Where are all the 2560 x 1600 gamers?

I sit about 2-3 feet from mine while gaming. I've been folding 24/7, so not much gaming lately. My PS3 looks great on my 3008 when I do use it for gaming. :p
 
My setup:

HP 30" LP3065
Visiontek 4870X2
HP Blackbird 002 LC (gutted and redone)
Intel DX48BT2
QX9770
4GB Corsair DDR3
Vista Ultimate 64-bit

2560x1600 gaming at it's best!
 
Man...30-inches...

-looks at 15-inch CRT-
...

No comment. How much do those beasts run for on the 'net?
 
LordTacodip said:
Man...30-inches...

-looks at 15-inch CRT-
...

No comment. How much do those beasts run for on the 'net?
Click to expand...

way too much for me. I took a compromise myself and got a 28" hannspree. its half to a third of the price of the 30 inch monitors and looks good. Also does not require the same level of hardware as a 2560 x 1600 as it has just a little more then half the pixels

but to answer your question the monitors start around 1K for the double site (can find on provantage) and go up from there
 
You can find refurbished ones for under $800. I paid only $779 for mine and it was made in 3/08 ;)
 
Does it count that I game at 2048x1536 on my Syncmaster 900NF CRT? I can't do 2560x1600, since my trusty Syncmaster is a 4:3 aspect ratio. I know it's only 3.1MP vs 4MP, but still.....

Disclaimer: I am in no way implying that my 8800GT runs EVERY game at 2048x1536, but several of them do run good if I use minimal AA (2x is good at that high res anyways)

EDIT: BTW, biggest plus of my 900NF... It was FREE!!! :D
 
Do you guys know anything about 'sparkling' pixels on the Dell 3007WFP's? (-HC as well). Mine does it for about 10-15 seconds and then goes away. I've been a bit concerned. Some people say it's the graphics card...the monitor...or the Dual Link DVI Cable. Any of you guys have an idea?
 
I joined the 30" club about May '08 and have been loving it since. Specs are in my sig.



Rumors are the 290GTX (55nm) is due out Oct. 15th. After I get my hands on some reviews I will probably be buying one or two to replace the 9800. I have been running games like: Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Clear Sky, Mass Effect and CoD4 at 1920x1200 (XHD3000 has an awesome video processor in it) in order to retain highest settings in game. Jumping from the 9800 to the 290's 1 Gig memory buffer and higher streaming processors should allow me to run at native res without hiccup. It is an expensive level to maintain, but if you can swing it responsibly, then it is rewarding.

If I have my way (fat chance) my goal is to buy two more for a triple 30" display. Buying a house comes first, so we're talking well into next year, and that's IF my over-time persists. At that point I'd use the SLI system for the main (center) screen and add a less expensive card from the same series (uses same drivers) to run the other two. It is a lofty dream I admit, but I can be stubborn when I fix my mind on something. :D

--

It's been cool to see some of the other 30" out there.. and get to know their owners, good thread!
 
Yep 280 refresh is some time this month for which I am looking forward to. I am able to play every game except for Crysis @ 2560 x 1600 max settings and max aa and af. But just for Crysis I want to upgrade so I can play that again at 2560 x 1600 with max settings and looks like it is doable especially with the refresh!

Once Nvidia launch their 180 series Big Bang drivers that fix their multimonitor support I am definitely buying another 30 incher. I am probably going to stick with the HP because I have not seen any benefits with the Gateway. Though I must say the gateway does have a lot of inputs. Perhaps when I build my next rig from scratch I will go with the Gateways then. For now just vid cards, SSDs are my upgrade goals.
 
A few shots while I'm at it... starting with half sized:

masseffecthalfvx0.jpg


warheadhalfiv6.jpg


stalkercshalfql3.jpg


ep2halfsv5.jpg


lostcoasthalfhx0.jpg


and full:


Mass Effect - Crysis Warhead - Stalker: Clear Sky - HL2:Ep2 - HL2 Lost Coast

I'll post more after Far Cry 2 hits the 18th.
icon_yes.gif
 
Dan_D said:
I'm going to throw my $0.02 in here because well, that's what I'm best at. First off top end motherboards have exceeded $100 since the i875P chipset board days. For those of you who don't remember that was during the socket 478 days when the Northwood "C" chips were released and were quite popular. Specifically the ASUS P4C800 Deluxe was over $200 if I recall correctly. I remeber thinking the price was insane at the time but I went for it anyway. It was a solid board that lasted me until the LGA775 boards came out. Regardless people bitching about high end boards costing more than $100 have no idea what the market is like currently.

My next point is that you don't need to spend $200+ to get an SLI motherboard. When new the EVGA 750i SLI FTW was cheaper than that. (Around $150 if I recall correctly.) As much as I hate to admit it, that board was badass and reliable. As far as the "CPU HIT" goes I'm not sure what you are referring to because the NVIDIA chipset based boards are pretty decent overclockers. They can easily get the quad cores over 3.2GHz which is all you really need. You are mostly GPU bound in games at 1600x1200, 1680x1050 and higher. So I fail to see your point here.

On the display side you aren't getting it. 2560x1600 equals about 4.1 Mega Pixels. It's only about 2 Mega Pixels for 1920x1200 in comparison. The games do look better at 2560x1600 because more pixels allows the image to be seen more clearly and with more detail. Beyond that AA isn't as important at that resolution. More pixels reduced the aliasing effect. However when you can spare the performance for added AA and AF you simply get the best image quality available at this time. Granted this costs a ton of money and no one said it was econimical. Most people would prefer to watch TV on a bigger TV than a smaller one. Isn't TV better on a 72" vs a 27"? (All things being equal technology wise.) Computer monitors are the same. A larger monitor adds to the feel of emersion in games. Furthermore while the scaling in multi-GPU solutions isn't all that great at times it does offer better performance than a single card can offer at present. At 2560x1600 a single card doesn't cut it for Crysis, Crysis Warhead, or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky.

While this isn't an economical solution nothing high end ever is. Huge TV's, fast cars, badass sound systems, Blu-Ray players etc. aren't cheap. They never have been and they aren't for the general masses. Sometimes it isn't even about cost but priorities. I could buy a 60" Plasma TV but its' not worth the price as far as I am concerned. I wouldn't enjoy it enough to make the purchase worth while. I'd rather spend $6,000 on my computer because that I'd use every day at least. So it all depends on your point of view as to whether or not there is "value" in such things.

Most people that bitch and complain about multi-GPU solutions can't afford them or won't buy them because they'd rather do something else with their money. BTW, I've tried a single 4870 X2 and I've tried a single Geforce GTX 280 OC and at 2560x1600 neither card is enough for all the eye candy, AA and AF at 2560x1600 in many games. Not just the newest ones.
Click to expand...

You said earlier in you third paragraph that 2560x1600 and bigger doesn't need
all that AA and AF eye candy because of the pixel density. Then you say in your
last paragraph that the 280 or the 4870x2 is not enough for this *quote* eye candy. Which is it?

You also said in your third paragraph Quote: "Most people would prefer to watch
TV on a bigger TV than a smaller one. Isn't TV better on a 72" vs a 27"?"

Not if the resolution is the same. Its getting stretched on the bigger one.
If you have a 72" TV with the same rez as that 27" TV then you better
have the real estate with that 72". Take the test and go to a TV store
and look at all the 1080i's at 10' away and the 30" TV's look better
than the 52" one do. You have to either have the bigger rez to back
up the bigger size or the real estate to view it plain and simple.
 
lifanus said:
30" too big for me to navigate around hehe...
Click to expand...

FireFox works great with the larger text and I can enlarge wed sights quite a bit
before things start to bleed and cross over. I'm scaled up 4x on this sight with no
problems what so ever. If I go back to normal then my eyes start to burn
an my head starts to ache. IE sucks at this.

I'm currently 2' away with a 19", at 1280x1040 rez.

I just dropped the dime yesterday on the Dell 3007 and will be
using the 4870x2 on a Asus RE. Hehe, same viewing distance.
Cant wait. :D
 
How about some classics (half-sized):

hlhalfot3.jpg


jediacademyhalffl8.jpg


ut2004halfni6.jpg


duesexhalfjh7.jpg


nolfhalfwn8.jpg


(full-sized)


HL:S - Jedi Academy - UT2004 - Deus Ex - No One Lives Forever

--

Yes I cheated with the last two. They are old enough they cannot be forced into 2560x1600, so I had to step down to 1920x1200. By the way, you can go here if you need help getting an older game working in widescreen.
 
keithallenlaw said:
You said earlier in you third paragraph that 2560x1600 and bigger doesn't need
all that AA and AF eye candy because of the pixel density. Then you say in your
last paragraph that the 280 or the 4870x2 is not enough for this *quote* eye candy. Which is it?

You also said in your third paragraph Quote: "Most people would prefer to watch
TV on a bigger TV than a smaller one. Isn't TV better on a 72" vs a 27"?"

Not if the resolution is the same. Its getting stretched on the bigger one.
If you have a 72" TV with the same rez as that 27" TV then you better
have the real estate with that 72". Take the test and go to a TV store
and look at all the 1080i's at 10' away and the 30" TV's look better
than the 52" one do. You have to either have the bigger rez to back
up the bigger size or the real estate to view it plain and simple.
Click to expand...

No I said that at 2560x1600 that not as much Anti-aliasing is needed. I didn't say that it wasn't needed at all.
 
I must say that Crysis screenshot is awesome. How are you able to get it not look aliased? More to the point what hardware are you running to get it to play at 2560 x 1600 and not make it look like a slideshow?

Or are you hacking the cvars and maxing everything out, cranking the res to 2560 x 1600 just to take a screenshot and post it ? :)
 
3007wfp-hc w/ 8800gt. video card is def not strong enough to run at the native resolution, but I don't really play games full screen. I generally play them in windows mode at 1920x1200 so I can have other stuff up in the background.
 
Welcome beakerz. I am going to upgrade my vid cards for the paltry 8800 Ultras in SLI to the 280 gtx refresh in SLI. That should keep Crysis and Warhead and FC2 and Mirror's Edge at max res and settings quite happy :)
 
I personally think we should get all the 30"er's and 37"er's together for a Battle Royal to the Death!!!


ps.. I hate you all, I hate you all so very very much.


General Cartmen Lee
 
surya said:
I must say that Crysis screenshot is awesome. How are you able to get it not look aliased? More to the point what hardware are you running to get it to play at 2560 x 1600 and not make it look like a slideshow?

Or are you hacking the cvars and maxing everything out, cranking the res to 2560 x 1600 just to take a screenshot and post it ? :)
Click to expand...

The screenshot is actually from Crysis Warhead, which runs much smoother then Crysis. That being said, I had all settings maxed, but AA off and with my current graphics card (in sig) it was pretty choppy at 2560x1600. I had to take it down to 1920x1200 for it to really be playable. I'm hoping the 290GTX will solve that for me.
 
I am a proud owner of a Dell 30” for a year now. I can play PacMan at full speed with my 8600GTS!
 
Frraksurred said:
The screenshot is actually from Crysis Warhead, which runs much smoother then Crysis. That being said, I had all settings maxed, but AA off and with my current graphics card (in sig) it was pretty choppy at 2560x1600. I had to take it down to 1920x1200 for it to really be playable. I'm hoping the 290GTX will solve that for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I am playing Warhead right now actually and its an awesome looking and awesome game hands down. I love the open endedness of both Crysis and Warhead and for me thats very important to make it one of my fave fps's ever. Anyway I am in the same boat as you though I never ever tried 2560 x 1600. I was worried my cards might explode lol.

I am playing with this custom config and looks like the jaggies are all gone. Its a very high custom config and its very smooth in Warhead. I am in the snow levels and theres no slowdown. I am playing at 1920 x 1200 as well and like you I am looking forward to the 280 die shrink so I can upgrade my vid cards. I am hoping to be able to replay both crysis and warhead again this time at 2560 x 1600 with max settings and AF but prob no AA at all. The review at guru3d of the 280 gtx in SLI running Crysis @ 2560 x 1600 med settings max AF @ 54 fps average gives me good hope!
 
surya said:
Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

My pleasure.

You expressed precisely why I'm still considering going SLI, but I'll start with one and wait for the reviews to see how it scales. The cards will be expensive enough without having to pop for a 1200w PSU also.

I've been playing in DX9, but I'll have my Vista up and running soon (12hr days on Second Shift leave little free time), so I'm eager to see it in all its intended glory. I'm sure that will affect its fps.

Far Cry 2 will be out by then also. After the let down that was "Clear Sky", I've got high hopes for it.
 
Frraksurred said:
My pleasure.

You expressed precisely why I'm still considering going SLI, but I'll start with one and wait for the reviews to see how it scales. The cards will be expensive enough without having to pop for a 1200w PSU also.

I've been playing in DX9, but I'll have my Vista up and running soon (12hr days on Second Shift leave little free time), so I'm eager to see it in all its intended glory. I'm sure that will affect its fps.

Far Cry 2 will be out by then also. After the let down that was "Clear Sky", I've got high hopes for it.
Click to expand...

Hey Frraksurred, I am quite confident a 750W PSU will hold these die shrink cards over quite nicely. Unless you specifically know otherwise. That said I will look around for some reviews and such and I will post what I find.
 
If you are worried about PSU power, you can always pickup a Thermaltake Tough Power Express 450W or 650W to complimenet your existing PSU.

Since I already had a solid 500W PSU, I ended up picking up a 450W TPE to run my GTX 280 SC.
 
I've had mine for over a year, and everytime I look at it I think "this is perfect!".
 
Actually I wouldnt mind a 40 inch display because I htink that is the perfect size but the problem is there are none especially with 2560 x 1600 res
 
This thread makes us 20" gamers feel Oh so small :(

One question, when did 1680x1050 become so small?
 
Monitors can be carried over to a new setup. So I've always suggested getting a nice monitor.
1680x1050 isn't small and allows a less beefy system show games in all their glory, where that same system might struggle at higher res.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top