what do i need for low resolution gaming?

E

ekuest

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,094
i have a 1600x1200 monitor and i dont plan on upgrading it. what are my options on a tight budget? i guess i dont need a 200 series card at that resolution, but if i can get an evga gtx 260 OC for $100, then is there anything old gen that would give me close enough performance to it and be worth saving 20 or 30 bucks? also, with the 300 series coming soon, will 200 series prices drop to less than that in the near future? thanks for the help. :)
 
yeah, i was thinking about going red team for once. what would be the equivalent (roughly) nvidia cards to 4850 and 4870? (i know jack about ati cards.)
 
Hi, low resolution gaming would be 10 x 7 or 12 x 10 IMO. Since when did 16 x 12 become low res?
 
well maybe its middle range, but typically i think i see 1440 and up thrown around as high res. if it makes you feel better to call it midrange resolution, i have no quarrels with that.

unrelated, WHO THE HELL GAMES AT 10 x 7??? :eek:
 
necrophile said:
Hi, low resolution gaming would be 10 x 7 or 12 x 10 IMO. Since when did 16 x 12 become low res?
Click to expand...

It isn't at all. 1600x1200 is 1,920,000 pixels, more than 1680x1050 (1,764,000) and close to 1920x1080 (2,073,600 pixels)... and I doubt there are many willing to argue that 1080p is "low resolution gaming" yet.

Don't skimp. A GTX260 or 4870 1GB / 4890 is the least I'd recommend anyone who wants to game at 1600x1200.

ekuest said:
well maybe its middle range, but typically i think i see 1440 and up thrown around as high res. if it makes you feel better to call it midrange resolution, i have no quarrels with that.

unrelated, WHO THE HELL GAMES AT 10 x 7??? :eek:
Click to expand...

10 x 7 = 1024x768.. and the answer is probably "most people".

1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels, so it's actually a lot lower resolution than 1600x1200, just a different aspect ratio.
 
yeah boneheaded on that 1440 thing. i forgot that 1600>1440. :( anyway... i dont think id agree that "most people" play at 1024x768 if only about 20% in that steam survey have 10x7 or below. 50% have 1280x1024 or below, so i think thats a good cutoff. i will agree that i am in the higher half. i guess when i thought "low res" i was comparing my setup to the ones i see every day here, which are very often 24" to 50". anyway, i think i might go for that 260. thanks for the help!
 
silent-circuit said:
It isn't at all. 1600x1200 is 1,920,000 pixels, more than 1680x1050 (1,764,000) and close to 1920x1080 (2,073,600 pixels)... and I doubt there are many willing to argue that 1080p is "low resolution gaming" yet.

Don't skimp. A GTX260 or 4870 1GB / 4890 is the least I'd recommend anyone who wants to game at 1600x1200.



10 x 7 = 1024x768.. and the answer is probably "most people".

1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels, so it's actually a lot lower resolution than 1600x1200, just a different aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

this, a 4870 512 for the budget 1gb would be better, and if the OP can get a GTX260 for 100 dollar (new?) that would not be bad but I think you can get a 4870 for a buck 25 now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top