the uber cards (g71, X1900) - and your monitor

[flexy]

there are some opinions that it doesnt make sense to get a card like the X1900 if you have a monitor which doesnt support the mega resolutions like 1600@85hz or 1920.

My 19" already only does 70hz at 1600/1200....which i dont like...and my gaming resolution is a custom reso of 1360/1024 at 85hz.

From that point of view some people would say its insanity to even think about a mega card like g71/X1900XT and THEN running only 1280 or 1360 resos.

If i would ever consider this card(s) i would also need the monitor appropriate for this ! ANd btw. i am a CRT fan......so tell me what CRT does such amazing resolutions like 1600 or 1920 at least 80hz......add *at least* another $500 or so for the monitor otherwise the purchase of the new cards doesnt really make sense ?!

 

[Fadey]

i use my 7800gtx at 1280x960 even tho my crt can go 1920x1440 =P

 

[Munky]

I'm using a modded gto (x850xt pe basically), and I game at 1280x960. My display cannot do 1600x1200, so technically I dont need a faster vga card, but I still want one anyways. While I am tempted to pick up a x1900xt, I'm usually more interested in the bang/buck cards, so if I bought a x1900 right now, it would mostly be just for bragging. But if games even more demanding than FEAR come out in a few months, I may have to upgrade sooner than I originally planned.

 

[Fadey]

well the thing is if u crank up the settings in fear your resolution wont matter unless u have 2 cards any way... the fps gets alot loss, i run my fear everything max , 2xaa , 8x af no softshadows and i get 60ish average fps @ 1280x960

 

[CP5670]

If i would ever consider this card(s) i would also need the monitor appropriate for this ! ANd btw. i am a CRT fan......so tell me what CRT does such amazing resolutions like 1600 or 1920 at least 80hz......add *at least* another $500 or so for the monitor otherwise the purchase of the new cards doesnt really make sense ?!

Mitsubishi 2070SB, if you can still find one. It has extended brightness modes and does 2048x1536 at 85hz, which I'm comfortable with in games. I can run most newer games well at that resolution as long as I don't use AA and older games allow for varying degrees of AA as well. A couple of games like FEAR and COD2 need the resolution to be dropped down a lot lower though.

 

[gxsaurav]

i got a 17" Samsung CRT with FX5900XT, although it's old, but i don't play over 1024X768 for which this card still holds some potential,

most people buy new cards, but don't even have high res monitors to use them at full potential, i mean, lets have a poll of "what your gaming resolution & settings (AA/Anis)"

i wish nvidia releases 7600 soon

 

[Matt2]

I only game at 1280x1024, but I play with the settings cranked for maximum IQ. SLIAA, TRMSAA, TRSSAA, even my GT SLI gets a little scared sometimes at the settings I throw at it.

So I dont believe in the whole, "you have to game at 1900x1200 for it to make sense for you to have a high end card" belief.

To each his own I say, but my GT SLI is the perfect setup right now for the types of settings I like to play at, even if it is only at 1280x1024.

 

[Frostwake]

Yeah i think its pretty stupid to think "no ones gonna play at 1024x768 with a 500$+ card" because AA is there for something and your card wont be able to manage 1600x1200 for too long... and youll eventually reach a point where youll have to resort to 1024 again to get playable fps.. so unless youre rich i dont get the point

 

[moonboy403]

i think gaming at 1280x1024 w/ 4aa/16af
you NEED that much power

i can testify that cause i had 7800 gt sli which performs similarly to a single x1900 xt
and i had lag gaming at that resolution

 

[the Chase]

I have a Samsung 21" CRT that will do 1600x1200 at 85Hz. I still think at 85Hz there is too much flicker for me so I game at 1280x960 or lower and have the refresh at 100Hz or higher. I'm tired of turning down the settings and no or little AA in Bf2 or COD2(can't even imagine FEAR). So debating on the 1900XT but want to see what the new mid-range cards will do at 1280 or less in these games.

The 6800GS review on AT illustrates this point. He is running at 1280x1024 with AA and AF and only getting like mid-40's for an average frame rate(in Bf2). I guess he's allright with that and that's cool. But to me an average of mid 40's in an online FPS=pwnage!

What I really wish for is for more developement in the monitor area. Give us 1600x1200 at 140Hz!!(And a free Xfire or SLI system to run it).

 

[CP5670]

i think gaming at 1280x1024 w/ 4aa/16af
you NEED that much power

It really depends on what games you play and how long you keep your card(s). A couple of new games (FEAR and COD2) require high end cards even for lower resolutions and future games will also be taxing, but I play old games a lot and tend to upgrade once a year, so I wouldn't consider buying expensive video cards if I didn't have a high resolution monitor to back them up.

 

[Blackjack2000]

Originally posted by: Frostwake
Yeah i think its pretty stupid to think "no ones gonna play at 1024x768 with a 500$+ card" because AA is there for something and your card wont be able to manage 1600x1200 for too long... and youll eventually reach a point where youll have to resort to 1024 again to get playable fps.. so unless youre rich i dont get the point

I think it stems from the fact that hardware reviewers like Anandtech typically use very high resolutions to stress the cards and get meaningful comparisons when they're release. After a short time, games catch up to the cards and they will be plenty stressed by high settings, some AA and 1024.

 

[TSS]

my samsung 997MB 19"CRT does 1600x1200@75hertz, and im happy with that so ill be gaming at those resolutions. but even at 1280x1024 it would make sense to buy such a high card as a 1900xt or G71. why? ill tell ya.

i've never turned on AA with my TI4600. sick and tired of jaggies, so i'll use 4aa. then gaming at 1600x1200, according to the AT review in BF2 (which i'll play most) i should get around 72 frames per second, http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=8 linky for that. but as far as i know, thats AVERAGE frames. minimum frames should be like half of that. for 1280x960, average frames range into 90 fps. take half that for the minimum frame rate, you'll get 45. so even with the top of the line card, in a relatively low resolution (these days), it still wont be 100% fluent. therefor it still makes sense buying the best out there.

besides theres still games like FEAR that gets a 48 average resolution with 4aa on 16x12. and games are only gonna get heavyer and heavyer. so as far as im concirned, buy now, enjoy 4AA while it lasts, and upgrade again in a year or 1.5/2 when your card starts to choke. or go with a 250 dollar card, watch it choke already, then upgrade in a year again to watch another 250 dollar card choke and you'll spend rougly the same amount of money for watching cards choke, instead of having atleast some fluent gameplay.

 

[xtknight]

What people forget when they say omghax you need 2308x18038 to use a X1900 is that new games come out. Yes, believe it or not, new games might be more stressful than today's!

People said when I got my 7800GT that 1280x1024 was way too low to tax it. BS. Start up Battlefield 2, turn all the settings up, then enable transparent supersampling and tell me that again.

 

[Steelski]

I use 2048x1538 at 75hz on a Sony G500 to game on a 9800 pro in black and white (the game). A 1900 XT would be a very welcome edition.

 

[T101]

No matter if you do not run at the higher resolution, it still makes sense to have a powerful card (if you can afford it); Headroom. By having headroom in the performance, your card will last a little bit longer before you need to upgrade again, or you could crank up the details some more.

Xtknight: I too have got a 7800GT, and people said the same thing to me. Well, as it is now, I am beginning to feel that the 7800GT is barely enough to play at the resolution of 1280x1024. Check you the X3: Reunion rolling demo if you do not belive me. In the heaviest action this demo brings the 7800GT (single or in SLI, I have tried both, the SLI was not worth it) to it's knees screaming for mercy...
If this is the fault of the hardware or the game programmers I leave up to each and his own to decide. But take a look at CoD2, and the issue is the same. So either the 7800GT was not that good a card as it was supposed to, or the game programmers are doing some really bad optimizing these days....