Interesting results, but not unexpected. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080p reigns supreme by far, and 1680x1050 is as common as ultra HD resolutions AND multi-monitor setups combined.
Which goes to show, hardocp releasing data game performance at 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 is a relatively uncommon resolution, and given that their performance figures are always borderline playable at the settings they run at, it just goes to show why I rarely visit their site first for information I want graphics performance.
Interesting results, but not unexpected. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080p reigns supreme by far, and 1680x1050 is as common as ultra HD resolutions AND multi-monitor setups combined.
Which goes to show, hardocp releasing data game performance at 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 is a relatively uncommon resolution, and given that their performance figures are always borderline playable at the settings they run at, it just goes to show why I rarely visit their site first for information I want graphics performance.
You do lose a bit of field of view, but not a substantial amount. 16:10 monitors are superior for productivity and forum trolling. I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 considering that I don't ONLY game on my machine.
2560x1600 here. I've considered a 120hz monitor but besides most of them being too small, they are also all TN panels.
Come on now tviceman. Now do a GPU poll and see how many users game with a GTX 580. [H] doing a review at 2560x1600 with a $500 GPU sounds about right. Why spend $500 when a $150 GPU will suffice for 1680x1050 and will do great in 95% of the games at 1080p?
First of all, I never once said anything anywhere about testing at 1680x1050. Your attempt to belittle my argument by exaggerating my point is noted though. Based on this open pole, it is very clear that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are the overwhelming popular resolution choices among most hardcore gamers here in this forum. 97/146, or about 2/3 of the participants, currently play at one of those two resolutions. But the point I was/am/still trying to make should be logically very clear.
What percentage of gamers do you think own either a gtx580 or hd6970? A low number.
What percentage of gamers do you think own either a 2560 x 1XXX or triple monitor setup? I'm guessing even lower.
And furthermore, out of those that own a gtx580 or hd6970, what percentage do you think own a monitor that drives ultra HD resolutions or have a surround setup? An extremely low and statistically worthless number.
I'd wager that significantly MORE gamers own either a gtx580 or hd6970 than an ultra HD resolution monitor and/OR a triple monitor setup for gaming. But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong (and I'm confident I am right), the percentage of gamers who have both a gtx580 or hd6970 AND an ultra HD setup is even lower. Case in point - they're testing for the 1/8 of 1% of gamers AND they're testing at settings which are clearly not what most gamers would consider to be fluid gameplay frame rates.
It's a good argument for the 6950 and maybe the GTX 570, but it seems like a lot of wasted quid for the top GPUs.
I don't disagree with this statement at all, but also made no inference to how setups are best built and what components are best paired together.
True but you inferred that [H], in their recent Deus: Ex preview, was trying to show AMD in the best light possible (read biased) or that they are completely out of touch with reality. My point was that 2560x1600 was a good resolution to test at if the game runs well and you're testing the top cards.
Inferred? I garantee it.
The evidence with all there reviews are staring you right in the face.
Step back and take a look, listen to there attitude, and form your own honest opinion.
Most of the reviews they do, sound like a AMD advertisement.
They have the only review in existance that puts a 6870 above a gtx560ti.
Sad but true.
They have all there readers brainwashed, I argue all the time over there that a 6950 is not faster than a gtx570.
Monitor is 1920x1200 native, but I don't play most games at that res. i don't play most games at that high of res in part because I only have 768MB of graphics memory and 24 ROPs. AA, effects quality, texture quality, and RGBA/D precision are much more important than high res.
However, most people disagree with me and think that resolution is everything and that AA, shader and fx quality, frame buffer precision, etc., are nothing, so that's why we're probably never going to see mandatory AA in console games. Instead, we'll see mandatory 1080p, a lot of aliasing, and RGB10A2/D24FX instead of RGBA16FP/D32FP.
True but you inferred that [H], in their recent Deus: Ex preview, was trying to show AMD in the best light possible (read biased) or that they are completely out of touch with reality. My point was that 2560x1600 was a good resolution to test at if the game runs well and you're testing the top cards.
Q to grooveriding: why are you still on those 3 x 480 fermi cards?
Q to grooveriding: why are you still on those 3 x 480 fermi cards?