Will My Graphics card play games at 1680x1050???

Redisle · 04-10-2006 03:46PM #1

Okay im buying this monitor from komplett either today or tomorrow.Its a pretty good monitor for the price as far as i can tell and the reviews are all good.
What im wondering is if my card will play games, especially bf2 at the monitors native res??? I know i could set a lower res and let the image stretch but id like the option of using native res. My card is an x800gto. I got this when i built my pc back in february and it was a good enough card then but i fear it may not do games so well at high res.

So does anyone know??
Will my card play games okay at high res(i dont use aa usually) or will it fail miserably and get shocking fps?
I dont really have the cash for a new card at the mo and with dx10 around the corner i dont know if there would be a point in a new card.....

By the way im running an A64 3700 and 1gb ram,

Thanks for any help,
ab

PogMoThoin · 04-10-2006 03:58PM

It'll be under pressure. You'll have 2 turn all the settings down & will only get an average framerate that will be just about playable. Upgrade time i think :mad:
Here's a guide, fastest to slowest gpu: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/index.cfm?a=wiki&tag=rmp_vds

Edit: its a slower gpu than my old 6800, that struggled to play games @ 1280x1024 with some settings turned off, so i'd have say "no it wont" Do you have a sli or xfire mobo?

Redisle · 04-10-2006 04:06PM

/crap..... I cant afford a new card right now... Ive bin saving for this monitor for ages.It would be another 2 months before id have enough cash for a new gpu.....and i was thinking of upgrading the processor to a dual core......

I spose i could chance a low res because i have read that this particular monitor is very good at stretching the image.

Thanks for the (depressing:D )reply

SouperComputer · 04-10-2006 04:09PM

It depends on the game and the level of detail you want really.

GLQuake 1 should be fine, but as they say "your mileage may vary"

PogMoThoin · 04-10-2006 04:11PM

Just play at a lower res & write your letter to Santa.......:D

Redisle · 04-10-2006 04:16PM

SouperComputer wrote:

It depends on the game and the level of detail you want really.

GLQuake 1 should be fine, but as they say "your mileage may vary"

I play bf2 mostly tbh, and cs but id say that will play fine.

Redisle · 04-10-2006 04:17PM

PogMoThoin wrote:

Just play at a lower res & write your letter to Santa.......:D

lol

Endurance Man · 04-10-2006 05:39PM

ab_cork wrote:

I play bf2 mostly tbh, and cs but id say that will play fine.

I hope u mean cs 1.6.

TerrorFirmer · 04-10-2006 06:38PM

You'd have to run games at fairly low settings in alot of cases to get smooth gameplay at native res. Ideally with a monitor that big you'd want an X1800/7800 + to play at native res with options on high.

Redisle · 04-10-2006 06:44PM

O, thats a pity... Would you guys recommend me get a smaller say 19' monitor so instead???? I really do like the look of that 20' one though.....

PogMoThoin · 04-10-2006 06:48PM

I'd get the monitor anyway, upgrade the gpu later. You can always play at a lower res in a window.

TerrorFirmer · 04-10-2006 06:52PM

I'd just play at 1024x768 or whatever, with options on high and let the image stretch....will look better then a game running at high native res and low options to be honest, at least until you can afford a new card

Redisle · 04-10-2006 07:02PM

HavoK wrote:

I'd just play at 1024x768 or whatever, with options on high and let the image stretch....will look better then a game running at high native res and low options to be honest, at least until you can afford a new card

ya i might just do that.Id say id be able to get enough cash for an x1900 in maybe 6 weeks or so. I spose I could make do with stretch till then....

ceejay · 05-10-2006 12:01PM

That monitor is lovely. I got mine last week from Komplett. It stretches the images pretty well. I only have one stuck pixel which I hardly ever notice, and minimal backlight bleed at the bottom left. My XBox360 looks fabulous over the VGA connector. I'd definitely recommend it. My only gripe is that it always stretches the image, even for non-widescreen resolutions - which is what I'm stuck with on my PC for the moment

Amazing how quick you get used to it though - it's like watching 4:3 pictures on a widescreen telly, everyone looks fat

Ciarán.

Redisle · 10-10-2006 10:25PM

Just an update on this.. i got this monitor and i can run games perfectly with my existing card. Im running counter strike source at 1680x1050 with 4xaa and im getting an average of 60fps!(from the stress test). I do have the graphics card overclocked though using the bundled software. Its running at Mem:553mhz and core:400. Now I dont think that is half bad for this card!!! And bf2 is running perfectly too and oblivion.... so no need for an upgrade just yet.....

Endurance Man · 11-10-2006 12:47AM

ab_cork wrote:

Just an update on this.. i got this monitor and i can run games perfectly with my existing card. Im running counter strike source at 1680x1050 with 4xaa and im getting an average of 60fps!(from the stress test). I do have the graphics card overclocked though using the bundled software. Its running at Mem:553mhz and core:400. Now I dont think that is half bad for this card!!! And bf2 is running perfectly too and oblivion.... so no need for an upgrade just yet.....

60fps in the stress test is utter ****e tbh

, your in-game performance must be woeful on a 20slot server. Lower the resolution and turn all the fancy crap off, fps is the key to this game.

TerrorFirmer · 11-10-2006 12:50AM

ab_cork wrote:

Just an update on this.. i got this monitor and i can run games perfectly with my existing card. Im running counter strike source at 1680x1050 with 4xaa and im getting an average of 60fps!(from the stress test). I do have the graphics card overclocked though using the bundled software. Its running at Mem:553mhz and core:400. Now I dont think that is half bad for this card!!! And bf2 is running perfectly too and oblivion.... so no need for an upgrade just yet.....

Obviously if you're running at that res with your x800gto, there is no way you are running settings on high as well, especially not with the likes of Oblivion.

CS:S, you would get away with easily alright, the source engine can run on quite literally any piece of sh1t card....I used to get about 100fps on my old vanilla x800 as well with options on high

Endurance Man · 11-10-2006 02:01AM

HavoK wrote:

Obviously if you're running at that res with your x800gto, there is no way you are running settings on high as well, especially not with the likes of Oblivion.

CS:S, you would get away with easily alright, the source engine can run on quite literally any piece of sh1t card....I used to get about 100fps on my old vanilla x800 as well with options on high

You are joking right? CSS is very demanding and temperamental when it comes to system specs. I have gone through numerous differnt system setups to get the game to run at a consistent 100fps and it aint easy. If he was playing at all low settings with a lower res he would get better fps, but its still not gonna be up to wat u need if u leet ;o.

insight driver · 11-10-2006 02:22AM

Endurance Man wrote:

You are joking right? CSS is very demanding and temperamental when it comes to system specs. I have gone through numerous differnt system setups to get the game to run at a consistent 100fps and it aint easy. If he was playing at all low settings with a lower res he would get better fps, but its still not gonna be up to wat u need if u leet ;o.

While I do agree with you, some players prefer the eye candy and don't mind the slower play, especially if they are playing single-player mode against AI in the game. It's a totally different experience playing online where you had better have the highest frame rates you can get or you will be getting blown away without even seeing what hit you.

TerrorFirmer · 11-10-2006 11:36AM

Endurance Man wrote:

You are joking right? CSS is very demanding and temperamental when it comes to system specs. I have gone through numerous differnt system setups to get the game to run at a consistent 100fps and it aint easy. If he was playing at all low settings with a lower res he would get better fps, but its still not gonna be up to wat u need if u leet ;o.

Not joking? I'm not a CS:S Fan at all but when I played it a few times online, I played a few levels at 1024x768 with 4x AA and Af, all settings and reflections on high, easily got between 50-100fps depending on where I was, the Source engine runs extremely well on anything remotely decent.

I even got 30fps at medium settings on an integrated X200 card on a laptop.

If you feel like you have to get 100fps consistantly, that's silly. While I'm not one to argue the whole "You don't need more then 30fps...etc etc.." anything above 40-45fps is just nit picking really, I've played CS:S at 30fps on a friends computer and still kicked a decent amount of ass.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 11-10-2006 12:39PM

Endurance Man wrote:

Lower the resolution and turn all the fancy crap off, fps is the key to this game.

As someone who plays an unhealthy amount of CS:S at 1680x1050, I have to disagree with dropping the resolution.
While I agree FPS is extremely important, having a nice high res like that makes long range shooting a lot more comfortable... easier to ID targets and zero-in on their head.
I've tried dropping the resolution to improve FPS, but went back to my native 1680 because:
a). My non-native LCD resolutions look a bit crap and fuzzy.
b). The only 16:10 ratio resolution I have available in Source is 1680x1050... the rest are 16:9 and 4:3 ... so I either have black bars at either side of the monitor or a streched aspect ratio that doesn't fit with the mouse x/y ratio and really fúcks with my head.
c). The performance increase in my case was negligible, tbh I think I'm more CPU bottlenecked in CSS... even at 640x480 Aztec dips to ~50fps, which is about the same as I get at 1680.

Endurance Man wrote:

60fps in the stress test is utter ****e tbh

I'm wondering could the issue here be v-sync capping it to 60fps... in which case I'd ignore the stress test completely to begin with.
But yeah I definitely agree with this, the stress test isn't a good basis to go on at all... there's way more system overhead in a busy online server.

I've got a similarly 'bleh' card at the moment (6600GT) and I find killing all the eye candy just about does the job... dx7, no bumpmaps, no specular, no AA, no AF, mid models, mid textures, no shadows.
If I set to all max, it's completely unplayable at 1680, and the lower resolutions do perform better with the fancy settings on, but once you kill all the eye-candy, there's very little to be gained by dropping resolution... at least in my case with my system.
I've got fps_max capped at 80 to reduce the wild fluctuations in fps... it regularly dips to the 50's in busy scenes, but it's still nowhere near as bad as dropping to 50 from 130fps.
I find my mouse movement slows noticably when the big fps dips happen, so I'd end up aiming just short of target... like I'm randomly switching mouse sensitivity, so I reckon a stable framerate is just as important as a high fps.

By-the-by, OP if you're reading this, I've found disabling v-sync helps a lot if you're feeling mouse/monitor-laggy... took me a month of owning an LCD to figure that one out

Endurance Man · 11-10-2006 01:25PM

HavoK wrote:

Not joking? I'm not a CS:S Fan at all but when I played it a few times online, I played a few levels at 1024x768 with 4x AA and Af, all settings and reflections on high, easily got between 50-100fps depending on where I was, the Source engine runs extremely well on anything remotely decent.

I even got 30fps at medium settings on an integrated X200 card on a laptop.

If you feel like you have to get 100fps consistantly, that's silly. While I'm not one to argue the whole "You don't need more then 30fps...etc etc.." anything above 40-45fps is just nit picking really, I've played CS:S at 30fps on a friends computer and still kicked a decent amount of ass.

If you where a cs fan you would realise you are infact joking

. What you might consider decent fps, a good player would consider terrible. Not being a cs player means you dont fully understand whats needed to become good.
I can never understand why some people would rather have all the shiny bits turned on, rather than the game running nice and smooth.

Donkey= You have to really run the game at the monitors native resolution which kinda sucks for you :P, if you have your crosshair size set to something like 1900 that long range shooting isnt a problem at any res. Its just a case of getting the correct size for the resolution.
And dont be playing with dx7

, its considered a hack in most parts of this cs world.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 11-10-2006 01:48PM

Endurance Man wrote:

And dont be playing with dx7 , its considered a hack in most parts of this cs world.

I've heard someone mention something about that alright (we're talking mat_dxlevel 70 here)... why is it considered a hack exactly?

Actually, I thought you were the one who posted on the CS forum telling people to use DX7 for performance reasons

Anyway, I couldn't give a shíte, I don't play in leagues or anything... I'm sure if it's really a hack Valve will sort it out (sure, like they fix everything else right?

:rolleyes:)
Honestly though, I can't say I've noticed much of a difference.

PS. I use cl_crosshairscale 2200 ... feckin thing was waaaay too big by default on 1680 :eek:

Endurance Man · 11-10-2006 01:57PM

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I've heard someone mention something about that alright (we're talking mat_dxlevel 70 here)... why is it considered a hack exactly?
Actually, I thought you were the one who posted on the CS forum telling people to use DX7 for performance reasons
Anyway, I couldn't give a shíte, I don't play in leagues or anything... I'm sure if it's really a hack Valve will sort it out (sure, like they fix everything else right? :rolleyes:)
Honestly though, I can't say I've noticed much of a difference.

Yup, when i first got the game about a year ago i was told to run at dx7 as my system was poo at the time. I thought grand and played away not realising the changes from dx8/9.
Once i did get a good card and set it to 8 i realised that flashes do bugger all when using dx7. You got none of the blurred effect after the flash has worn away, basically you're flashed for half the time.
There are a few other bugs which i dont fully understand but it has to do with you being able to see opponents before they can see you :S.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 11-10-2006 02:05PM

There are a few bugs to which i dont fully understand but it has to do with you being able to see opponents before they can see you

Pfff, sure interp will do that aswell... I've lost count of the number of times I've been shot and killed by someone before they've even rounded the corner.
Interesting though, think I'll playback some of my demos in different DX modes and see if I can spot the difference.

TerrorFirmer · 11-10-2006 02:10PM

I didn't know Dx7 disabled the flash effects but it does disable alot of the lighting effects, but to be honest the difference isn't that big and it provides a great boost if you are using a really crap system.

You can even run Source on the GMA900 if you run it in Dx7 mode....:eek:

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 11-10-2006 04:22PM

HavoK wrote:

I didn't know Dx7 disabled the flash effects but it does disable alot of the lighting effects, but to be honest the difference isn't that big and it provides a great boost if you are using a really crap system.

I know this thread has gone off in a huuge tangent at this stage, but I got curious about the difference and did a split-screen avi of the same demo... one side in dx7, the other in dx9.
The quality on youtube is shít, but you get an idea of how the flashbangs differ between the two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIuhq8xJTdU
Not a whole lot of difference IMO.

Redisle · 11-10-2006 06:40PM

ya wow this has gone totally off the point.... ah well

Will My Graphics card play games at 1680x1050???

Comments