Is 1600X1200 that much better?

[Beater]

I presently have a 20 inch Dell Trinitron and a 32 meg GTS with a 900 Athlon. I can run everything full detail 1024X768 and have not tried higher. I assume ta go much higher I'll need a Pro or Ultra with 64 meg. My question is, is it worth it? Do games look that much better or is it just for bragging rights? Thinking about the move but don't wanna do it if it's not gonna make much dif!

 

[MilkPowderR]

If you dont wanna see jig jaggy lines and have clearer, sharper, more realistic graphics quality, yah those higher resolutions i.e. 1280x1024 and Up would be definitely good and especially in the future these resolutions will be standard me thinkx, and have the texts in the game option menu as big as the ones you could see in 640x 480 UT, lol.... Now, that would be good.

BTW, GF3 class is great for super high res. They actually perform better in those res with eye candy on. The GTS 32mb, no no.. will struggle at 1600x1200. GF2 Pro 64mb would handle a lot better than the GTS 32mb at those settings

 

[richleader]

Some games look better, some, on the otherhand don't look that much better and if your monitor only does 60-75 hz at that res, you might be better off with a lower res. And, FSAA artifacts acutally look worse at high rez on a Geforce 3 at least.

 

[Beater]

Thanks guys, any more opinions?!

 

[Smbu]

1600x1200 is awesome. On my 19" IBM P96(FD Trinitron) monitor 1600x1200 looks great and you can definately see a difference between 1600x1200 and 1024x768. I just love cranking RTCW to 1600x1200 and playing at the res, either that I running at XGA, or SXGA res and turning on quincunx. On most games you will not be able to run 1600x1200 with a 32mb GTS and 900mhz Tbird. I'm currently running a 1.4@1.6ghz Athlon XP and GF3 Ti500 (260/590), so I can play most games at 1600x1200.

 

[Beater]

Ya I realize that 1024X768 is likely the max res with my GTS and that's what I'm considering upgrading but do you really think the 900 CPU would be a bottleneck if I get say a 64 meg Pro or Ultra?

 

[richleader]

It depends. 32 bit color isn't really possible on a geforce 2 at that rez, no matter how much memory you throw at it, bandwidth is still too limited. You'd be able to play games that aren't fps intensive at 1600X1200, stuff like Vampire the Masquerade and possibly War Craft III. Quake III is also playable at that rez with all the newest patches, but few of the Quake III engine games will be fluid. (Alice, FAKK2, Star Trek Elite Force, etc.)

I'm running a classic Tbird 900, and I just upgraded to a gainward Geforce 3 from a classic GTS like you have, and while it's nice, I'd have liked to wait until April for a Geforce 4 or whatever if I didn't need a card stat because the GTS went bad and killed my monitor. While some games are CPU limited for me, when that happens, you basically get FSAA for free as it won't cost you FPS that you're not getting to begin with. Max Payne is like that, it really would like a faster CPU.

I've just been fooling around with Giants: Citizen K and both 1600X1200 32 bit, 32 tap a-filtering and 1024X768 32 bit, 32 tap a-filtering Quincunx FSAA are fluid
. While the latter gets rid of quite a bit of jaggies, the few that it doesn't get rid of are THAT much more annoying and the textures on the 1600X1200 are sharp as hell, so it really comes down to personal opinion. On the otherhand, 1600X1200 can make a lot of games really sterile looking, and playing at lower rez where things blur a little bit can feel more immersive.

As always, your milage may vary.