Video Card for new gaming PC at 1280x1024

[crisium]

Now hear me out, I will defend lower resolutions. You save a ton of money by being able to use lower end hardware. I would hardly call a lower resolution an inferior experience - it's just less sharp. I game on a CRT for this reason - I do 1920x1080 when I can and lower when I cannot.

BUT, 5:4 ratio is inferior. It puts you at a disadvantage even for casual play. You are missing a significant portion of the playing field. Even for single player, you are gonna be missing enemies and environments off to the side that you should be able to see.

So for games optimized for widescreen - letterbox it to 1280x720. There. It's less demanding pixels to push than even 1280x1024, so that argument is furthered. It also provides you with far, far, better viewing angles. If that's too much black bars, at least do 1280x800. But FPS at 5:4 is not an option.

 

[toyota]

I also game on 1280x1080 I see nothing wrong with it, I can definitely appreciate people playing on wide screen with higher rez but if you just casual gaming, 1280 is fine.

besides with 1280 you don't need to upgrade gcard as often. but one trick to make 1280 look better is to turn on about 4xAA. I can usually max out every eye candy setting in games and that puts the bottleneck on the gcard, if I had a very high rez I might have to turn down visual settings just to get decent frame rate. so it's a toss up as to which is better visually.

casual gaming? the op is looking to max out AAA games and has a new quad core system. the resolution isnt the main complaint, its that ridiculous 5:4 aspect ratio thats the main issue for the op. anybody that looks at the screenshot I posted and still thinks 1280x1024 is acceptable for modern high end gaming is clearly just in denial.

 

[rancherlee]

Gaming on 1280x1024 is fine, it depends on how the game renders the scene. Some games I play you actually see MORE with the 5:4 ratio since you get the same width of view but you GAIN more height in view. On the other hand some game cut the sides off to give you the same height as a wide screen. A 5770 is more than enough for that screen. I would also go with 5770 + cheap widescreen monitor over a 5850. I picked up an Acer 23" 1920x1080 for 139$ at Best Buy last month for gaming on my Xbox 360, pretty decent monitor for the price. You can Always add another 5770 later for some extra power since they scale VERY good in crossfire. Recent test have shown that 5770 + 5770 is slightly better than a 5870 in most cases which is odd since the 5770 is basically 1/2 a 5870.

 

[toyota]

Gaming on 1280x1024 is fine, it depends on how the game renders the scene. Some games I play you actually see MORE with the 5:4 ratio since you get the same width of view but you GAIN more height in view. On the other hand some game cut the sides off to give you the same height as a wide screen. A 5770 is more than enough for that screen. I would also go with 5770 + cheap widescreen monitor over a 5850. I picked up an Acer 23" 1920x1080 for 139$ at Best Buy last month for gaming on my Xbox 360, pretty decent monitor for the price. You can Always add another 5770 later for some extra power since they scale VERY good in crossfire. Recent test have shown that 5770 + 5770 is slightly better than a 5870 in most cases which is odd since the 5770 is basically 1/2 a 5870.

you will never see more at 1280 as opposed to a widescreen in a modern game with properly done widescreen. 5:4 even cuts down on what you see compared to 4:3. going wider will always just ad more to the sides if properly done which is almost always the case in any game made in the last few years. now Bioshock and Far Cry 2 screwed that up but they were patched to give the proper view.

 

[crisium]

Gaming on 1280x1024 is fine, it depends on how the game renders the scene. Some games I play you actually see MORE with the 5:4 ratio since you get the same width of view but you GAIN more height in view. On the other hand some game cut the sides off to give you the same height as a wide screen. A 5770 is more than enough for that screen. I would also go with 5770 + cheap widescreen monitor over a 5850. I picked up an Acer 23" 1920x1080 for 139$ at Best Buy last month for gaming on my Xbox 360, pretty decent monitor for the price. You can Always add another 5770 later for some extra power since they scale VERY good in crossfire. Recent test have shown that 5770 + 5770 is slightly better than a 5870 in most cases which is odd since the 5770 is basically 1/2 a 5870.

Right, that's why if you have 1280x1024 you option select. In old games when 4:3 is best, letterbox 1280x960 (or native 1024, though I doubt 5:4 was ever ideal). In newer games, especially most FPS from ~2007 on, 16:9 is best. So letterbox 1280x720, or 1280x800 (16:10 - close enough). But if you play Crysis at 1280x1024 not only are you seeing less of the game, but it's pushing more pixels than if you letterboxed it.

I could totally see this being practical. For general desktop use 1280x1024 isn't bad at all. But if you are gonna play new FPS at that then I just don't understand.

 

[lopri]

Step up and get a 23~24" monitor before you pull the trigger on a $300 video card. You'll not want to go back to 1280x1024.

 

[zerocool84]

Step up and get a 23~24" monitor before you pull the trigger on a $300 video card. You'll not want to go back to 1280x1024.

I saw the light and I want to preach to others to convert. It's so much damn better even for web browsing.

 

[KMKTEXAN]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I think I will get a widescreen monitor. Narrowed it down to these 2:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236050

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236051

One's 1920x1080 (16:10). Other's 1680x1050 (16:9).

Will be getting a 5850 card.

Any ideas which would be best?

 

[cbn]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I think I will get a widescreen monitor. Narrowed it down to these 2:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236050

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236051

One's 1920x1080 (16:10). Other's 1680x1050 (16:9).

Will be getting a 5850 card.

Any ideas which would be best?

I would get the 1080p monitor (ie, 1920 x1080).

 

[cbn]

Step up and get a 23~24" monitor before you pull the trigger on a $300 video card. You'll not want to go back to 1280x1024.

I am actually amazed by the sheer number of video card questions we get on this forum that involve 1280x1024. Apparently it is still a very popular resolution.

 

[toyota]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I think I will get a widescreen monitor. Narrowed it down to these 2:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236050

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236051

One's 1920x1080 (16:10). Other's 1680x1050 (16:9).

Will be getting a 5850 card.

Any ideas which would be best?

the 1920x1080 is 16:9 and 1680x1050 is 16:10. I would certainly go with a 1080 monitor over a 1680x1050 one. personally I would get something larger than 21.5" for a 16:9 monitor though. you will be surprised at how small that monitor is if you get it. that will not even be as physically tall as a 17 inch 1280x1024 monitor.

 

[kalrith]

Definitely go with 1920x1080. This monitor dips down to $170 every once in a while.

 

[Occ]

Isn't 22 inches a bit small for 1920x1080? Seems like 1680x1050 would be a more reasonable resolution for 22" (basically take a 19" 1280x1024 and increase it's width) and 24"+ more reasonable for 1920x1080.

 

[kalrith]

Isn't 22 inches a bit small for 1920x1080? Seems like 1680x1050 would be a more reasonable resolution for 22" (basically take a 19" 1280x1024 and increase it's width) and 24"+ more reasonable for 1920x1080.

Well, it really depends on the OP's viewing distance. If he's 2' from a 21.5" screen, then that's a 42.7° viewing angle, which will be quite immersive. If he's 3' away, then that puts him at a 29.2° viewing angle, and he'd be better served with at least a 27" screen.

I just got a 31.5" screen at 2' - 2.5' away (I'll measure tonight), which would yield a 50-60° viewing angle. It's a bit much at that distance, but I plan on wall-mounting it in the near future and scooting my desk back 6-12". I didn't get it all set up until midnight last night, so I haven't gotten the chance to game on it yet. I might get used to it and just leave it where it is, although I doubt it.

So, OP, what's your viewing distance?

 

[toyota]

Well, it really depends on the OP's viewing distance. If he's 2' from a 21.5" screen, then that's a 42.7° viewing angle, which will be quite immersive. If he's 3' away, then that puts him at a 29.2° viewing angle, and he'd be better served with at least a 27" screen.

I just got a 31.5" screen at 2' - 2.5' away (I'll measure tonight), which would yield a 50-60° viewing angle. It's a bit much at that distance, but I plan on wall-mounting it in the near future and scooting my desk back 6-12". I didn't get it all set up until midnight last night, so I haven't gotten the chance to game on it yet. I might get used to it and just leave it where it is, although I doubt it.

So, OP, what's your viewing distance?

a 21.5 inch 16:9 monitor is going to have a screen thats less than 11 inches tall so that is physically quite small. not to mention that many people might have issue with text on a monitor that small with a res of 1920x1080.

 

[kalrith]

a 21.5 inch 16:9 monitor is going to have a screen thats less than 11 inches tall so that is physically quite small. not to mention that many people might have issue with text on a monitor that small with a res of 1920x1080.

Again, people are focusing on only 2 of the 3 variables when it comes to how large things appear on the screen. The 3 variables are as follows:

1. Screen size (duh)
2. Resolution (duh)
3. Viewing distance (this one's missing from many threads I see)

Try reading text or gaming on a 200" screen with 1920x1080 resolution from 150 feet away, and then tell me that viewing distance doesn't matter. Then try reading the same text or gaming on a 21.5" screen with 1920x1080 resolution from 6" away. You won't even be able to see the massive 200" screen from that distance; and the teeny, tiny 21.5" screen will have too large of a font and be so close that your gaming will suffer from having to look back and forth.

I see this same generalization about screen size and resolution when people say stupid things about TVs like, "Any screen size smaller than 50" doesn't need 1080p." Well, my 32" TV needs 1080p since I'm less than 3 feet away from it.

What you want to achieve for maximum immersion (and also readability of text) with a 1080p TV or monitor is about a 36° viewing angle (some prefer more and some less, but 32-40° would be a good range). The viewing angle takes into account all 3 variables and does not make claims based on just 2 of them. Input your viewing distance and screen size into this calculator and choose 16:9 for your aspect ratio. It will tell you what your current viewing angle is and what viewing distance you need to achieve a 36° viewing angle.

OP, once you have your viewing distance and enter it into that calculator, you'll see the screen size necessary to get a 36° viewing angle. Around that screen size will allow you to benefit the greatest from a monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution.

 

[toyota]

Again, people are focusing on only 2 of the 3 variables when it comes to how large things appear on the screen. The 3 variables are as follows:

1. Screen size (duh)
2. Resolution (duh)
3. Viewing distance (this one's missing from many threads I see)

Try reading text or gaming on a 200" screen with 1920x1080 resolution from 150 feet away, and then tell me that viewing distance doesn't matter. Then try reading the same text or gaming on a 21.5" screen with 1920x1080 resolution from 6" away. You won't even be able to see the massive 200" screen from that distance; and the teeny, tiny 21.5" screen will have too large of a font and be so close that your gaming will suffer from having to look back and forth.

I see this same generalization about screen size and resolution when people say stupid things about TVs like, "Any screen size smaller than 50" doesn't need 1080p." Well, my 32" TV needs 1080p since I'm less than 3 feet away from it.

What you want to achieve for maximum immersion (and also readability of text) with a 1080p TV or monitor is about a 36° viewing angle (some prefer more and some less, but 32-40° would be a good range). The viewing angle takes into account all 3 variables and does not make claims based on just 2 of them. Input your viewing distance and screen size into this calculator and choose 16:9 for your aspect ratio. It will tell you what your current viewing angle is and what viewing distance you need to achieve a 36° viewing angle.

OP, once you have your viewing distance and enter it into that calculator, you'll see the screen size necessary to get a 36° viewing angle. Around that screen size will allow you to benefit the greatest from a monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution.

I was just saying that 21.5 may sound big to someone that has a 17 or even 19 inch monitor. some people never think about the aspect ratio and only look at the size of the screen in the description. the reality of it is that a 16:9 is going to be smaller height wise than what he already has. in fact it will be much smaller if he has a 19 inch 1280x1024 at the moment.

 

[zerocool84]

Put in the different sizing in this calculator.

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

 

[toyota]

Put in the different sizing in this calculator.

http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

that doesnt have 5:4 though if he wanted to directly compare.

 

[zerocool84]

that doesnt have 5:4 though if he wanted to directly compare.

Oh didn't even notice that.

 

[Occ]

Well, it really depends on the OP's viewing distance. If he's 2' from a 21.5" screen, then that's a 42.7° viewing angle, which will be quite immersive. If he's 3' away, then that puts him at a 29.2° viewing angle, and he'd be better served with at least a 27" screen.

Right... but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted. Selecting an optimal pairing of size and resolution is separate (at best, tangential) from the consideration of selecting an optimal pairing of size in relation to viewing angle. I think you got sidetracked in your reply, because in both cases you must first determine viewing distance.

toyota is making an excellent point. At the OP's current viewing distance, he has a 19" 1280x1024. At that same distance, a 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor will not only be shorter physically (toyota's point), objects on the screen will be significantly smaller (my point). The advantages of getting a 22" 1680x1050 monitor are, ideally, that it will remain the same physical height as his current monitor and the objects on the screen will remain close to the same size, therefore requiring no adjustment of his viewing distance. This gives the replacement process a natural feel with no need for adjustments or a period of adaptation.

Following this logic, there must be a size of monitor paired with the 1920x1080 resolution that will have the same effect. I am assuming 24" or thereabouts will provide this, but wasn't sure, hence my earlier post.

 

[KMKTEXAN]

I decided on the 22" at 1680x1050. I mainly play games and browse. My wife emails with some business mixed in. Probably should get something with text that can be read more easily. Unfortunately, I only have room on my desk for something this size.

Will clearly be a step up from 17" at 1280x1024.

 

[toyota]

I decided on the 22" at 1680x1050. I mainly play games and browse. My wife emails with some business mixed in. Probably should get something with text that can be read more easily. Unfortunately, I only have room on my desk for something this size.

Will clearly be a step up from 17" at 1280x1024.

so what video card did you decide on?

 

[KMKTEXAN]

so what video card did you decide on?

5850

 

[toyota]

5850

you will be set for quite a while at 1680x1050 with that card and your new build.