Is it a waste to run GTX 260 216 on 22" 1680x1050 res?

[HunterDT]

I'm putting together a new Core i7 PC and I cant decide between 1680x 1050 or 1900 x 1200 res. (22" or 24" monitor) I guess the lower res will give the card even MORE leg room for even better FPS, but could it achieve the same performance even at 1900 x 1200? I'm siding with lower res and, thus, better frame rate. Plus saving some $$ on the LCD.

 

[thilanliyan]

Just turn up the IQ settings and you're good to go. I would however go with the 1920 monitor...watching movies in full 1080p or even upscaled (with my PS3) and playing games seem so nice on the monitor I have.

 

[dguy6789]

1680x1050 is perfect for a GTX260.

 

[HunterDT]

Thanks guys. So, whadya think of this baby:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824001254

 

[destrekor]

And don't worry. Eventually even that res at decent IQ settings will be a struggle for that card, and even the top end cards. Games progress. So by having a decent res but not a super high-res, you're providing more time with quality graphics with the games to come.

I just picked up a 1680x1050 22" monitor myself, and a GTX 285. I'll be happy for awhile, and very excited about that. Current top-graphics games I should be able to run at max settings and maybe throw in some AA/AF (depending on the game/engine).

 

[roid450]

I play mine at 1680 in every game, it's perfect, as destrekor said, i can run pretty much any modern game with max settings, maybe with 2Xaa or 4Xaa and not a problem. Only game that kills PCs mroe than Crysis is GTA4, needs more CPU power than GPU, hence my 3.4ghz OC but other than that, the 260 is perfect at 1680 :thumbsup:

 

[chizow]

A 260 wouldn't be a waste at that resolution, but if you had to choose I'd lean toward the 24" and higher resolution or even a 22" 1080p panel. It comes down to whether you prefer higher resolution or AA, as 1680 4xAA should be very close to 1920 with no AA or 2xAA in performance. The 22" 1920x1080p panels are also interesting because they offer finer pixel pitch and higher resolution than the 1680 22" panels for a very similar price. The 1080p and 24" panels can also do 1:1 FullHD 1080p for Blu-Ray, which is something.

 

[TidusZ]

Honestly the gtx 260 shouldn't factor in too heavily to this situation. A 24" monitor is a pretty big step up from a 22", and if you want it and you got the cash I'd go with 24" regardless. Monitors can last a long time whereas videocards are old after a year and retired to the cpu graveyard after 2-3.

Whether the 260 will play well with 1920x1200 depends on the game and graphics settings. Generally a 260 is more than enough power for anything at 1920x1200 with pretty high settings, but if you crank up all games to the absolute max you'll need a 295 for that. To put your mind at ease, my old cpu uses a 8800gt and ran 1920x1200 with Crysis, Gears of War, Fallout3, Ut3, Supcom, Red Alert 3, Bioshock, and more. I use high settings for all of them and each ran smooth as butter except crysis, which was playable at 1680x1050 on custom medium/high settings. A 260 has a lot more horsepower than a 8800gt. Also my friend uses a 260 and a 24" LG panel, games on it all the time w/o problems.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
1680x1050 is perfect for a GTX260.

That's what I am doing. (I also run Folding@home).

 

[Hauk]

As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

 

[jsoderba]

Also consider that you get the benefit of more screen real-estate all the time when using the computer so if you using your computer for anything else than gaming it's probably worth it. Personally I often keep two windows tiled side-by-side when working, and in that case I find that 840px (1680/2) is a little cramped while 960px (1920/2) is nicer.

And I agree with TidusZ that you should view a monitor as a more long-term purchase than a graphics card.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Hauk
As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

Why would that be? 22" and 24" is nearly the same pixel pitch at native resolution.

 

[Elstumpo]

I'd go for a 24" I love mine, it's so big compared to the 19" I was using for years.

 

[alkalinetaupehat]

Honestly the amount of pixels your pushing doesn't differ too much between 1920x1200 and 1680x1050. I saw about a 5fps drop when I was using a GTX260 on a 1080p 37" LCD (Good times!). All the details were maxed in L4D and I was getting about 75fps instead of my usual 80. Now that I have a GTX285 though (admittedly with a decent OC as well), I rarely dip below 90fps, and generally I'm doing about 120fps, so perhaps the solution would be to go with a 24" monitor and a GTX285, budget allowing.

EDIT: Make sure to see what NCIXUS.com has for LCD's. For about $10 you can get their amazing Express Coverage policy, which includes cross-shipping replacements and a zero-dead-pixel policy. It's full of win.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Hauk
As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

Why would that be? 22" and 24" is nearly the same pixel pitch at native resolution.

Did you quote the wrong person or something?

Pixel pitch is an attribute of the panel, not the resolution (you can't change pixel pitch).

Just as an example, two Dell monitors with 1680x1050 resolution have very different pixel pitch:
2009W: 0.258mm
2208WFP: 0.282mm
And the 24" 19x12 is different than both of those:
2408WFP: 0.270mm

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: destrekor
And don't worry. Eventually even that res at decent IQ settings will be a struggle for that card, and even the top end cards. Games progress. So by having a decent res but not a super high-res, you're providing more time with quality graphics with the games to come.

I just picked up a 1680x1050 22" monitor myself, and a GTX 285. I'll be happy for awhile, and very excited about that. Current top-graphics games I should be able to run at max settings and maybe throw in some AA/AF (depending on the game/engine).

um, if you have a gtx 285 then you should be able to play just about anything currently available at max details and AA/AF.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Hauk
As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

Why would that be? 22" and 24" is nearly the same pixel pitch at native resolution.

Did you quote the wrong person or something?

Pixel pitch is an attribute of the panel, not the resolution (you can't change pixel pitch).

Just as an example, two Dell monitors with 1680x1050 resolution have very different pixel pitch:
2009W: 0.258mm
2208WFP: 0.282mm
And the 24" 19x12 is different than both of those:
2408WFP: 0.270mm

No not really. Considering 22" and 24" isn't far off far as pixel pitch goes why would he need less AA just because you run higher resolutions? Higher resolutions does not mean less aliasing. Lower pixel pitch does.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Using my GTX260 Core216 on a 22" 1680x1050 LCD and loving it. I can crank AA/AF all the way up in most games

 

[Omerta]

The 260 should be great for that res, but you could get away with a 4850 if you wanted to save some cash.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Hauk
As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

Why would that be? 22" and 24" is nearly the same pixel pitch at native resolution.

Did you quote the wrong person or something?

Pixel pitch is an attribute of the panel, not the resolution (you can't change pixel pitch).

Just as an example, two Dell monitors with 1680x1050 resolution have very different pixel pitch:
2009W: 0.258mm
2208WFP: 0.282mm
And the 24" 19x12 is different than both of those:
2408WFP: 0.270mm

No not really. Considering 22" and 24" isn't far off far as pixel pitch goes why would he need less AA just because you run higher resolutions? Higher resolutions does not mean less aliasing. Lower pixel pitch does.

Uhh... anti-aliasing is by definition a shortcut method to make lower resolutions look like higher resolutions.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Hauk
As Chizow mentioned, AA is a factor. At 22" I used 4xAA, but with 24" 2xAA is enough.

Plus... consider you'll be able to grab a 2nd 260 for cheap in a few months. 260 SLI will do very well with 1900 x 1200. An i7 platform offers excellent multi-gpu scaling!

Why would that be? 22" and 24" is nearly the same pixel pitch at native resolution.

Did you quote the wrong person or something?

Pixel pitch is an attribute of the panel, not the resolution (you can't change pixel pitch).

Just as an example, two Dell monitors with 1680x1050 resolution have very different pixel pitch:
2009W: 0.258mm
2208WFP: 0.282mm
And the 24" 19x12 is different than both of those:
2408WFP: 0.270mm

No not really. Considering 22" and 24" isn't far off far as pixel pitch goes why would he need less AA just because you run higher resolutions? Higher resolutions does not mean less aliasing. Lower pixel pitch does.

Uhh... anti-aliasing is by definition a shortcut method to make lower resolutions look like higher resolutions.

what he said is correct. for example a 20inch with 1680x1050 would be sharper due to tighter pixel pitch than a 27inch at 1920x1200. it is actually the pixel pitch that matters.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Uh, no, you're both high on something. If you run a higher resolution you need less AA to have the same sharpness. That is *what* anti-aliasing *is*...

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
Uh, no, you're both high on something. If you run a higher resolution you need less AA to have the same sharpness. That is *what* anti-aliasing *is*...

you dont have a clue do you? so using your logic a 28 inch monitor at 1920x1200 would not need AA compared to a 20 inch at 1680x1050? lol.

ITS THE PIXEL PITCH that actually determines whether the picture is sharp or not. if you took two different size monitors with the same resolution the smaller monitor would be sharper.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I don't have a clue? That's rich.

I don't disagree that smaller pixel pitch gives you some increased sharpness, but it's at a cost (everything is smaller).

Are you guys really arguing against the commonly held conception that you need less AA with a higher resolution? Given the choice between upgrading from a 16x10 panel to either a 19x12 panel with the same pixel pitch or a 16x10 panel with smaller pixel pitch you'd choose the smaller 16x10? No. Resolution trumps all.

A smaller pixel pitch is roughly equivalent to putting more distance between you and your monitor. The physical distance between pixels on your screen is *completely relative* to how far away you are. Please try to tell me that resolution is affected in the same way. Please try to tell me that a 640x480 image with 4xAA is going to have the same level of detail as a 1920x1200 image with 4xAA if you just have the right pixel pitch. Sharpness is *not* the same thing as detail. With higher detail you need less sharpness to have an equivalently acceptable image.

 

[chizow]

Haven't read all the replies in detail, but Lokutus is right, increasing resolution reduces aliasing by increasing the number of samples, which is exactly what FSAA does, just using different sampling methods. An example would be using a fixed screen size then comparing a lower resolution with half the samples, which would result in a much more aliased image. FSAA uses various methods but ultimately does the same thing by increasing number of internal samples and then scaling the render output to the target resolution.