High res benchmarks

[warmonger]

(Posted in General Hardware on accident)
Is there no room for gamers with 22" monitors? The maximum resolution on my monitor is 2048*1536 (86hz max for the monitor, stuck at 75hz on my Radeon 9000 Pro), and games that support that resolution look absolutely incredible. Anti-aliasing is almost unnecessary at that resolution, and when you don't need to read fine print, it's perfect. I'm running at 1920*1440 @ 85hz for my desktop, and it is only a tiny bit smaller than 1600*1200 on a 19" monitor, which makes it readable enough for me.

So, I was wondering why benchmarks stop at 1600*1200 when it is possible to go higher. Basically, I'm building a new system, and if a Radeon 9700 performs well enough at that resolution, I'd get one of those. But if it is too slow, I would definitely wait for the R350 chip.

One more thing: It would be really nice to see what the maximum achieved refresh rate is at the maximum resolution on these cards. My 9000 Pro is supposed to do up to 85hz at 2048*1536, but it only gets up to 75hz, no matter what drivers I use.

 

[EdipisReks]

bechmarks stop at 1600x1200 because most people can't run any higher than that.

 

[BoomAM]

Its impracticle.
Not every one has access to 16x12 never mind 19x14. For example, in 3D Mark, it only goes upto 16x12 because it allows one user, with one system to test all resolutions. If they did it upto 19x14, or above, then only a select few would be able to bechmark at this resolution. Meaning that only a very few people could compare their systems together at that resolution

For your refresh rate problems, are you sure that the 9000pro can do that refresh rate? I dont even think the parhelia can do that, and thats bar none the best 2D card out. Anyway, DL a program called powerstrip, it allows you to set any refresh rate you want, if your video card can handle it.

 

[warmonger]

According to ATI's website, it can. Then again, it also claims to have a 400mhz RAMDAC on the website, while in the driver control panel it says 350. That could be the source of the problem right there. That said, yes, the Parhelia can do it at those settings, but for the shitty 3d performance, it isn't worth it.

 

[glugglug]

What game runs at a playable framerate at 2048x1536 besides WC3?

Personally I use a higher desktop res than gaming res (backwards from most people here) to keep a decent framerate. Of course most people think my desktop res is crazy.

 

[warmonger]

Here's my system specs (don't laugh):

Mitsubishi DP2070SB monitor
400mhz Pentium II (Deschutes core, 512k L2 cache)
Intel SE440BX
384MB PC-100
64MB Radeon 9000 Pro
Aureal Vortex 1

And I can run Quake 3 at that res with all the goodies on at around 10-15 fps. Lowering all the details and resolution all the way, I only get around 60-70fps, so I'm definitely CPU limited (yes, V-Sync is off). I assume a 9700pro or 9800 and any 2ghz+ processor would push that up to playable rates.

Out of curiosity, what is your desktop resolution? I use anything from 640-2048, depending on the app, but I usually use 1600

 

[BoomAM]

With my GF3Ti200@230/510 & a very very old "19 Panasonic CRT.
I ran my desktop at 1024x768@32bit/85hz.
In games a ran at either 1024x768 or 1280x1024, depending on the fps at each resolution.

With my 9700PRO & "17 Hitachi CML174SCW TFT
I run my desktop at 1280x1024@32bit/70hz (the res/refresh rate is dependant on my TFT)
In games i allways run at 1280x1024 w/ 2xAA & 8xAF. In Unreal2 though, i switch off AA/AF.