graphics cards haven't kept up with LCD res

[Magnulus]

I bought an LCD monitor a year ago. I have been using a Radeon 9700 Pro (gave to my dad) and now a GeForce FX 59000. I used to play games at 800x600 and 1024x768. After getting an LCD monitor, I play games at the native resolution, 1280x1024. It worked fine for the games at the time, but now its sucking wind with Far Cry, Deus Ex:IW and Battlefield Vietnam. I feel this card really sucks, and I hate the idea of upgrading every year. I was hoping it would last at least two years, hopefully longer. So I'm going back to playing strategy games, I just can't keep up with action games. Older strategy games also usually look OK at non-native 800x600, but for action games you loose detail and it gets fuzzy or blocky. I play old favorite action games, like Battlefield 1942 and so on (UT2004 runs OK too), but I feel my hardware cannot do justice to these newer games, and at any rate, playing with jerky FPS gives me a headache.

Here's my setup:

Athlon 2400, 266 MHz FSB
1 GB DDR
GeForce FX 5900
Audigy 2 ZS with 2 Planar 9 speakers from Monsoon
NEC LCD1712 analog LCD monitor (16ms response, 17 inches, 1280x1024 native resolution).

Oh, I also like running Quincunx AA and some anisotropic filtering in games. Even with those turned off, some games still are running slow. And it looks really jaggy, I notice jaggies all the time even though I have crap eyesight. I guess I preffer smooth, unbumpmapped, un-pixelshaded graphics to low res eye candy.

 

[Wuzup101]

UT2004 looks amazing for me (see sig) w/ everything maxed and 2x AA/16x AF... I couldn't imagine that you wouldn't get decent rates w/ a 5900. Anyway... don't feel so bad about farcry... nothing really runs that without a hiccup at higher quality. Just going to have to get yourself a 6800 Ultra of X800 XT

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Magnulus
I bought an LCD monitor a year ago. I have been using a Radeon 9700 Pro (gave to my dad) and now a GeForce FX 59000. I used to play games at 800x600 and 1024x768. After getting an LCD monitor, I play games at the native resolution, 1280x1024. It worked fine for the games at the time, but now its sucking wind with Far Cry, Deus Ex:IW and Battlefield Vietnam. I feel this card really sucks, and I hate the idea of upgrading every year. I was hoping it would last at least two years, hopefully longer. So I'm going back to playing strategy games, I just can't keep up with action games. Older strategy games also usually look OK at non-native 800x600, but for action games you loose detail and it gets fuzzy or blocky. I play old favorite action games, like Battlefield 1942 and so on (UT2004 runs OK too), but I feel my hardware cannot do justice to these newer games, and at any rate, playing with jerky FPS gives me a headache.

Here's my setup:

Athlon 2400, 266 MHz FSB
1 GB DDR
GeForce FX 5900
Audigy 2 ZS with 2 Planar 9 speakers from Monsoon
NEC LCD1712 analog LCD monitor (16ms response, 17 inches, 1280x1024 native resolution).

Oh, I also like running Quincunx AA and some anisotropic filtering in games. Even with those turned off, some games still are running slow. And it looks really jaggy, I notice jaggies all the time even though I have crap eyesight. I guess I preffer smooth, unbumpmapped, un-pixelshaded graphics to low res eye candy.

Battlefield Vietnam and Far Cry both use PS2.0 at their highest settings. The NVIDIA FX5XXX series is horrible at PS2.0.

Find out which settings enabled PS2.0 and disable them, then you should be fine. I play those games on a much crappier card.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

to get good performance in far cry, turn the lights to low and you should be able to keep everything else high. it will make 1280x1024 much more playable.

JBlaze