8800GTX still up to the task at 1920x1200?

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
2
0
I'm going from a 20.1" non-widescreen to a 24" widescreen. It should be here in a day or two.

Is my 8800GTX going to start choking? It's been able to take EVERYTHING I've thrown at it up to this point, but only at 1600x1200. I don't really want to shell out any more money right now, but I would be disappointed if I had to turn down a lot of the eye candy.

Right now I'm mainly playing Oblivion, Crysis, and some other games that aren't as graphically demanding. However, I'm considering either grabbing GRID or COD4 sometime soon.

Finally, is there any disadvantage to running a game at non-native resolution? If I start to get a lot of FPS problems, I may just lower it to 1680x1050 and see how it looks.

System specs are in my signature.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
In my experience, a single 8800GTX is not enough at 1920x1200 with many of the games released in the last 12-18 months. It really depends on your game library and whether or not you want to run GPU-intensive features like AA or DX10.

The disadvantage of running non-native resolutions is that scaling, depending on monitor, can greatly reduce image quality and sharpness. I've always found scaling non-native resolutions to be a major decrease in IQ to the point I always avoid it and prefer 1:1 pixel mapping even if it results in smaller viewable area.

Definitely see how your games run first and then decide what to do from there. If everything is playable to you there's no need to do anything. If you want to go SLI there's 8800GTX for less than $200 every so often. Or you can sell your GTX for $200+ on Ebay and pick up a 4870, GTX 260/280 or 4870X2.
 

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
2
0
If it isn't enough, I'll probably try a single 4870 (always had nVidia, ready to try something different) and see how that does. I'm not big on multi-GPUs, since the power consumption and heat skyrocket.

I agree though, I should probably see how it handles everything first. I'm just trying to get a general idea of whether it's at one extreme or another (absolutely can't handle it, or will have absolutely no problem).
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
If it isn't enough, I'll probably try a single 4870 (always had nVidia, ready to try something different) and see how that does. I'm not big on multi-GPUs, since the power consumption and heat skyrocket.

I agree though, I should probably see how it handles everything first. I'm just trying to get a general idea of whether it's at one extreme or another (absolutely can't handle it, or will have absolutely no problem).
i went from a 20.1 16x10 with a 8800GTX to a 24" 19x12

frankly, i found the GTX to be barely enough for 16x10 and it is not sufficient for 19x12 if you like all the details plus filtering

and my 4870 is still not enough for me. it is only about 25% faster than the GTX so i expect to add a 4870x2 for an X3 solution

but that is just me
- i love the new *usable* filtering
:heart:
 

Dkcode

Senior member
May 1, 2005
995
0
0
I disagree with the most of the above. Like most people i am using a 8800GTX and waiting for the 4870X2, i use a 24" monitor @ 19x12 and it handles anything i throw at it without AA. The 8800 is getting a bit long in the tooth, but it is still a competent card so don't let this put you off buying a 24" monitor.

Call of Duty 4 runs at 19x12 and soars above 60fps most of the time without AA. This is using highest texture filtering quality, LOD bias set to 'clamp', 16x AF.
UT3 runs solid 60fps with the same settings as above.

Have a look here

Crysis runs like a bag of crap on all resolutions except 1280x760 and below.

Source engine based games run like crazy, i run 4x AA but you could probably get away with 8x AA.
Older Unreal 2.x based engines run above 60fps with AA.

Baring in mind i am running XP SP3 x86.

Your 8800GTX will hold you over until you can afford and look forward to the 4870X2 or nVidia GTX280 refresh.
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
In AoC with everything maxed (but AA at 4x) I usually get 15-25 fps with an 8800GTX. I am likely getting a 4870x2 when they come out.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
8800gtx is slower than 4850 by a noticeable margin, but I agree that you should get the monitor first and make your decision based upon what's important to you.
 

honolululu

Member
Jul 8, 2007
55
0
0
I just recently got a 24" with the comp in my sig and I would have to agree with dkcode. Without AA the 8800GTX will still cruise at 1920x1200 above 60 FPS.

I can use 2x in the Witcher and Mass Effect. 4x in GRID, COD4, WiC and my other games which are less demanding, and be in the 35-45 FPS range solid. (Only played the Crysis demo a while ago)

I would say the newer cards will give a much higher max FPS, but the min FPS will be a closer match at least. And the min FPS is much more important in my eyes than the max FPS.

Have fun testing!

EDIT: I just played a bit with the settings and found this for Witcher in the swamp. With no AA, but every other setting maxed, I was hitting 40-60 FPS in a very tight band running around in large figure 8s and battling the random drowner. With 2xAA, which is the in game max, it was banding at 30-45 FPS. It looked a little blurry, but no jumpiness.

It's funny because not having AA at this dpi bothers me most in the game menus. When I'm racing in GRID or running around in COD4 I can't see the jaggies unless I'm looking for them.

Oh and those FPS are for stock clocks, at what is it, 575 MHz? I turned it back down because I'm planning on redoing the thermal paste and going for 648 core. I can't seem to pass 621.

 

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
7
76
8800GTS works fine even with 24inch monitor. I play all the latest games at 1920x1200 fine, I turn off AA naturally cause I don't care for it anyways.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: honolululu
I just recently got a 24" with the comp in my sig and I would have to agree with dkcode. Without AA the 8800GTX will still cruise at 1920x1200 above 60 FPS.

I can use 2x in the Witcher and Mass Effect. 4x in GRID, COD4, WiC and my other games which are less demanding, and be in the 35-45 FPS range solid. (Only played the Crysis demo a while ago)

I would say the newer cards will give a much higher max FPS, but the min FPS will be a closer match at least. And the min FPS is much more important in my eyes than the max FPS.

Have fun testing!

EDIT: I just played a bit with the settings and found this for Witcher in the swamp. With no AA, but every other setting maxed, I was hitting 40-60 FPS in a very tight band running around in large figure 8s and battling the random drowner. With 2xAA, which is the in game max, it was banding at 30-45 FPS. It looked a little blurry, but no jumpiness.

It's funny because not having AA at this dpi bothers me most in the game menus. When I'm racing in GRID or running around in COD4 I can't see the jaggies unless I'm looking for them.

Oh and those FPS are for stock clocks, at what is it, 575 MHz? I turned it back down because I'm planning on redoing the thermal paste and going for 648 core. I can't seem to pass 621.
Well its obviously a matter of what you consider playable as well. I saw similar results in many of those games and found 30-45FPS borderline unplayable. In addition to the titles you listed like The Witcher, COD4 SP, WiC, and Mass Effect, I'd add CoH DX10, LOTRO DX10, NWN2 (some angles w/ transparencies), Assassin's Creed (smooth but low FPS at times). With a GTX 280 its a much different experience in all of those games, smooth, mostly capped at 60FPS with Vsync, few drops in FPS and max details or AA where they were turned down on the 8800GTX.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY