1280x1024 vs 1600x1200

N

ny555soul

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
178
Im not sure if this has been discussed but,has anyone noticed a dramastic decrease when bumping up to 1600x1200 on a 6800 U or GT?I recently just got a 2001fp and turned my res up to 1600x1200 and i am getting major slow down while playing farcry.I was under the impression that this game runs smooth with max everything,so i figured max res wouldnt make a difference.NOTE: I havent done anything different to my system other then swapping a 17' lcd 1280x1024 to this 2001fp 1600x1200.My system specs are below incase someone asks.
amd fx-53
asus a8v
2x 512mb ocz dual channel 400 mhz 3200
2x74gb raptors(raid0)
bfg 6800 U(61.45 drivers)
2001fp
 
there are a lot more pixels that need to be processed. so yes this is normal. my bfg 6800 ultra (450/1.2) also suffers from some slow down in farcry. the game is demanding @ such a high resolution.
 
Bump it up to 2048 from 1600 and see how it goes. :)
 
The monitor is broken, and it's slowing your game down!

Send to me for repairs. Thanks.
 
Im talking unplayable slowdown.Basicly an enemy could get right up to you and kill you before you target them and shoot.I figured all this hype about this card how it can handle any current game at max settings would atleast play better then my old 9800pro 128mb with 1280x1024 res.But its about equal performance with 1600x1200.Although IQ is noticably better with the 6800.
EngenZerO said:
there are a lot more pixels that need to be processed. so yes this is normal. my bfg 6800 ultra (450/1.2) also suffers from some slow down in farcry. the game is demanding @ such a high resolution.
Click to expand...
 
ny555soul said:
Im talking unplayable slowdown.Basicly an enemy could get right up to you and kill you before you target them and shoot.I figured all this hype about this card how it can handle any current game at max settings would atleast play better then my old 9800pro 128mb with 1280x1024 res.But its about equal performance with 1600x1200.Although IQ is noticably better with the 6800.
Click to expand...

thats just how it goes bro. If it bothers you I am sure you could knock down the res, and bump up the AA.
 
Yup, 1600x1200 is really demanding. Also, you may not be GPU limited and it may be CPU limitations. These cards haven't shown their full potential yet. :) Also, I play in 1280x1024 because I can still have 85hz refresh rate and I just can't play with it at 72. ;)
 
If you are getting problems with games other than FarCry and you had an ATI card before the Nvidia, try booting into safe mode, uninstalling the nvidia drivers, then using driver cleaner 3 for both ati and nvidia, then rebooting into normal mode and reinstalling the 61.72 drivers.

FarCry is demanding but you should be able to play at 1600x1200 with 2xAA or so if you have a fast cpu.
 
CPU limatation ! ? Thats just crazy the top-of-the-line amd64 fx-53 (939) would be holding the video card back?....No i did a reformat/OS reinstall as soon as the card came in the mail.
Timdog said:
Yup, 1600x1200 is really demanding. Also, you may not be GPU limited and it may be CPU limitations. These cards haven't shown their full potential yet. :) Also, I play in 1280x1024 because I can still have 85hz refresh rate and I just can't play with it at 72. ;)
Click to expand...
 
so by all max settings you mean all ingame settings at very high +water at ultra high. 4xAA/16xAF? this isn't really very playable on any current video card out now at 1600x1200.
 
Well,anyway i guess i will have to step back down to 1280x1024.It just piss me off even the highest end system cant handle this game @ max everything.That doesnt say much for upcomming games like doom 3 ect..ect When will there ever be a system that surpasses current games.I guess its always going to be like this,and maybe in a year or so ill have a system that can run 2 farcrys maxed out on the same computer and not slow it down....umm...maybe 10 years.
 
Im not sure.I just checked the preset very high setting and left it at that.I tried this @ 1280x1024 and i didnt have any problems,but as soon as i swapped to a monitor that could handle 1600x1200 it plays like a slide show..hehe...dropped back down to 1280x1024 and plays smooth...go figure
maxxo said:
so by all max settings you mean all ingame settings at very high +water at ultra high. 4xAA/16xAF? this isn't really very playable on any current video card out now at 1600x1200.
Click to expand...
 
ny555soul said:
Im not sure.I just checked the preset very high setting and left it at that.I tried this @ 1280x1024 and i didnt have any problems,but as soon as i swapped to a monitor that could handle 1600x1200 it plays like a slide show..hehe...dropped back down to 1280x1024 and plays smooth...go figure
Click to expand...

Developers are creating games that will continue to look good, for several releases of hardware. This should excite seeing as you can look forward to making that game look better and better each time you play it.
 
If you look at this from my stand point,Its not very often i have the funds to buy the best parts out there,and normally i aways have some slightly older stuff,but i pretty much have the best available right now,and even a game that came out before a top line video card cant handle the games full power.I mean its great that games come out and have crazy graphics and all,but geez if theres nothing out to handle it then why make it so power hungry.I mean they must design these games on super computers.
 
Yeah thats nice and all,but by that time most people are sick of that game,and are waiting for a part 2 or whatever.
d34dly said:
Developers are creating games that will continue to look good, for several releases of hardware. This should excite seeing as you can look forward to making that game look better and better each time you play it.
Click to expand...
 
ny555soul said:
Well,anyway i guess i will have to step back down to 1280x1024.It just piss me off even the highest end system cant handle this game @ max everything.That doesnt say much for upcomming games like doom 3 ect..ect When will there ever be a system that surpasses current games.I guess its always going to be like this,and maybe in a year or so ill have a system that can run 2 farcrys maxed out on the same computer and not slow it down....umm...maybe 10 years.
Click to expand...

Well don't forget, your system can do pretty much every game out today at max settings except farcry. thats a lot of games being owned.

also --i've read you can't run the very highest possible doom3 settings unless you have 512mb of ram on your videocard, which won't be available for awhile.
 
Havent tried any other games @ 1600x1200 yet,but your probably right.Just remembering playing kingpin online @max settings with a asus 6600 pure and laged so bad i couldnt get better at the game cause i got killed all the time.I used to always think they were cheating till i relized i was making it harder to target them with all the lag from settings.
maxxo said:
Well don't forget, your system surpasses pretty much every game out today except farcry. thats a lot of games being owned.

also --i've read you can't run the very highest possible doom3 settings unless you have 512mb of ram on your videocard, which won't be available for awhile.
Click to expand...
 
Well, with doom 3, I read that even the 6800 ultra and x800 cards won't be good enough to play doom3 at the ultra quality settings. They said you'd need a card with at least 500MB of RAM for all the textures. So meh, ya it sucks that you can't play at the best possible settings with the best possible hardware... but if they didn't make games like that, they'd be outdated whenever any new hardware came out.
 
ny555soul said:
Im not sure if this has been discussed but,has anyone noticed a dramastic decrease when bumping up to 1600x1200 on a 6800 U or GT?I recently just got a 2001fp and turned my res up to 1600x1200 and i am getting major slow down while playing farcry.I was under the impression that this game runs smooth with max everything,so i figured max res wouldnt make a difference.NOTE: I havent done anything different to my system other then swapping a 17' lcd 1280x1024 to this 2001fp 1600x1200.My system specs are below incase someone asks.
amd fx-53
asus a8v
2x 512mb ocz dual channel 400 mhz 3200
2x74gb raptors(raid0)
bfg 6800 U(61.45 drivers)
2001fp
Click to expand...


run a benchemall at 1600 and see what you get with No aa/af
 
You can always hold out for a X800XT-PE. Judging from several benchmarks, the XT seems to play best on 16x12.
 
Nah I had problems with my 9700pro,and my 9800pro so i dropped ATI.Not to mention i had one of the original radeon cards and OMG drivers were bad.I heard ATI got better with drivers so i gave them two chances with thr 97,and 9800's now im done with ati.
heatsinker said:
You can always hold out for a X800XT-PE. Judging from several benchmarks, the XT seems to play best on 16x12.
Click to expand...
 
ny555soul said:
Im talking unplayable slowdown.Basicly an enemy could get right up to you and kill you before you target them and shoot.I figured all this hype about this card how it can handle any current game at max settings would atleast play better then my old 9800pro 128mb with 1280x1024 res.But its about equal performance with 1600x1200.Although IQ is noticably better with the 6800.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't happen... My system is a slower than yours and I can run FarCry well at 1600x1200 with all settings maxed ... the only time I've noticed a big slowdown is when I use the binoculars. Other than the binoculars I don't think I ever dip below 15, but it sounds like you're talking more like 2 or 3 fps :p
 
That's odd. I have a BFG 6800 GT on a 2800XP w/ a gig of ram. I also have a Dell 2001FP. Farcry is playable with only 4x AF on at 1600x1200. I'd say I average 30FPS.
 
ny555soul said:
Nah I had problems with my 9700pro,and my 9800pro so i dropped ATI.Not to mention i had one of the original radeon cards and OMG drivers were bad.I heard ATI got better with drivers so i gave them two chances with thr 97,and 9800's now im done with ati.
Click to expand...


You had problems with both the 9700 and 9800 and you can't run a game at a resolution others are running it at with slower hardware. Perhaps maybe the problem lies wih something you are doing or not doing ? However I wouldn't recommend going and getting the ATI card over what you have, your card should do the job. Plus you can bet Kyle is not using some top secret video card in his personal box and he's running at even higher resolution.

As far as game writers and ID software in particular, John Carmack doesn't code his games to run on the fastest hardware available with max setings at the time of release. When Quake 3 was released it could not run playable on any system with max resolution and high quality settings turned on. That's because besides the released game they understand their gaming engine will be used to create other games for years to come. The systems now can run Q3 at max res and quality and still produce 200+ FPS, but then again we are what 6 years beyond the release of Quake 3 ? The Doom 3 engine is the same, as it is released more than likely the current high end systems will not be able to run it at max settings, but this also provides hardware manufacturers a goal to achieve and prove their hardware will be capable of doing just that down the road. If you want to be dissapponited some more go load up the Flight Simulator called LOMAC (Lock-On Modern Air Combat) and turn it's res and settings on up to max and watch your box become another slide show. (it does look pretty though ;) )
 
Make sure you have the latest mobo drivers installed. This to me sounds like AGP has been turned off. Go and download the latest Hyperion drivers from here.....and then report back. If this does not fix your problem then as far as I know you are SOL. The components these days are too user friendly and easy to fix that if a real problem arises no one really knows what it could be. Kinda ironic...

http://downloads.viaarena.com/drivers/4in1/VIA_Hyperion 4IN1_V451v.zip
 
daddybigwords said:
That shouldn't happen... My system is a slower than yours and I can run FarCry well at 1600x1200 with all settings maxed ... the only time I've noticed a big slowdown is when I use the binoculars. Other than the binoculars I don't think I ever dip below 15, but it sounds like you're talking more like 2 or 3 fps :p
Click to expand...

I wouldnt consider 15FPS a playable rate.
 
I have the 2001fp, and have been playing FC @ 1600x1200 with no apparent slowdown issues. 2.8 --> 3.3, 1 gig ram, GT Oc'd to 420/1150. There has to be something else going on in your system.
 
Just think in doom3 you will have to have atleast a 512mb video card to run it at max settings. I look to see 512mb cards comeing out soon.
 
indeed...

I think its going to bring my system to its knees even at 800x600

i'm currently running

9800XT
2.8c ->3.2
IC7-Max3
2x512 Corsair.

its gonna beg for mercy i think
 
Syphon Filter said:
indeed...

I think its going to bring my system to its knees even at 800x600

i'm currently running

9800XT
2.8c ->3.2
IC7-Max3
2x512 Corsair.

its gonna beg for mercy i think
Click to expand...


No way your system is gonna be slow.

Also.. remember games are 'supposed' to be played at 800x600 or 1024x768. Thats why things like AA came out to get rid of jaggies and whatnot... 1600x1200 is more like a maximum desktop resolution for working with documents, it's only recently that anyone would consider playing a game at this resolution since now we have hardware that flirts with it. Also if your at 1600x1200 or even 1280x1024, there is little to no reason to have any sort of AA turned on (maybe set low) since you are already rendering the game at quite high resolution. AF is another story... but geez, far cry was not written to be played at 1600x1200 with all options set to full... they write these games in Direct X, not "what the geforce can handle" I'm sure along the way they run it and optimize the code to get smooth play... as well as adjust the game details, stop thinking like a consumer and just enjoy what we have.
 
you are of course correct inside_line

but it is nice to play games at a high res as they look sweet...

what i might do is play the games on my smaller monitor 17" as opposed to my 19"

they will look better on the smaller one at 1024 than on the larger one at the same res but we'll see...i might just get a new system, i have been wanting a second PC for sometime...we'll see...1024 is a totally acceptable res to me...
 
Syphon Filter said:
you are of course correct inside_line

but it is nice to play games at a high res as they look sweet...

what i might do is play the games on my smaller monitor 17" as opposed to my 19"

they will look better on the smaller one at 1024 than on the larger one at the same res but we'll see...i might just get a new system, i have been wanting a second PC for sometime...we'll see...1024 is a totally acceptable res to me...
Click to expand...

I guess the punchline is, 'be happy the settings can go higher'. They could have just ommitted the higher settings and set the midrange to max.... would that be better? All it is are algorithms that determine how stuff gets rendered, they are written for generally what is on the market... plus a little extra for new hardware. Consider it extending the life of the game... otherwise it would always look like the day you got it.
 
Shane said:
Just think in doom3 you will have to have atleast a 512mb video card to run it at max settings. I look to see 512mb cards comeing out soon.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is just me, but I keep hearing stuff like this about Doom3 and I think it's complete bull. I remember when there was a build of Doom3 leaked a couple of years ago. I had a friend with a GeForce 3 that got ahold of the leak and was able to play it. Granted he wasn't getting great performance but it was at least playable. And that completely unoptimized.

Now here we are two or three video card generations later and they're telling us that the top of the line cards won't be able to handle Doom3 at max settings? I have to call shenanigans/bull on that.
 
The problems i had with the 9700 was it was supposed to support 8x,but there was a flaw in the design rev. and the 8x mobo i had it would only run 4x.It required RMA back to ATI.And the 9800 made my pc run like crap untill i installed drivers.I know thats normal running with generic driver xp loads,but i never experinced that with any nvidia cards i ever owned.I cant see what i did,or didnt do,because it runs smooth 1280x1024,but as soon as a change to 1600x1200 its a slide show.
CIWS said:
You had problems with both the 9700 and 9800 and you can't run a game at a resolution others are running it at with slower hardware. Perhaps maybe the problem lies wih something you are doing or not doing ? However I wouldn't recommend going and getting the ATI card over what you have, your card should do the job. Plus you can bet Kyle is not using some top secret video card in his personal box and he's running at even higher resolution.

As far as game writers and ID software in particular, John Carmack doesn't code his games to run on the fastest hardware available with max setings at the time of release. When Quake 3 was released it could not run playable on any system with max resolution and high quality settings turned on. That's because besides the released game they understand their gaming engine will be used to create other games for years to come. The systems now can run Q3 at max res and quality and still produce 200+ FPS, but then again we are what 6 years beyond the release of Quake 3 ? The Doom 3 engine is the same, as it is released more than likely the current high end systems will not be able to run it at max settings, but this also provides hardware manufacturers a goal to achieve and prove their hardware will be capable of doing just that down the road. If you want to be dissapponited some more go load up the Flight Simulator called LOMAC (Lock-On Modern Air Combat) and turn it's res and settings on up to max and watch your box become another slide show. (it does look pretty though ;) )
Click to expand...
 
AcneBrain said:
The monitor is broken, and it's slowing your game down!

Send to me for repairs. Thanks.
Click to expand...


That's pretty funny.... :)
 
ny555soul said:
The problems i had with the 9700 was it was supposed to support 8x,but there was a flaw in the design rev. and the 8x mobo i had it would only run 4x.It required RMA back to ATI.And the 9800 made my pc run like crap untill i installed drivers.I know thats normal running with generic driver xp loads,but i never experinced that with any nvidia cards i ever owned.I cant see what i did,or didnt do,because it runs smooth 1280x1024,but as soon as a change to 1600x1200 its a slide show.
Click to expand...
AGP 8X won't give a performance boost to the 9700. Why would you even care what a system would run like without the latest drivers installed?
 
Lol, its been a looooong time since software has outgrown the hardware curve. I think Far Cry is the first game since Quake3. People have forgotten and grown used to hardware that eats up software. We're just going back to our roots... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top