How big a performance drop going to 1680x1050?

[jahutch]

Hey all,

The subject basically asks my question. I currently run games at 1280x1024 on a 128Mb Geforce 6800. I am looking at getting a 20" widescreen LCD soon. I know the loss of fps will vary game to game some degree, but are we talking loss of a few (2-5) fps, or a serious drop (in most cases)? It seems to me it shouldn't be too major - while the horizontal pixels increase fairly significantly, vertical barely goes up... its certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the increase from 1024x768 -> 1280x1024. That said, I also know video cards can do fine, and then suddenly tank when you go over a certain res.

If this is going to be a significant hurt to my card's performance, I assume a 7xxx series card would have no problem with the higher resolution?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Polish3d]

Actually I suspect it will be as, if not more significant than 1024x768 --> 1280x1024

You'll probably want a new vidcard

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: jahutch
Hey all,

The subject basically asks my question. I currently run games at 1280x1024 on a 128Mb Geforce 6800. I am looking at getting a 20" widescreen LCD soon. I know the loss of fps will vary game to game some degree, but are we talking loss of a few (2-5) fps, or a serious drop (in most cases)? It seems to me it shouldn't be too major - while the horizontal pixels increase fairly significantly, vertical barely goes up... its certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the increase from 1024x768 -> 1280x1024. That said, I also know video cards can do fine, and then suddenly tank when you go over a certain res.

If this is going to be a significant hurt to my card's performance, I assume a 7xxx series card would have no problem with the higher resolution?

Thanks in advance!

um, lets take a tep back for a sec. First of all that geforce will probably not be able to handle anything at that rez(unless your playing older games) especially when using aa/af. whats a 7xxx series card? do you mean the 8xxx or x1xxx? anyways if your getting a monitor with that resolution you should probably get at least a 7900gt, and consider getting a x1900xt.

What games do you play? what kinda system are you working with? (power supply, motherboard, memory, cpu, etc)

 

[yacoub]

1680x1050 = 1764000
1280x1024 = 1310720
1,764,000-1,310,720= 453,280 more pixels on your new widescreen display, or about 34% more pixels.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Originally posted by: yacoub
1680x1050 = 1764000
1280x1024 = 1310720
1,764,000-1,310,720= 453,280 more pixels on your new widescreen display, or about 34% more pixels.

nnnice, didn't know you can do it that way.

 

[nitromullet]

1680x1050 is pretty comparable to 1600x1200. Look for benchmarks at that commonly tested resolution to get an idea of what you can expect out of a card at 1680x1050.

 

[ND40oz]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
1680x1050 is pretty comparable to 1600x1200. Look for benchmarks at that commonly tested resolution to get an idea of what you can expect out of a card at 1680x1050.

Exactly, I game on mine with a 7800GT and I wish I had something better...

 

[Shortass]

Oh wow, that's gonna make my transition so much worse for me. My 9800 Pro's not looking so Pro anymore

 

[SynthDude2001]

As much as I hate to say it, that 6800 isn't going to be adequate at all for 1680x1050 gaming unless you play relatively old games. Even my 6800GT@Ultra is failing to keep up at that resolution, and I'm going to upgrade to something newer as soon as I have the money to do so.

 

[jahutch]

See, the thing I run into is it seems impossible to ever get above 1280x1024. What I mean by that, is the minute you buy a "better" card that can run stuff at 1680x1050 or 1600x1200, some new game comes out that doesn't run well unless you drop it back to 1280 again. Put another way, it seems like games are all geared to 1280x1024 (it used to be 1024x768), so if you want to play newer games, you'll either have to use that resolution, or cut back your settings, or have some kind of sick SLI setup that is totally unaffordable.

This is the one thing I hate about LCDs.. they look like crap when they aren't at their native res.. so you're stuck with 1280x1024 crap desktop space, or horrible framerates at a higher res... pick your poison. I miss the days of running my desktop at 1600x1200 and games at 1280x1024 (or lower where necessary).

People asked about my computer specs:

Athlon 64 (Venice Core) 2.5GHz (overclocked 3200+)
2GB Cas 2.5 DDR400 (4x512, dual channel)
Audigy 2 Value
465W Max Enermax PSU
Geforce 6800 128Mb
nforce 3 mobo.

The kicker is, my system is AGP. And no, a whole new mobo, etc, is *not* an option anytime soon. I just built this computer less than a year ago (July 2005). I realize now going AGP was shortsighted, but at the time, I had the 6800 already and all the research I did indicated AGP would be viable for mid-range cards for several years to come. Apparently said resources were incorrect, but I'm stuck with it for another year *at minimum*. So my only real viable upgrade path would be the 7800GS.

So, that is my situation. As for games, right now I'm playing EQ2, but who knows what I'll be playing once I buy the new monitor, that's why I asked in more general terms. 1680 seems all but out for me - I'm not enough of a gamer to ever have a bleeding edge system, my tech is always 1 - 1.5 years behind, so it seems to me running over 1280 is never going to be realistic. Given this, perhaps someone can tell me, how good does the 20" DELL widescreen LCD look at lower resolutions? Would a nice 19" LCD be a better option for me?

Thanks!

 

[Dman877]

You can run newer games at that res fine, you'll just have to lower the detail settings.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: jahutch
See, the thing I run into is it seems impossible to ever get above 1280x1024. What I mean by that, is the minute you buy a "better" card that can run stuff at 1680x1050 or 1600x1200, some new game comes out that doesn't run well unless you drop it back to 1280 again. Put another way, it seems like games are all geared to 1280x1024 (it used to be 1024x768), so if you want to play newer games, you'll either have to use that resolution, or cut back your settings, or have some kind of sick SLI setup that is totally unaffordable.

This is the one thing I hate about LCDs.. they look like crap when they aren't at their native res.. so you're stuck with 1280x1024 crap desktop space, or horrible framerates at a higher res... pick your poison. I miss the days of running my desktop at 1600x1200 and games at 1280x1024 (or lower where necessary).

People asked about my computer specs:

Athlon 64 (Venice Core) 2.5GHz (overclocked 3200+)
2GB Cas 2.5 DDR400 (4x512, dual channel)
Audigy 2 Value
465W Max Enermax PSU
Geforce 6800 128Mb
nforce 3 mobo.

The kicker is, my system is AGP. And no, a whole new mobo, etc, is *not* an option anytime soon. I just built this computer less than a year ago (July 2005). I realize now going AGP was shortsighted, but at the time, I had the 6800 already and all the research I did indicated AGP would be viable for mid-range cards for several years to come. Apparently said resources were incorrect, but I'm stuck with it for another year *at minimum*. So my only real viable upgrade path would be the 7800GS.

So, that is my situation. As for games, right now I'm playing EQ2, but who knows what I'll be playing once I buy the new monitor, that's why I asked in more general terms. 1680 seems all but out for me - I'm not enough of a gamer to ever have a bleeding edge system, my tech is always 1 - 1.5 years behind, so it seems to me running over 1280 is never going to be realistic. Given this, perhaps someone can tell me, how good does the 20" DELL widescreen LCD look at lower resolutions? Would a nice 19" LCD be a better option for me?

Thanks!

I agree with your first paragraph 100%. I actually was still using a 17" CRT when I first bought my 6800GT, and I thought it was just insanely fast. A few months later, I upgraded to a 2005FPW, and suddenly...it wasn't nearly so fast anymore. It's not like I'm getting a slideshow at 1680x1050 or anything, but it's definitely not as smooth as I'd like (especially if I don't want to drop all the other settings to 1998-like levels). So yeah, I think there could definitely be an argument made that something like 1280x1024 is the highest resolution you can reasonably expect to play at for a while unless you've spent $500-1000 on the highest end video card you can buy, or two of them in SLI(/Crossfire). I'm actually worried about that in planning for an upgrade too - I would hate to buy something like an X1900XT now and then in three months discover that it runs UT2007 like crap at 1680x1050. But, I cannot afford (and wouldn't be willing, even if I could) to pay $1000ish for a dual-GPU setup (which is what it would honestly take to be able to run at 1680x1050 or higher for any length of time longer than a few months), so I guess I've got no choice really.

However, given all that, I must say that I disagree very much with your second paragraph. Now that my 6800GT is aging, I more frequently have to drop down to 1280x800 to play newer games at. Of course it's not 100% crisp and clear like native resolution, but in no way does it look like "crap" at all. I only have experience with my own 2005FPW, but it's almost a year and a half old now...I honestly believe that scaling is not too much of an issue at all with current LCD's.

As far as your upgrade path, the only thing I can suggest is not to waste money on a "high end" AGP video card - they tend to be quite overpriced compared to what you can get for the same performance on PCI-E. You might look into the ASRock motherboard that has both AGP and PCI-E slots...you could buy the board now ($65 or so) and keep running your current video card (and your current CPU) until you can afford to spend a little more cash on a newer PCI-E card. Hell, if you're planning on spending $300 on a 7800GS, you can get an X1800XT for about that price on PCI-E these days...

 

[jahutch]

SynthDude:

Thanks a lot for the info! I am actually looking at the 2005FPW so it was particularly helpful. I'm glad to hear the scaling on it is good... I'm using some slightly older LCDs, and its just very fuzzy at anything other than the native. I have heard though from another buddy that the 2005 does pretty well with it, so maybe I need not be as concerned as I thought.

You mentioned 1280x800.. I'm curious if you've tried 1440x900? If you check the pixel count (1,296,000), that's actually slightly fewer than 1280x1024 (1,310,720), and its a fairly standard resolution that should be supported by most vid cards these days.

As for the video card upgrade, I'm going to be holding off for awhile. I do find it interesting though that the consensus here seems to be that the 7800gs is a waste of money, while AnandTech's review, as well as Tom's Hardware, both suggest its a great card for the money (280-310). In any case, depending on how long I keep this system, I may get that card when the price drops significantly if I still feel like I'm a ways off from a major upgrade, but for now, I'll stick it out with the 6800. If I do get the 2005FPW, I'll just deal with the scaling!

 

[framerateuk]

It will be quite a hit on performance. I had a 7800GT in my machine up until last month and that couldnt really cope with NFS:MW at 1680x1050.

Now that ive got a X1900XTX though i can knock it right up to 1920x1200

 

[EternalVortex]

I have a 6800LE that runs games fine at 1680x1050 w/o AA/AF, though not the newest ones (I prefer to save money by buying older games anyway). HL2 worked fine, as did Vampire: Bloodlines, among others.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: jahutch
SynthDude:

Thanks a lot for the info! I am actually looking at the 2005FPW so it was particularly helpful. I'm glad to hear the scaling on it is good... I'm using some slightly older LCDs, and its just very fuzzy at anything other than the native. I have heard though from another buddy that the 2005 does pretty well with it, so maybe I need not be as concerned as I thought.

You mentioned 1280x800.. I'm curious if you've tried 1440x900? If you check the pixel count (1,296,000), that's actually slightly fewer than 1280x1024 (1,310,720), and its a fairly standard resolution that should be supported by most vid cards these days.

As for the video card upgrade, I'm going to be holding off for awhile. I do find it interesting though that the consensus here seems to be that the 7800gs is a waste of money, while AnandTech's review, as well as Tom's Hardware, both suggest its a great card for the money (280-310). In any case, depending on how long I keep this system, I may get that card when the price drops significantly if I still feel like I'm a ways off from a major upgrade, but for now, I'll stick it out with the 6800. If I do get the 2005FPW, I'll just deal with the scaling!

I've not tried 1440x900, I just generally tend to drop down to 1280x800 when 1680x1050 is too slow. Who knows, maybe I've just assumed that 1440 wouldn't be enough of a drop from 1680 to make a framerate difference. I guess it is something I should try though. Oh, and as far as being supported - you can add just about any custom resolution in the Nvidia drivers (and probably the ATI ones too), so that's not usually an issue (there are only minor restrictions sometimes like horizontal resolutions needing to be divisible by 8 or something). Also, it's not just total pixel count that could determine performance, it might also be affected by the wider aspect ratio causing more objects to be rendered on screen or something to that effect.

About the 7800GS...I haven't really read the reviews (and their conclusions), just glanced at some of the performance numbers. I remember seeing it beaten by the old X850XT more than once I believe - and that card has been out since 2004. If you had no upgrade path to PCI-E at all and you were struggling on a Geforce 4 or something, then it might be worth a look...but even then, I just wouldn't recommend spending that much money in the AGP market these days. I bought my 6800GT in 2004 for ~$340 and I don't at all regret having made the purchase, but now two years later, you really have no choice but to go to PCI-E to get anything with a performance advantage that I would consider worth the upgrade. I really have my eyes set on an X1800XT/X1900XT for purchase in the next few months (assuming I can come up with the money ).

In any case, assuming you can get the 2005FPW for a good deal (which you should be able to, given that the newer 2007 is out), I'd definitely recommend it. I have no regrets about the monitor either. I would never be able to go back to a 1280x1024 (or lower) resolution monitor for daily/desktop use, and as I've said, I really don't think the scaling is bad at all. I have seen some LCD's that look very poor outside of their native resolution, but I think things have improved a lot on that front in the past 1-2 years.

 

[mpc7488]

Thanks a lot for this thread - I had exactly the same question (looking at a 2007fpw) with almost exactly the same rig (128 MB vanilla 6800, P4-3GHz and 1 GB RAM). Looks like 1280x800 isn't too bad of a compromise for newer games on that monitor, which is good to know until I can upgrade to a PCIe board.