1680x1050 or 1920x1200 for a 9800GTX

Same · Jul 24, 2008

Im trying to decide between a 22" or a 24" monitor. If price is not a factor, which would be better? Would frame rates drop considerably in 1920x1200?

Automata · Jul 24, 2008

I did not notice a big drop in framerates going from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200. I love the extra space I get. If you have the money to drop on monitors, you will amaze yourself.

necrokiller · Jul 24, 2008

Thats a sweeet setup. Love that casing!!

What thideras said. If you have money for the monitor go for it. 9800GTX will be good enough for it.

Neuromancer · Jul 24, 2008

Yah. Got me a 24" widescreen CRt finally. Dude it drops buckets of poop on any LCD... but resolution wise... gotta go with more res then anything else... (at same hertz)

(9800 I think i read sucks at AA, thats a good thing, cause they took a note from ATI. AA is teh sux00rs. It makes a normally defined screen blurry. who wants that?) Benny? Check non AA specs only

(why ati should have dominated last few years but nV turned on and no one mentions cause everyone thinks AA is teh poop)

JMHO of course

Same · Jul 24, 2008

Wow thanks guys. I will surely go with the 24" then

Automata · Jul 24, 2008

Same said:
Wow thanks guys. I will surely go with the 24" then

That is a decision you will not regret

Blazing fire · Jul 24, 2008

Neur0mancer said:
(9800 I think i read sucks at AA, thats a good thing, cause they took a note from ATI. AA is teh sux00rs. It makes a normally defined screen blurry. who wants that?) Benny? Check non AA specs only (why ati should have dominated last few years but nV turned on and no one mentions cause everyone thinks AA is teh poop)

JMHO of course

I'm sorry but I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying nv makes blurry images with aa enabled and they learned from ati? Therefore enable AA to compare? And what's "the poop" and "jmno"?

necrokiller · Jul 24, 2008

(9800 I think i read sucks at AA, thats a good thing, cause they took a note from ATI. AA is teh sux00rs. It makes a normally defined screen blurry. who wants that?)

AA does not make things blurry...it makes the edges smoother, which is a GOOD thing.

Blazing fire said:
I'm sorry but I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying nv makes blurry images with aa enabled and they learned from ati? Therefore enable AA to compare? And what's "the poop" and "jmno"?

Im guessing he meant "everyone thinks AA is the ****" (sh*t, which is censored so he made it up) and by JMHO, "just my honest opinion".

Neuromancer · Jul 24, 2008

Blazing fire said:
I'm sorry but I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying nv makes blurry images with aa enabled and they learned from ati? Therefore enable AA to compare? And what's "the poop" and "jmno"?

The 2900/3800 series vid card s really took a hit in performacne once AA was enable.

They have fixed that issue.

nVidia seemingly had no hit in performance wit hte 8800 series.

Now the 9800 series they built a fast card, but it does not stay fast when AA is enabled. (Hence the "learned from ati" reference)

jobrien2001 · Jul 24, 2008

To the OP.... You should buy a 24 inch monitor, not really because of if your card can handle the resolution or not but because no 22inch can do that resolution. The extra desktop space is amazing if you work a lot at your comp. There are too many advantages to buying a 24 over a 22,

Besides, monitors usually last way longer than video cards. When you buy your next video card I doubt you want to be stuck at 1680x1050. And... do you really want to have to buy another monitor because you changed your next video card?

necrokiller · Jul 24, 2008

jobrien2001 said:
Besides, monitors usually last way longer than video cards. When you buy your next video card I doubt you want to be stuck at 1680x1050. And... do you really want to have to buy another monitor because you changed your next video card?

The idea is the same, you have to upgrade both things to justify your purchase. So in one way or the other, you are investing in something that will help your future video card purchase. Because at one point or the other, you would want something bigger than 24-inch.

In the end, if your budget allows, then currently there's no loss for you in any way.

chrome-187 · Jul 24, 2008

well i was in the same situation of the OP last week...but i bought a 22 inch 2ms LCD instead of the 24...1. 22' is plenty big enought...2. much cheaper...3. 1680x1050 is a really nice rez i dont see how you ppl can read these smallers rez's, i have hard enough time with the 1680 rez...3 1900 rez your always going to have to have the top of the line video card to run that res when gaming...so the 24' is going to make you have to spend much more money, often. to where a video card will last longer on the 22'. so for those reasons i went with the 22'. im very happy with my decision. i upgraded from a 19' fullscreen LCD.

Blazing fire · Jul 25, 2008

Neur0mancer said:
The 2900/3800 series vid card s really took a hit in performacne once AA was enable.

They have fixed that issue.

nVidia seemingly had no hit in performance wit hte 8800 series.

Now the 9800 series they built a fast card, but it does not stay fast when AA is enabled. (Hence the "learned from ati" reference)

Rodger!

jason4207 · Jul 25, 2008

Neur0mancer said:
The 2900/3800 series vid card s really took a hit in performacne once AA was enable.

They have fixed that issue.

nVidia seemingly had no hit in performance wit hte 8800 series.

Now the 9800 series they built a fast card, but it does not stay fast when AA is enabled. (Hence the "learned from ati" reference)

The 8800 does take a hit when AA is enabled. I've yet to see free AA.

Are you referring to 8800 (G92) or 8800 (G80)? 8800GTS(G92) is basically the same card as 9800GTX.

Neuromancer · Jul 25, 2008

jason4207 said:
The 8800 does take a hit when AA is enabled. I've yet to see free AA.

Are you referring to 8800 (G92) or 8800 (G80)? 8800GTS(G92) is basically the same card as 9800GTX.

I meant not the massive hit the ATI cards did.

Not sure of the differnce between the 512MB GTS and the 9800GTX I do not recall reading any reviews of it. If they also take a big hit when turning on AA then yes they are the same card

chrome-187 · Jul 25, 2008

they still took a big hit...it was not that low either, but it was a lil better then ati on some games, then again...that was then

deathman20 · Jul 25, 2008

Indeed 24" rules. Don't regret getting mine nearly 3 years ago. It was a god send to desktop space and no need for dual monitor setup anymore. Kind of nice but do wish I had another 24" to put next to her for movies and such

GPU wise it should do decently well with it, of course some games won't run the best on it at that res but then again all more the excuse to upgrade

atm743 · Jul 25, 2008

yeah i wish i would have gotten a 24" when i got my monitor

I plan on getting this to go along with my current monitor (being that the one i have is not HDCP so i cant run the ps3 without some vga adapter)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001280

this thing is the ****. Has 2 HDMI ports, DVI, VGA,Component, ANT in, as well as a few audio ports and a USB service port.

Built in TV-tunner, 1920 x 1200 but also supports FULL 1080P HD!. Contrast Ratio DC 10000:1(1000:1)

so getting this bad boy for my Playstation 3. ****en sick of playing on SDTV

lordkosc · Jul 25, 2008

take into consideration how close you will be sitting, @ 1920x1200 things will look a lot smaller on your desktop.

1680x1050 or 1920x1200 for a 9800GTX

Same

Member

Automata

Destroyer of Empires and Use

necrokiller

Member

Neuromancer

Member

Same

Member

Automata

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Blazing fire

Member

necrokiller

Member

Neuromancer

Member

jobrien2001

Member

necrokiller

Member

chrome-187

Member

Blazing fire

Member

jason4207

Senior Member

Neuromancer

Member

chrome-187

Member

deathman20

High Speed Premium Senior

atm743

Member

lordkosc

Member

Similar threads