8800GTS 640 enough for 1920x1200?

[thilanliyan]

I've just ordered the BenQ FP241VW monitor and I'd just like to know whether those of you that game at 1920x1200 with a 8800GTS find it adequate?

Do you have to turn down settings to get playable frames?

 

[MichaelD]

I have a Dell 2407WFP (1920x1200) and only a 7900GTO (512MB) I get excellent frame rates with most of the eye candy turned all the way up. Killer games like Oblivion and Stalker do require turning things down a little, but not all that much. You won't have any problems at all with a 640MB 8800GTS which is at least 40% more powerful than my card.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Killer games like Oblivion and Stalker do require turning things down a little, but not all that much.

Ya that's been my experience as well, but anything short of a GTX is going to experience that problem at 1920.

Been gaming with a 640 GTS on a Gateway 24" since February and simply put, its an incredible gaming experience. Runs pretty much every game I throw at it @1920 with highest textures and settings, only needing to mess with AA to adjust performance levels if things get sluggish. There's some out there that insist on being able to run AA, but I prefer the extra pixels and high-res textures when push comes to shove.

Also keep in mind, your performance is going to be significantly better than published frame rates in reviews since your system and card are significantly OC'd (although those OCs aren't out of the ordinary for C2D/GTS owners ). Reviews are good to get an idea of how well the card performs but you can definitely expect performance closer to a stock GTX over a stock GTS in most games.

My only regret is not spending the extra for a GTX so that I wouldn't have to worry about upgrading for even longer. Not sure about the state of SLI in Vista atm, but I may look into that if things get too choppy down the road. Right now I'm really happy with Vista 64/8800 performance with 4GB.

 

[nanaki333]

my friend has an 8800 GTS 320MB and he plays games like WoW and C&C 3 in 1920x1080. obviously he gets no slowdown in WoW, as that's not a very demanding game, c&c gets a little sluggish depending on how many players there are and how many units are on the screen. other than that, it gets the job done quite well.

 

[apoppin]

i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

 

[bryanW1995]

We should all rebel and go back to 1440 x 900 and buy $150 video cards! Oops, I already did...

 

[Shooks]

I play most games with my EVGA 8800GTS 640 at 1920*1200 on my 2405FPW with no issues. Oblivion, CSS, Overlord all run great.

 

[TheRyuu]

Yea, as others have said, you should be fine. Might need to turn it down slightly in newer games but other then that, fine

The 640mb will come in handy at the higher resolution.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Yea, as others have said, you should be fine. Might need to turn it down slightly in newer games but other then that, fine

The 640mb will come in handy at the higher resolution.

GTS/320 running 1920x1080 with no issues here.. plays everything I throw at it great, fast, etc...

 

[imaheadcase]

I play 8800GTS 320meg on my 24inch Dell-HC monitor BF2 on all high rez just fine, 100fps. Same with Insurgency mod and CoH. The new nvidia 162.22 drivers make a huge diffrence though vs official ones.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

Again, I never have to turn down details or textures for any of the games I've played. AA level is variable however, but it still runs most games I've played in the last 6 months with at least 2x AA.

Games I've run with 4x AA (or higher) and fps locked at 60 (Vsync enabled) most of the time:

• Dark Messiah
  Titan Quest/Immortal Throne
  CS: Source/DoD (and probably any Source Engine game)
  BF2/BF2142
  FFXI (locked at 30 fps)

Games I've run with 0x-2x AA or and fps locked at 60 most of the time:

• Supreme Commander
  Company of Heroes
  LOTRO
  a few demos here and there I'm probably forgetting

I can run all of these games with 4x AA, however, with a lot of units/action on-screen frame rates can drop considerably, so I typically leave AA off for them.


Games I know run poorly on a GTS @ 1920 (and anything else short of a GTX/Ultra/SLI for that matter):

• Oblivion
  Rainbow 6: Vegas
  Lost Planet
  STALKER
  (insert other DX10 demos here.....)

But what are the alternatives? The only real improvement is a GTX/Ultra or GTX/Ultra/GTS in SLI. X2900XT from what I've seen is a toss-up, and when it comes to AA, the GTS takes less of a performance hit. The OP will be fine with a GTS @ 1920. The only upgrade that makes sense is a 2nd card in SLI or a GTX/Ultra, and at 1920 it simply isn't necessary.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

I have to agree. I played Colin DIRT at 1680x1050 and the 640mb GTS barely kept up with all graphic settings on High

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

Again, I never have to turn down details or textures for any of the games I've played. AA level is variable however, but it still runs most games I've played in the last 6 months with at least 2x AA.

Games I've run with 4x AA (or higher) and fps locked at 60 (Vsync enabled) most of the time:

• Dark Messiah
  Titan Quest/Immortal Throne
  CS: Source/DoD (and probably any Source Engine game)
  BF2/BF2142
  FFXI (locked at 30 fps)

Games I've run with 0x-2x AA or and fps locked at 60 most of the time:

• Supreme Commander
  Company of Heroes
  LOTRO
  a few demos here and there I'm probably forgetting

I can run all of these games with 4x AA, however, with a lot of units/action on-screen frame rates can drop considerably, so I typically leave AA off for them.


Games I know run poorly on a GTS @ 1920 (and anything else short of a GTX/Ultra/SLI for that matter):

• Oblivion
  Rainbow 6: Vegas
  Lost Planet
  STALKER
  (insert other DX10 demos here.....)

But what are the alternatives? The only real improvement is a GTX/Ultra or GTX/Ultra/GTS in SLI. X2900XT from what I've seen is a toss-up, and when it comes to AA, the GTS takes less of a performance hit. The OP will be fine with a GTS @ 1920. The only upgrade that makes sense is a 2nd card in SLI or a GTX/Ultra, and at 1920 it simply isn't necessary.

i can only post my OPINION about "playablity" from my experiences with 8800 GTS-640M OC and HD2900xt with at least 10 games.

the "old" games ... '05/'06 and earlier ... run great on GTS/2900 at 16x12 - generally with ALL "in-game" setting completely maxed PLUS 4xAA/16xAF. However, don't think of HQ and other exotic setting.

With late '06/'07 and especially with DX10, these GPUs are overwhelmed at even 10x7 with "most everything" maxed [which is how i am playing it now ] and maybe AA ... they look GREAT; motion blur if done well is almost worth the price of admission ...

ALMOST ... the alternative imo is dual-GPU ... or skip this gen of DX10 games until a single GPU can run them at your resolution. Unfortunately, i don't think the next gen is going to do it either [completely maxed at 19x12 + 4xAA/16xAF] ... i doubt we will see double the performance from the nvidia refresh or AMD's. i think it will be late-'08 - a full year - before the midrange can do it

Somebody miscalculated this transition and i think there will be a lot of really unhappy gamers ... of course, there will be a few gamers in "gaming heaven" with their expensive Quadcore/SLi or x-fire rigs.

'08 looks a lot better for gaming imo

 

[Heinrich]

then dual 8800 GTS 640M should be quite sweet in SLI mode...

 

[lopri]

You won't just be able to max everything out but if you spend a little time tweaking you can certainly enjoy many game at 19x12. Sure it won't be exactly the same as 'maxed-out' setting if you compare side by side, but it'll be close.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

why would anybody sane need AA on 1920x1200?

I can speak form first hand experience, don't use AA and you are more than fine. Even STALKER with FDR runs good enough.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

why would anybody sane need AA on 1920x1200?

I can speak form first hand experience, don't use AA and you are more than fine. Even STALKER with FDR runs good enough.

i dunno .. i sure like it if i can get it at 16x12 ... and 19x12's difference is only WS
-- and i also speak from experience ... who wants to settle for "good enough" ?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

why would anybody sane need AA on 1920x1200?

I can speak form first hand experience, don't use AA and you are more than fine. Even STALKER with FDR runs good enough.

i dunno .. i sure like it if i can get it at 16x12 ... and 19x12's difference is only WS
-- and i also speak from experience ... who wants to settle for "good enough" ?

I doubt that your 19" Acer can do 1920x1200... really even if there are jaggies all over place at that resolution, they are so small that is hard to notice.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: apoppin
i don't think so ... it is barely adequate for 16x12 - IF you want full-maxed details including 4xAA/16xAF

and i am talking about DX9 games ... forget DX10 games above 14x9

why would anybody sane need AA on 1920x1200?

I can speak form first hand experience, don't use AA and you are more than fine. Even STALKER with FDR runs good enough.

i dunno .. i sure like it if i can get it at 16x12 ... and 19x12's difference is only WS
-- and i also speak from experience ... who wants to settle for "good enough" ?

I doubt that your 19" Acer can do 1920x1200... really even if there are jaggies all over place at that resolution, they are so small that is hard to notice.

WtH are you talking about?

i have a 19" CRT ... also ... running dual monitors
read what i wrote again ...

i sure like it if i can get it at 16x12 ... and 19x12's difference is only WS

i.e. At 16x12 i do MUCH prefer to ALSO enable 4xAA whenever possible if the penalty is not severe ... at 19x12 i would feel no different.

 

[secretanchitman]

8800GTS 320MB here with a dell 2407WFP and i play my games just fine and its cranked at 1920x1200.

mind you, some are old games, but still they work fine.

 

[Keysplayr]

There is an additional 384,000 pixels to be pushed at 1920x1200 over 1600x1200. Will have significant impact on performance especially when AA is used. Most benchmarks I've seen show a GTS320 performing almost identically to a GTS640 up to 1600x1200, but anything higher, the GTS320 tanks and the GTS640 shows more legs at resolutions over 16x12. It's not a GTX though, so a few settings may have to be reduces to keep frame rates playable for you in certain newer games.

keys

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
There is an additional 384,000 pixels to be pushed at 1920x1200 over 1600x1200. Will have significant impact on performance especially when AA is used. Most benchmarks I've seen show a GTS320 performing almost identically to a GTS640 up to 1600x1200, but anything higher, the GTS320 tanks and the GTS640 shows more legs at resolutions over 16x12. It's not a GTX though, so a few settings may have to be reduces to keep frame rates playable for you in certain newer games.

keys

that is not - at all - what i am talking about

IF someone uses and likes AA at 16x12 ... then he will ALSO like AA at 19x12 ... they are "equivalent" resolutions - the only difference is WS vs a regular screen

i am not talking "performance" ... i am saying IF 4xAA is usable at 16x12 OR 19x12 ... i LIKE it ... i can see the difference ... IF it does not impact performance too much

imo the 640 GTS is NOT sufficient for 19x12 with full details AND 4xAA ... 16x12 barely is -- neither is 2900xt is sufficient for 19x12 imo and barely for 16x12

 

[lopri]

I think it ultimately depends on individuals when it comes to AA, who are likely *spoiled* by today's strong hardware. For instance, when I first started playing 19x12 (before G80/R60), I didn't really care about AA at that resolution and everything looked wonderful without AA. (Naturally I couldn't even tell the difference without zooming in) Then after G80 came along, the sheer horsepower let me run 4AA/8AA @19x12 - it was just a natural thing because I felt it as if it's 'free', so there was no reason not to have it when I still got very good FPS. After a while, my eyes got used to it and I could easily tell the difference between AA and no AA @19x12. Now I have a 30 inch'er which let me play games at 25x16 - and guess what, again I can't tell the difference between no AA and 4AA and I don't see any jaggies without any AA applied. I do try to use at least 2AA when possible, though. Looks just so much better than 19x12 at any AA applied. I am sure this will change once more powerful hardware comes along.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
There is an additional 384,000 pixels to be pushed at 1920x1200 over 1600x1200. Will have significant impact on performance especially when AA is used. Most benchmarks I've seen show a GTS320 performing almost identically to a GTS640 up to 1600x1200, but anything higher, the GTS320 tanks and the GTS640 shows more legs at resolutions over 16x12. It's not a GTX though, so a few settings may have to be reduces to keep frame rates playable for you in certain newer games.

keys

that is not - at all - what i am talking about

IF someone uses and likes AA at 16x12 ... then he will ALSO like AA at 19x12 ... they are "equivalent" resolutions - the only difference is WS vs a regular screen

i am not talking "performance" ... i am saying IF 4xAA is usable at 16x12 OR 19x12 ... i LIKE it ... i can see the difference ... IF it does not impact performance too much

imo the 640 GTS is NOT sufficient for 19x12 with full details AND 4xAA ... 16x12 barely is -- neither is 2900xt is sufficient for 19x12 imo and barely for 16x12

Yes, I knew what you were talking about. I was just letting the OP know that he would have to turn down a few details at resolutions over 16x12 with a GTS 640 and how much more grueling a resolution of 19x12 is over 16x12. And also that the GTS 640 fairs better at higher res than the GTS320.

 

[dreddfunk]

they are "equivalent" resolutions - the only difference is WS vs a regular screen

apoppin - I'm not sure what you mean by 'equivalent'. The 19x12 display has 384,000 more pixels to push. The 1600x1200 display is closer in pixel count to the 1680x1050 (only a 156,000 difference in pixels).

IF someone uses and likes AA at 16x12 ... then he will ALSO like AA at 19x12

i am saying IF 4xAA is usable at 16x12 OR 19x12 ... i LIKE it ... i can see the difference

The only thing that confuses me about what you're trying to say is if you're asserting that all people who like AA at 16x12 must also like AA at 19x12, or if you're speaking entirely for yourself. The first statement leads me to believe the former. The second statement leads me to believe the latter.

Sure, I'm personally dubious that someone who likes AA at 16x12 wouldn't like AA at 19x12 (especially since the pixel density of the displays actually decrease) but I'm open to the possibility that it could happen.

Certainly, I think everyone is cool with your personal preferences and, given them, the 640MB GTS is clearly insufficient for your needs at 19x12, but others may disagree (and have), based on differences in subjective 'needs'.

I think the general consensus on the GTS is that it *could* be sufficient--right now--depending upon your requirements for quality. It is not right for you, however, and I'm sure we all respect that.

Cheers.