Which benchmark resolution is the most relevant?

[The Mailman]

okay so i have a 1080p tv

which resolution in benchmarks should i be looking at

1600 x 1200 or 1920x1200

technically 1920x1080 (1080p) has less total pixels than either of these two....but are tv's and screen sizes a whole 'nother bag here? or what?

just need to know how i should be assessing reviews and what card to get


sub topic: speaking of which - will the 640mb version of the 8800gts improve vista performance at all? or are those megabytes only helpful in games?

 

[Aberforth]

the 8800 will no doubt improve performance in Vista, you also get 5.9 Graphics and Game rating in Windows Experience Index. I am playing Flight Simulator X with zero problems in Vista 64- it loads up much faster (maybe because of superfetch). The ideal resolution for running 3D Mark 06 is 1280 X 1024

 

[The Mailman]

you lost me at 5....

but...you're saying benchmarks rated at 1280x1024 are the most similar to the performance i should expect on my 1980x1080 display?

and the question was the about the ram on the 8800, not just the 8800 itself..

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: The Mailman
you lost me at 5....

but...you're saying benchmarks rated at 1280x1024 are the most similar to the performance i should expect on my 1980x1080 display?

and the question was the about the ram on the 8800, not just the 8800 itself..

The optimal benchmarks results for 3D mark 06 are obtained from 1280 resolution eventhough your card can handle 1980x1080. The video RAM of 8800 has a very major impact on performance. Vista Aero is GPU centric and lots of memory is required for texture processing if you run the OS at high resolutions.

Edit: don't buy 320 MB version though, you cannot play 4 month old games @ max in 1280

 

[The Mailman]

its not that my card can handle 1080x1080, its that it WILL be performing at that resolution at all times

i have a feeling there is a miscommunication in the question based on the wording of your answers...

are you talking about using 3D Mark for some reason, or the relevency of benchmarks at 1280 somehow being the same as my in game results playing at 1980x1080?? because that doesnt make sense

 

[The Mailman]

to dumb it down a bit because maybe im not using the correct terminology

if i see a posted benchmark of the 8800 playing, say, Oblivion maxed out with AA and all...

1980x1200 - Frames per second = 30
1600x1200 - Frames per second = 45

which of these two resolutions will perform similarly to 1980x1080, or will 1080p be even easier on the gpu?

 

[Aberforth]

right...1980x1200 - Frames per second = 30 will perform similarly to 1980x1080

will 1080p be even easier on the gpu?
nope

 

[Painman]

I've got a calculator, don't you? Of course you do. Accessories -> Calculator

1600*1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

Your answer should be clear...

 

[The Mailman]

Originally posted by: Painman
I've got a calculator, don't you? Of course you do. Accessories -> Calculator

1600*1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

Your answer should be clear...

my calc is apparently broken, lol


and i assume that 1600x1200 is the "clear" answer, it only being 153k different from 1080p than 230k

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: The Mailman
and i assume that 1600x1200 is the "clear" answer, it only being 153k different from 1080p than 230k

Basically, it's between 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 in terms of GPU load (which usually scales more or less linearly with the number of pixels being output).

An application running at 1920x1080(p) will be slower than at 1600x1200, but faster than at 1920x1200.

technically 1920x1080 (1080p) has less total pixels than either of these two...

Work on those calculator skills a little bit.