• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Only 1.18% of Steam users use a resolution above 1920x1200! 660ti is overkill!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Keromyaou said:
I am among 1% then. But at this moment there is a huge gap in the price between 1920x1200 and 2560x1440 (or 1600). I can imagine that most of people hesitate to spend $600-1400 for a display (1440p, 1600p) when they can get the one (1080p 1200p) for $180-350.
Click to expand...

Not me, I love the extra screen real estate on my 27" 1440p. When I use a regular 1080p it feels "small" especially in the vertical department. Those extra pixels really make a difference... (Bring back the 16:10 1920x1200 resolution please...)
 
Erazor51 said:
Because most laptops and TV don't go above 1080p.
Click to expand...

Obviously. That doesn't change the fact that people are playing games at those resolutions, though, so doesn't change the fact that most modern cards are overkill for most gamers.
 
Did the OP honestly try and distinguish 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 as being vastly different resolutions in terms of necessary GPU power?
 
At 1080p, theres plenty of current games that crushes the best GPU. It matters when you want to max out the graphics, always has been like this, if you dont care and compromise, then no, it doesn't matter you dont need the top gpu.
 
Keromyaou said:
I am among 1% then. But at this moment there is a huge gap in the price between 1920x1200 and 2560x1440 (or 1600). I can imagine that most of people hesitate to spend $600-1400 for a display (1440p, 1600p) when they can get the one (1080p 1200p) for $180-350.
Click to expand...

Koream 27" IPS monitors were (I haven't looked lately) $300-$400 (2560x1440)
 
I really like my NEC 2560x1440 display. I know that it is worth to upgrade from 1080p to 1440p or 1600p. I also use my display for my work to make precise figures/pictures. I know the difference. I have heard about Korean displays. As far as I understand, the quality is sort of OK range. But the main-stream 1440p or 1600p displays are still very expensive for majority of people, I think. The price of main-stream 1440p/1600p displays (HP, ASUS, Acer, and so on) need to come down much further to make them a standard.

Another thing is that to stimulate development of high-end graphic cards, we need more 1440p/1600p users. Right now if you want to run games at 1080p (at 60Hz), one HD7950 or GTX670 is essentially enough for any games. Seriously I really don't think that we need GK110 if we are all stuck with 1080p. However if we move on to 1440p/1600p, GK110-class (and faster) cards suddenly become attractive. At this moment if you want to run all the available games at 1440p/1600p, you need at least two (or maybe three) HD7970/HD680. GK110-class (and faster) cards could run all the games without multi-gpu setups at 1440p/1600p.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Koream 27" IPS monitors were (I haven't looked lately) $300-$400 (2560x1440)
Click to expand...

I bought two of those, Achieva ShiMians, and have been very satisfied with them. Though, I do miss having the side mounted USB/Card readers that my old Dell panel had.
 
I know. That is why I put 60Hz as a condition for my previous statement. I am well aware of these things. As far as I understand, this thread is about most of people only run games for one display at less than 1920x1200 resolution. GK110 is for people who want to run games at much harder conditions than those lax condition at which majority of people play games. As far as I understand, people who run games at 120Hz, 3d, or 5760x1080 are minority as much as people who run games at 2560x1440 (1600). True 120Hz display, 3d display, and three display setup does cost far more money than one simple 1920x1080 (1200) display. Most of people don't invest a lot of money for their computers. I want GK110 class gpu because I have a need for it. But we (who wants to run games at 1440p/1600p, 3d, 3 panels, 120Hz, and so on) are unfortunately minority. For majority of people, GK110 is useless, I guess.

Game companies are trying to improve quality of images day by day. Surely new games require stronger gpus (for games such as Dirt Showdown, Sleeping Dogs). But as far as I trust benchmark, at 1920x1080, 60Hz, one 7950/670 seems to be enough even for those games. Then essentially almost 99% of people (which is from Steam's data) are covered by 7950/670. Both Nvidia/ATI need to make money. Then their focus should be a main body of their customers who want to run games at 1920x1080 (1200). To make them to shift their focus point to strong gpus such as GK110-class gpus, we need more stringent conditions as a standard. I feel that that would be 2560x1440 (1600). Higher resolution displays are useful for many things other than games. Therefore there is a possibility for general public to accept it gradually. If more people run computers at higher resolution, the quality of gpus will become better.
 
Who is talking about overkill? For me, I need to keep 60FPS at all times when using a 60Hz screen and Vsync on. If it drops under 60FPS it feels very laggy/sluggish for me.

Also, I like to play many games with no Vsync on due to much better respons in the games, this requires even more than 60FPS for me. Gaming on 100FPS feels very responsive and nice with no Vsync, for me at least. However, If I get much below 80FPS when using no Vsync I begin to notice alot of Screentearing and lag (This may sound strange as I have a 60Hz screen one should think there was more screentearing at 100FPS VS 70FPS when Vsync is off. This is not the case for me).

I don't know about others, but this is my experience. That is why I do not think 2x GTX 670 SLI is overkill for me, even if I use a 1920x1200 60Hz screen.

There are different opinions on what is playable for people. Some may be fine with drops down to 30FPS and call it silky smooth. This is not the case for me.

So OP's statement is not something I can agree with. And this is my own experience.

Edit: Another fact, in many bechmarks you see, they have used an internal benchmark for a particular game, or they have played a little using FRAPS or some other program to monitor min, max and average FPS. The problem with both these methods is that they only benchmark a few spots/scenarios in these games. So if a benchmark shows they had a minimum FPS of 63 FPS, it could infact drop much lower in other parts/scenarios of the game.
 
Last edited:
The_Golden_Man said:
Who is talking about overkill? For me, I need to keep 60FPS at all times when using a 60Hz screen and Vsync on. If it drops under 60FPS it feels very laggy/sluggish for me.

Also, I like to play many games with no Vsync on due to much better respons in the games, this requires even more than 60FPS for me. Gaming on 100FPS feels very responsive and nice with no Vsync, for me at least. However, If I get much below 80FPS when using no Vsync I begin to notice alot of Screentearing and lag (This may sound strange as I have a 60Hz screen one should think there was more screentearing at 100FPS VS 70FPS when Vsync is off. This is not the case for me).

I don't know about others, but this is my experience. That is why I do not think 2x GTX 670 SLI is overkill for me, even if I use a 1920x1200 60Hz screen.

There are different opinions on what is playable for people. Some may be fine with drops down to 30FPS and call it silky smooth. This is not the case for me.

So OP's statement is not something I can agree with. And this is my own experience.

Edit: Another fact, in many bechmarks you see, they have used an internal benchmark for a particular game, or they have played a little using FRAPS or some other program to monitor min, max and average FPS. The problem with both these methods is that they only benchmark a few spots/scenarios in these games. So if a benchmark shows they had a minimum FPS of 63 FPS, it could infact drop much lower in other parts/scenarios of the game.
Click to expand...

lol ure certainly in the minority mate. i don't think ur standards are the same as 99% of the market (yes i pulled that stat out my arse, but really u have ridiculously high expectations).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top