Gaming: 1680 x 1050 with 7900GT okay???

[sleepykid]

Hey guys, this is my first post here.

I am about to buy the VX2025wm 20.1 inch monitor which has a res. of 1680 x 1050. Does anyone know how that res. will play with a 7900GT? I enjoy all kinds of games, from FPS to RTS to RPGs. I guess RTS/RPG's shouldnt be a problem, concerned about FPS games

I am worried that even if it works fine now, in prob. a year the new games might be unplayable on native res., (i know you can always go one step down to 1440 x 900, but then the games lose some sharpness) which makes the 7900GT not so attractive after a year...

Or should i just buy a 1440 x 900 native 19" monitor?

This will be for a new rig, so i dont have any of these parts at the moment.

Thanks for your help guys!

 

[stevty2889]

A 7900GT should handle that resolution just fine.

 

[Shortass]

In a year the 7900GT will have problems running at that resolution on high settings, but I would imagine it would run it on medium. The x1900xt might be a better buy and should last longer as a superior card, however.

 

[sleepykid]

yea thats what i thought too shortass, and i dont think i can upgrade my graphic card for atleast 2 yrs, i guess 2 yrs should be okay...the extra resolution of the 20" would be great for desktop work through, besides looking nicer on WOW or EVE online... anyone one play eve?

hmm any thoughts on the viewsonic VX2025wm? I read somewhere that it doesnt do too well with xbox 360 ( vga adaptor )

 

[R3MF]

i run evereything at 1920x1200, so yes, that res will be fine.

 

[sleepykid]

thanks guys. guess i can go buy that viewsonic now

 

[aniruddha23]

I was in the same spot. Games are not as smooth at 1680 X 1050 as at the lower resolutions around 1200. Thats where u can max out teh eye candy and get great frame rates which translate into a truly enjoyable experience.

Regarding ur question abt playing at the non native resolution to be honest I really dont notice any loss in sharpness. But I still decided to dump my 2005FPW and go for the smaller but faster and better screen of the NEC Display Solutions 70GX2 Silver 17" 4ms

 

[sleepykid]

thats very interesting aniruddha23. what card were u using with the dell? was it the 1900xtx? if that isnt smooth enough, then i don't know what is!!!

also can i ask why you dumped your 2005FPW? seems to me that if there is no loss in sharpness then you might as well reduce your res. and play at 1440 x 800 or 1280 x 800 ? i see you have chosen a 4:3 monitor to replace the dell. i know of people switching from normal to widscreen, i havent seen many switch the other way

 

[Howard]

You can play at lower resolutions with the 2005FPW and set it so that the monitor doesn't display the image at full-screen. You'll get a black frame around it, but at least the image will be 1:1, pixel-wise.

 

[aniruddha23]

Originally posted by: sleepykid
thats very interesting aniruddha23. what card were u using with the dell? was it the 1900xtx? if that isnt smooth enough, then i don't know what is!!!

also can i ask why you dumped your 2005FPW? seems to me that if there is no loss in sharpness then you might as well reduce your res. and play at 1440 x 800 or 1280 x 800 ? i see you have chosen a 4:3 monitor to replace the dell. i know of people switching from normal to widscreen, i havent seen many switch the other way

Long story. It so happenned that I got a Dell E1505 Laptop with teh true life screen. The WUXGA resolution made Far Cry look much better with the X1400 card on the laptop than the X1900XT on my 2005FPW. Beautiful Image Quality + Densly Packed Pixels = a very sharp look for Text and no Jagged lines.

Thats when I saw the light. Smaller monitor with Higher Res + True Life Coating > 2005FPW

not to mention that it has 4 ms response time which gives it an Image quality which will beat most CRT's

 

[sleepykid]

hmmm thats interesting dude, i think most other people haven't yet seen the 'light' , as you have
personally, for me, bigger is better! (or should i have said size does matter?) :laugh:

EDIT: and what is truelife coating? is it glossy or matt?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: aniruddha23

Originally posted by: sleepykid
thats very interesting aniruddha23. what card were u using with the dell? was it the 1900xtx? if that isnt smooth enough, then i don't know what is!!!

also can i ask why you dumped your 2005FPW? seems to me that if there is no loss in sharpness then you might as well reduce your res. and play at 1440 x 800 or 1280 x 800 ? i see you have chosen a 4:3 monitor to replace the dell. i know of people switching from normal to widscreen, i havent seen many switch the other way

Long story. It so happenned that I got a Dell E1505 Laptop with teh true life screen. The WUXGA resolution made Far Cry look much better with the X1400 card on the laptop than the X1900XT on my 2005FPW. Beautiful Image Quality + Densly Packed Pixels = a very sharp look for Text and no Jagged lines.

Thats when I saw the light. Smaller monitor with Higher Res + True Life Coating > 2005FPW

not to mention that it has 4 ms response time which gives it an Image quality which will beat most CRT's

Reponse time hasn't much to do with image quality, aside from the fact that most people can't see any motion blur/ghosting on 16ms LCDs.

 

[Smartazz]

Originally posted by: Shortass
In a year the 7900GT will have problems running at that resolution on high settings, but I would imagine it would run it on medium. The x1900xt might be a better buy and should last longer as a superior card, however.

The prices are so diffrent.

 

[Crescent13]

My 7800GT @ GTX speeds plays HL2 fine, stumbles through Quake 4 (with 4xAA), and chokes up on fear without any AA or AF @ 1680x1050 (I have a NEC 20WMGX2)

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
My 7800GT @ GTX speeds plays HL2 fine, stumbles through Quake 4 (with 4xAA), and chokes up on fear without any AA or AF @ 1680x1050 (I have a NEC 20WMGX2)

Ooh that's disappointing, I was looking into getting a 7900gt, doing the vmod to get it to GTX speeds, and then playing FEAR at 1680x1050 maxed out...

 

[OmniShinzui]

Hi, I have a eVGA 7900GT CO and a Monitor that does 1680x1050 (Dell 2005FPW), and every game I throw at it runs great. Quake4 at max quality plays real smooth, Need For Speed: Most Wanted at max quality runs great (i've hit a snag or two when really fast), Oblivion plays really well (with texture mods, ini tweaks, max detail [cept for shadow on grass]). Oblivion gets 15-20fps OUTdoors (I do get an occasional lag when loading an area...), 35fps Dungeons, and 50fps indoors.

 

[supastar1568]

yea, im in the same boat as the OP but i have a 7800gt. Im thinkin, try it out and if i dont like there performance i can always add another one for SLi. That would help in the higher resolution department

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
My 7800GT @ GTX speeds plays HL2 fine, stumbles through Quake 4 (with 4xAA), and chokes up on fear without any AA or AF @ 1680x1050 (I have a NEC 20WMGX2)

Is widescreen gaming a lot more demanding that 4:3 gaming. I'm asking because I have an x850xt at 560/594 (a little faster than x850xt pe speeds), and I play Quake 4 at 1600x1200 with 16xAA, and it rarely hiccups. I have mine on high quality, so if you have yours on ultra then that could definitely make the difference.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Crescent13
My 7800GT @ GTX speeds plays HL2 fine, stumbles through Quake 4 (with 4xAA), and chokes up on fear without any AA or AF @ 1680x1050 (I have a NEC 20WMGX2)

Is widescreen gaming a lot more demanding that 4:3 gaming. I'm asking because I have an x850xt at 560/594 (a little faster than x850xt pe speeds), and I play Quake 4 at 1600x1200 with 16xAA, and it rarely hiccups. I have mine on high quality, so if you have yours on ultra then that could definitely make the difference.

You mean 16AF right???? It is impossible to run 16xAA esspecially with a single card.
4xAA is more stressful on a card than 16xAF.

 

[Cipherfaction]

i guess it would run fine.... but you know if you feel lag just lower the resolution it will still look great

 

[Cygnus X1]

If your a true LCD gamer there is but one option-the VX922

Read the facts here-http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/27/...spring_2006_lcd_collection/page33.html

And I agree

 

[sleepykid]

anyone know what is the maximum FPS that you could see on a 8ms screen (vid card notwithstanding)?

i'd think the 2ms monitors sacrifice image quality for speed, coz i read the link by Cygnus X1 and thats what it says basically..."either good at color rendering or are excessively fast."

i suppose they dont use 8bit panels either

 

[Cygnus X1]

Originally posted by: sleepykid
anyone know what is the maximum FPS that you could see on a 8ms screen (vid card notwithstanding)?

i'd think the 2ms monitors sacrifice image quality for speed, coz i read the link by Cygnus X1 and thats what it says basically..."either good at color rendering or are excessively fast."

i suppose they dont use 8bit panels either

That's right basically I'm going to need another LCD to have rich text, but I tell you the colors the VX922 shows on BF2 at all max 12x10 4xAA is just amazing. The VX922 is my gaming monitor and I may in the future buy another for other tasks, but just read the different reviews on the VX922. Hell go to New egg and read all those reviews 99% are positive and I can attest to that. Reminds me to right my glowing review. Good Luck.

 

[CZroe]

I just played the whole way through Half-Life 2 on my 1680x1050 LCD at the native resolution and 2xAA with a 7800GS. So yeah, a 7900GT can do some pretty modern games at that resolution. F.E.A.R. has pixel doubling. You might have to use that with a higher AA setting, but it'll be like running at a more reasonable native resolution.

If only HL2 supported 840x525... I'd crank the AA to max!

 

[sleepykid]

half life is known to work easily in even mid range cards...if most future games are like FEAR or BF2 in how they tax the video subsystem, then 1680x1050 wont be playable for too long with a 7900gt at max settings...