make sure the board is set to "single" or "non-sli" mode via the flip card or bios setting, depending on your mobo's options.

And, welcome to AT!

Keys

 

[tailwind]

The native resolution is 2560 x 1600

The games I mostly play are Vanguard, WoW, maybe a little EQ. For the most part, sometimes Fear and HL2.

Thanks.

 

[Deinonych]

All of the cards listed here support dual link, which is required for that display resolution. So yes, the 8800GTS will work.

 

[Noema]

n7 is the local 30" guru, so maybe he can chime in and offer advice.

I believe that a single 8800GTs won't be enough for newer and upcoming games at the native resolution. Just too many darn pixels to push! However older games like the ones you play should run well.

However, as far as I know, the LCD offers hardware 1:1 mapping, so you can always tune the resolution down to 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 with black bars in the sides to make it more manageable.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Noema
However, as far as I know, the LCD offers hardware 1:1 mapping, so you can always tune the resolution down to 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 with black bars in the sides to make it more manageable.

No it does not. It will only display 1280x800 and 2560x1600. There is no 1:1 mapping on the 3007wfp. you need to use the No scaling option in the nvidia drivers to obtain 1:1 mapping on the monitor.

back on topic, at native res a GTS is fine for older games. newer games will also run fine provided you dont expect to run any kind of AA or AF.

 

[SickBeast]

You need at least a single GTX to push one of those screens. I'm not certain what two 8800GTS's would yield, but my guess is that one GTX could match them.

Have you considered a screen like the 37" Westinghouse that runs at 1920x1080? Even a GTS 320mb can run that resolution just fine (without AA - use 640mb if you want AA).

IMO the 2560x1600 screens are *too* high a resolution (for a 30" panel) unless you need it for a precision task like CAD or medical uses.

 

[MarcVenice]

Wow/Vangaurd shouldn't be a problem for a single GTS. If that's all you play, 1 card should do the trick. But you payed a lot for that screen, so I bet you can shell out another 350$ for another 8800gts 640mb

 

[tailwind]

How effective would the 1:1 mapping be at a lesser resolution for newer/future games?

I budgeted to get the large monitor.

 

[ggreen67]

Basically I'll state what others have said. The processor of the 8800 can handle the load. Its the memory requirements thats going to give you problems with resolution on the 30" monitors.

Even a 24" will have problems with some games on a 880 640MB. I just got a 24" LCD myself and haven't had any issues yet with my 880 320MB.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

There is the option to go with an SLI board. Unfortunately, the 640mb card hasn't dropped in price like the 320mb has. But, from a thread I've seen, it might be possible to SLI a 640mb with a 320mb, you just will have the higher memory dropped down to mirror that of the lower. In many cases, the more memory doesn't make much difference. However, at your resolution, I would think the opposite.

The 640 (or 320) SLI option *is* faster than the GTX in most cases-- see my post here. Even at your 2560x1600 resolution (though that site only shows 640 SLI and not 320 SLI).

So, 640mb SLI is still an option. I wouldn't call it your best option though. IMO, your best option right now is to keep your 640mb card playing all your current games, which it will do fine at. FEAR might struggle a little. Come November, when Crysis comes out, that res will likely kill your card. At that time, the GPU landscape may be changing and nV's new cards may be coming out. You could upgrade to one of those at that time and sell your 640mb for $250ish. Probably end up paying $250 out-of-pocket for the upgrade. Less than cost of getting another 640mb and doing SLI right now. And performing better as well! That would be my plan.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: JAG87


No it does not. It will only display 1280x800 and 2560x1600. There is no 1:1 mapping on the 3007wfp. you need to use the No scaling option in the nvidia drivers to obtain 1:1 mapping on the monitor.

Ah, my mistake then.

I thought most Dell LCDs could do the no-scaling thing via hardware.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I stalk at 1650x1080 on mine. The GPU does the scaling. I have everything on except AA and some things like lighting distance, grass density are at 50%. Runs fine on my old X1900XT, and even better on HD2900 before it was RMA'd. 8800GTS should have no problem with this res, and may even work well with 2560x1600 if you can spare some lighting or filtering.

 

[PoGGeh]

The Dell 30" has no real functionality on it, except brightness up and down. No scaling in the drivers works just fine though, as the 30" can over every other resolution yet available (eg 4:3 games upto 2048x1536) without loss of sharpness. I run a X1900XT on mine, and so far its been "Ok". COD test runs a bit slow, but knocking the texture quality down a bit, and putting it to 2x FSAA means it runs ok at 2560x1600. Prey, Q4, Stalker, HL2 all run just fine with some slight tweaks. Not tried Vanguard, but WoW runs very nicely with all options on, 4x AA. Im sure that a 8800GTS would be "better than ok" while a GTX would be "good" and SLI GTS would be "better than good".

If you havent seen one "in the flesh" prepare to be blown away the first time you see one lit up with a desktop on screen. The acre-age is ridiculous.

Can always use more though my desk -> www.pogdesign.co.uk/stuff/newnewdesk.jpg

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: Noema
However, as far as I know, the LCD offers hardware 1:1 mapping, so you can always tune the resolution down to 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 with black bars in the sides to make it more manageable.

No it does not. It will only display 1280x800 and 2560x1600. There is no 1:1 mapping on the 3007wfp. you need to use the No scaling option in the nvidia drivers to obtain 1:1 mapping on the monitor.

back on topic, at native res a GTS is fine for older games. newer games will also run fine provided you dont expect to run any kind of AA or AF.

Isn't the "Do Not Scale" setting something that only works with LCDs than have 1:1 pixel mapping?

My 3007WFP runs 1:1 pixel mapped when i set nV's drivers to "Do Not Scale", & also ran 1:1 mapped when i used "Centered Timings" when i had my X1900 XT & then HD 2900 XT.

I'm pretty postive those settings only work if the LCD has built in 1:1 capability, so i disagree with your statement that there's no 1:1 on the 3007WFP.

Originally posted by: Noema
I thought most Dell LCDs could do the no-scaling thing via hardware.

They do. I believe JAG87 is confusing terms.

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Have you considered a screen like the 37" Westinghouse that runs at 1920x1080? Even a GTS 320mb can run that resolution just fine (without AA - use 640mb if you want AA).

IMO the 2560x1600 screens are *too* high a resolution (for a 30" panel) unless you need it for a precision task like CAD or medical uses.

Please.

I don't understand why i see people saying 2560x1600 is "too high", as that's a load of nonsense.

Yes, it requires an very good video card to run things maxed at 2560x1600, but there's always the option of running things 1:1 mapped at lower resolution if you absolutely cannot run the game desired at 2560x1600.

Purely for desktop use alone, my 3007WFP has been worth it.

I don't understand why people seem to think a massive 37" TV running at a mere 1920x1080 can compare to the 30" LCDs.
It doesn't.

1920x1080 seems amateur compared to 2560x1600 when you have it, believe me.
Bigger isn't necessarily better...myself & many others would rather have the resolution than the size, & believe me, the size is huge enough for viewing at a distance for movies etc. too.

The other thing i'm going to diss the Westinghouse for is the response time/input lag.
I normally wouldn't even worry about that kinda thing, but it seems it can be troublesome for fast fps games.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2080387&enterthread=y

Just my $0.02.


Anyway, as for games running @ 2560x1600 w/ your 640 MB 8800 GTS, it should be not bad.

Obviously, you won't be able to run Oblivion or Call of Juarez maxed, but most games run well at that res if less AA is used.
And you always have the option of running games @ 2048x1536 or 1920x1440 or 1920x1200, etc.

 

[JAG87]

For the last time:

The 3007 cannot display any resolution OTHER than 2560x1600 or 1280x800 (at a 1:4 pixel ratio). Any resolution between them will be displayed at a 1:4 pixel ratio, resulting a signal thats larger than your display, and out of bounds. You can still view all of the desktop area by moving the mouse at the edge of the screen and panning through the desktop.

The 3007 cannot display 1:1 pixel mapping with centered output. Like I said above, the panel will display every resolution between 2560x1600 and 1280x800 at a 1:4 pixel ratio.

The 3007 has NO SCALER inside of the panel. Therefore you either run 1280x800 or 2560x1600. For gaming, you can run any resolution provided you use a scaling option OTHER than "use your display built-in scaler".

You can use NV SCALING (scales everything to 2650x1600 regardless of AR), NV SCALING with fixed AR (scales everything to the highest resolution possible while maintaining the correct AR, in otherwords 2560x1600 for 16:10 resolutions, and 2048x1536 for 4:3 resolutions) , or DO NOT SCALE (displays the original image 1:1 with black borders).

I cannot make it more clear then this, but n7, for someone who owns the panel in question you are pretty misinformed. cheers.



edited spacing for the sake of readability

 

[n7]

Okay, so explain to me then how i can utilize 1:1 pixel mapping on the 3007WFP with both ATi cards i owned.

My understanding is that that feature only works with ATI cards & monitor that have the feature built in?

I gather what you are saying is that this capability is entirely depending on the drivers, but that's not adding up based on what i understood.

 

[n7]

Yeah googling show that ATi doesn't support 1:1 pixel mapping unless the display does.

So JAG87, you're gonna have to figure out how to explain that one to me, since i could always use "centered timings" to apply 1:1 pixel mapping on my 3007WFP with both my X1900 XT & HD 2900 XT.

If i'm wrong, please explain how, since i've always understood that ATi does NOT do 1:1 pixel mapping if the monitor doesn't do it.

 

[n7]

And i just proved my point (to myself), but also to JAG87.

Sorry man, but the 3007WFP does indeed do it's own 1:1 pixel mapping.

How do i know for sure?

I just finished testing all three LCDs i own on my HTPC which houses an HIS X1300.

First i tested on the display it's normally hooked up to.

Samsung 204B (1600x1200 TN)
1600x1200 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Loaded up 3DMark06, which runs at 1280x1024.

Even with "Centered Timings" enabled, 3DMark's 1280x1024 filled the whole screen (since the 204B does not have 1:1 pixel mapping support).

Next i tried:
Samsung 204T (1600x1200 S-PVA)
1600x1200 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Loaded up 3DMark06, which runs at 1280x1024.

Same thing happened as with the 204B, so apparently my 204T doesn't do 1:1 hardware pixel mapping either (i learned something new today; didn't know if it did or not before )
The 1280x1024 bench stretched to fill the whole screen.

The final test was to prove my point.

Hooked up the Dell 3007WFP.
2560x1600 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Apparently only one of the X1300's ports is actually dual link enabled, as the first time, it only allowed for the expected 1280x800.
No worries, i rebooted with the DVI cable plugged into the second DVI port.
Sure enough, 2560x1600 rez then showed up as an option.

So i set that up @ 2560x1600 "Centered Timings" enabled & loaded 3DMark06.

Just like i expected & unlike the 204B & 204T, it ran at a nice little 1:1 pixel mapped 1280x1024 window with large black bars around the sides, as the 3007WFP does indeed have hardware support for 1:1 pixel mapping

JAG87, so while i can understand reading the descriptions that nV uses for scaling would seem to indicate the 3007WFP doesn't have 1:1 pixel mapping (the fact that it requires you to use "No Scaling" to achieve 1:1 in games is indeed confusing), ATi cards prove my point quite nicely.

The Dell 3007WFP does indeed have 1:1 hardware pixel scaling built in.

 

[SirFelixCat]

Originally posted by: n7
And i just proved my point (to myself), but also to JAG87.

Sorry man, but the 3007WFP does indeed do it's own 1:1 pixel mapping.

How do i know for sure?

I just finished testing all three LCDs i own on my HTPC which houses an HIS X1300.

First i tested on the display it's normally hooked up to.

Samsung 204B (1600x1200 TN)
1600x1200 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Loaded up 3DMark06, which runs at 1280x1024.

Even with "Centered Timings" enabled, 3DMark's 1280x1024 filled the whole screen (since the 204B does not have 1:1 pixel mapping support).

Next i tried:
Samsung 204T (1600x1200 S-PVA)
1600x1200 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Loaded up 3DMark06, which runs at 1280x1024.

Same thing happened as with the 204B, so apparently my 204T doesn't do 1:1 hardware pixel mapping either (i learned something new today; didn't know if it did or not before )
The 1280x1024 bench stretched to fill the whole screen.

The final test was to prove my point.

Hooked up the Dell 3007WFP.
2560x1600 native resolution, "Centered Timings" enabled.

Apparently only one of the X1300's ports is actually dual link enabled, as the first time, it only allowed for the expected 1280x800.
No worries, i rebooted with the DVI cable plugged into the second DVI port.
Sure enough, 2560x1600 rez then showed up as an option.

So i set that up @ 2560x1600 "Centered Timings" enabled & loaded 3DMark06.

Just like i expected & unlike the 204B & 204T, it ran at a nice little 1:1 pixel mapped 1280x1024 window with large black bars around the sides, as the 3007WFP does indeed have hardware support for 1:1 pixel mapping

JAG87, so while i can understand reading the descriptions that nV uses for scaling would seem to indicate the 3007WFP doesn't have 1:1 pixel mapping (the fact that it requires you to use "No Scaling" to achieve 1:1 in games is indeed confusing), ATi cards prove my point quite nicely.

The Dell 3007WFP does indeed have 1:1 hardware pixel scaling built in.

Thank you n7...

Is there any way for us to determine if the HP 30" can do the same? If not, it's a total deal breaker for me and I will "end up" getting the Dell...

TIA again buddy. You're help has been invaluable!

 

[JAG87]

oh my god, this is the last time Im going to say this, after this your on your own. ok let me say this gently...

The Dell 3007 has NO BUILT-IN SCALER and NO BUILT-IN 1:1 PIXEL MAPPING.

"Centered Timings" on ATI cards, is the exact equivalent of "Do Not Scale" on NVIDIA cards. What happens is the card outputs the desktop resolution (in this case 2560x1600) with lower resolutions mapped 1:1 inside this 2560x1600 matrix. What you obtain is a 2560x1600 signal with any resolution mapped 1:1 inside of it. This is VERY DIFFERENT from the monitor ITSELF accepting a signal lower than 2560x1600, and mapping that ITSELF within the matrix. For example, if you disable "Centered Timings" and send a 1600x1200 signal to the panel, you will clearly see that its impossible to display a 1:1 signal. The 3007WFP will just display it at a 1:4 ratio, resulting in an image that is bigger than the panel (and you have to pan the screen using the mouse pointer at the edge of the panel).

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you use a panel with a BUILT-IN SCALER and 1:1 PIXEL MAP such as the 2407WFP, you will be able to see that 1600x1200 signal (or any other resolution) mapped 1:1 even without using Centered Timings, or Do Not Scale. Thats because there is a FUNCTION in the MENU of the panel called 1:1 pixel mapping.

THEREFORE Mr. SirFelixCat, if you are purchasing a 3007WFP, make sure that your graphics adapter supports either Centered Timings, or Do Not Scale (which the 8800 GTS does). Otherwise you will NEVER SEE any kind of 1:1 mapping on your monitor.

n7, if you still dont understand, your hopeless. im sorry, I cant be anymore explicit than this.

 

[JAG87]

TBH with you N7, I think we are saying the same thing, but you misinterpreted my original reply to this thread. my reply was:

No it does not. It will only display 1280x800 and 2560x1600. There is no 1:1 mapping on the 3007wfp. you need to use the No scaling option in the nvidia drivers to obtain 1:1 mapping on the monitor.

what was intended here is that the 3007WFP does not have BUILT-IN 1:1 mapping, while you interpreted that the 3007WFP does not support 1:1 pixel mapping at all, not even using ATI's centered timings, or nvidia's Do not scale. thats not what I meant, read my sentence again carefully.

I think that clears it up.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Have you considered a screen like the 37" Westinghouse that runs at 1920x1080? Even a GTS 320mb can run that resolution just fine (without AA - use 640mb if you want AA).

IMO the 2560x1600 screens are *too* high a resolution (for a 30" panel) unless you need it for a precision task like CAD or medical uses.

Please.

I don't understand why i see people saying 2560x1600 is "too high", as that's a load of nonsense.

Yes, it requires an very good video card to run things maxed at 2560x1600, but there's always the option of running things 1:1 mapped at lower resolution if you absolutely cannot run the game desired at 2560x1600.

Purely for desktop use alone, my 3007WFP has been worth it.

I don't understand why people seem to think a massive 37" TV running at a mere 1920x1080 can compare to the 30" LCDs.
It doesn't.

1920x1080 seems amateur compared to 2560x1600 when you have it, believe me.
Bigger isn't necessarily better...myself & many others would rather have the resolution than the size, & believe me, the size is huge enough for viewing at a distance for movies etc. too.

The other thing i'm going to diss the Westinghouse for is the response time/input lag.
I normally wouldn't even worry about that kinda thing, but it seems it can be troublesome for fast fps games.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2080387&enterthread=y

Just my $0.02.


Anyway, as for games running @ 2560x1600 w/ your 640 MB 8800 GTS, it should be not bad.

Obviously, you won't be able to run Oblivion or Call of Juarez maxed, but most games run well at that res if less AA is used.
And you always have the option of running games @ 2048x1536 or 1920x1440 or 1920x1200, etc.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Oblivion at 2560x1600 on a GTS? That's one of the most demanding games out there. The card gets 17.8fps at that setting. linkified

The main reason I suggest that 2560x1600 is overkill is due to the fact that HDTV/Blu-Ray etc. only require 1920x1080 at the most. For a desktop, yeah, the space can be useful, but really, graphics cards can't realistically push enough pixels for it yet.

I know from experience with my Dell 2405FPW. When I bought it, the best graphics cards on the market were the X800XT/6800 Ultra. Even those cards couldn't run Far Cry and the other modern games of the time at 1920x1200. It was frustrating and pretty much ruined gaming for me until I got my 8800GTS.

 

[JAG87]

more resolution is never overkill sickbeast, because with more pixels you have the option to run with less pixels with 1:1 mapping.

so if you run 1680x1050 on a 3007, you basically get a monitor that is slightly smaller than a 2007, since the pixel pitch on the 30 inch is smaller. And the same goes for 1920x1200. and for 2D you get the benefits of a huge desktop space. its a win-win situation, even if your graphics card is not powerful.

you just need the room for a 30 inch panel, thats all.

 

[n7]

JAG87, i have read your post like 5+ times, & i guess i'm just retarded.

I gather you are saying that the 3007WFP doesn't support true 1:1 pixel mapping, but rather a form of that?

What i can't understand is how you say it can run 1:1 within a 2560x1600 desktop assuming the video card supports "No Scaling" or "Centered Timings".

As i tested though, of my three displays, only the 3007WFP allows for 1:1 of any kind, which tells me that the monitor must also support a form of 1:1 pixel mapping for that to be the case.

So i basically you're saying the 3007WFP doesn't support a menu option for 1:1 pixel mapping, but will work with drivers set for that.

How is that any different than a damn menu option, since 1:1 pixel mapping only works on select displays that support it?

Ignore nV drivers for this please, since i believe that's what causing our misunderstanding.

ATi's "Centered Timings" only works on displays that have some form of 1:1 pixel mapping support; it does not work on just any random display.
I am really tired tonight, but i still can't figure out what you are trying to say.


Also, this:

For example, if you disable "Centered Timings" and send a 1600x1200 signal to the panel, you will clearly see that its impossible to display a 1:1 signal. The 3007WFP will just display it at a 1:4 ratio, resulting in an image that is bigger than the panel (and you have to pan the screen using the mouse pointer at the edge of the panel).

WTF?
That's not what happens.
It merely stretches 1600x1200 across the display (fits the screen but all stretched/distorted).

Just outta curiously, have you ever used an ATi card w/ your 3007WFP?
I've used three now, & what you say about them doesn't make any sense to me.