• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

4850 weirdness, performance INCREASE at widescreen resolution

B

brons2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
503
OK so I finally got a 22" widescreen monitor, it replaced my old 20" non-widescreen LCD. I was expecting a big decline in gaming performance at the native resolution. But, it has actually helped the performance, significantly in some games, especially Crysis. I am able to run 1680x1050 at the High settings with excellent performance. It's literally as smooth as glass. Before at 1280x1024 it was choppy at anything above Medium. Are these newer cards and games optimized for widescreen performance? Or is there something else going on here? Not that I am complaining, I am frankly quite thrilled with this, but I just don't understand the reason for it. CPU is E2200 mildly overclocked to 2.75 on an EP35-DS3L, with 2GB of Corsair DDR2-800, gaming on XP, normal use on Vista Enterprise, also with Ubuntu 8.10 on a 3rd partition.
 
there are no widescreen optimization that I know of (performance wise).
 
I experienced something very similar with my 3870 512mb i went from using 1280/1024 with 4xaa to using 1980/1080 no aa all the other settings stayed the same but performance was about the same i didnt get a huge dip in fps like i thought i was.
 
This is a good example of why you don't need a high end card for low resolutions. At lower resolution, your cpu is bounding you to lower FPS. At higher resolution, it takes the load off of your cpu and starts using the gpu more.
 
What drivers are you using?

8.12 (even if it didnt work for some people) gave my 4850s MUCH better performance in Crysis and Crysis Warhead, both "smoothness" and FPS were greatly improved.

Also @ 1280x1024 the strain on you GPU might have been so low that powerplay was being triggered causing the card to throttle between 2D and 3D clocks. This would cause the feeling of pathetically choppy performance.
 
I'm not surprised of your performance, I take your using 0xAA.
 
Kazappin said:
Moving the res up allowed your GPU to take more of a foothold and cause the CPU to be the bottleneck (as lloose stated)
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right. When you increase the resolution, you're making the GPU work harder, making it more likely that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU.
 
DanW said:
That doesn't sound right. When you increase the resolution, you're making the GPU work harder, making it more likely that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU.
Click to expand...

+ 1
 
DanW said:
That doesn't sound right. When you increase the resolution, you're making the GPU work harder, making it more likely that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU.
Click to expand...

That's what i was saying. Lower res = less GPU strain and possible powerplay issues.
 
No I have not touched the drivers since I installed the card. Except in Linux and I don't play games on my Linux partition.
 
I wouldn't have been surprised if you said performance remained the same - I also switched from a 20" to a 22" monitor and performance remained virtually unchanged except for a few games at >4x AA/16XAF.

However it doesn't make sense that performance should increase noticeably :confused:
 
lloose said:
This is a good example of why you don't need a high end card for low resolutions. At lower resolution, your cpu is bounding you to lower FPS. At higher resolution, it takes the load off of your cpu and starts using the gpu more.
Click to expand...

nope. The load on the CPU doesnt lessen because he increased his resolution.

Sloppy programming.
 
That's weird dude.

OK so I finally got a 22" widescreen monitor, it replaced my old 20" non-widescreen LCD. I was expecting a big decline in gaming performance at the native resolution. But, it has actually helped the performance, significantly in some games, especially Crysis. I am able to run 1680x1050 at the High settings with excellent performance. It's literally as smooth as glass.
Click to expand...

That's what i was saying. Lower res = less GPU strain and possible powerplay issues.
Click to expand...

On native resolution for a 24" LCD on Left4Dead on maxed out settings, I get barely playable FPS (and some slightly laggy responses to keyboard+mouse).

At 1024x768 in Far Cry 2 on Ultra High settings, I get almost barely playable FPS.

And I've got a better computer than you. O_O !?

Q9450 @ 3.2GHz Stable
4GB DDR2-1000 (8000) Dual-Channel RAM (two sticks of 2GB)
HD4850
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
That's weird dude.





On native resolution for a 24" LCD on Left4Dead on maxed out settings, I get barely playable FPS (and some slightly laggy responses to keyboard+mouse).

At 1024x768 in Far Cry 2 on Ultra High settings, I get almost barely playable FPS.

And I've got a better computer than you. O_O wtf?

Q9450 @ 3.2GHz Stable
4GB DDR2-1000 (8000) Dual-Channel RAM (two sticks of 2GB)
HD4850
Click to expand...


Dont 24's run natively at 1920 x 1200?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top