Video Card and Native Resolutions

isai95

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
335
What video card would play fine Call of Duty 2, Need for Speed Carbon, etc at 1600 x 1200 native resolutions in a Samsung 21" LCD?

Or which cards would handle the 1280 x 1024 native resolution of a 17" or 19" LCD monitors?

Is it true that if a video card cannot handle a native LCD resolution then it is pointless to have both either the monitor or the video card? In the case of a Dell or Samsung 30" LCD monitor, the video card would have to handle the 2560 x 1600 resolution. I perhaps would need to use a separate power supply.
 
Anyone out there that could be kind enough to get me a good advice?
Video Manufacturers do not show their video card 3D resolutions.
 
at present, with whats on the market the 640gts should do it, tho with all features i would suggest the 8800gtx.

It is always best to run at the monitors native res, this will give you the best and clearest picture.
 
Almost all cards will run at 1600x1200, the difference is how fast and how much FSAA you can add on top.

The Dell 30" at 2560x1600 requires a dual-link DVI card (DVI-D) with 256MB of RAM. Most recent cards are capable of running the display, but the pixel count take an enormous hit on 3D games (unless you use SLI, Crossfire, or a top card like an 8800).
 
at present, with whats on the market the 640gts should do it, tho with all features i would suggest the 8800gtx.
I'm looking to play decent frame rates at 1600x1200 on a 21" LCD or at least, 1280x1024 on 17" lcd. I have a Nvidia 6600LE 256mb. Is the 640gts better than my 6600LE?
It is always best to run at the monitors native res, this will give you the best and clearest picture
Yes, that's the problem with LCDs. One resolution only.
 
I'm looking to play decent frame rates at 1600x1200 on a 21" LCD or at least, 1280x1024 on 17" lcd. I have a Nvidia 6600LE 256mb. Is the 640gts better than my 6600LE?
Yes, that's the problem with LCDs. One resolution only.

Actually, your LCD will be fine running at 800x600. It's not "native" per-se, but it is half the native resolution and the pixels will not be stretched and will still look quite good.
 
Almost all cards will run at 1600x1200, the difference is how fast and how much FSAA you can add on top.
In 3D? Is it not 30fms the standard for video? Which card would give some decent fms for a 1600x1200 native res? or for a 17"lcd monitor at native 1280x1024?
The Dell 30" at 2560x1600 requires a dual-link DVI card (DVI-D) with 256MB of RAM. Most recent cards are capable of running the display, but the pixel count take an enormous hit on 3D games (unless you use SLI, Crossfire, or a top card like an 8800).
Would the 8800 drive the Dell 30" lcd in 3D at 2560x1600 at acceptable or decent fms?
What video card would drive 2 Dell 30" monitors? Would I need 2 video cards? Perhaps one for regular bussines apps and the other one for games only? I guess one needs 2 or 3 power supplies to drive these monsters huh?:)
 
Actually, your LCD will be fine running at 800x600. It's not "native" per-se, but it is half the native resolution and the pixels will not be stretched and will still look quite good.
What I really want thoug, it's to play Call for Duty 2 (for me) and NFS Carbon (for my son) at 1600x1200 at a decent frame rate. What would be an acceptable frame rate on these games? Well I guess NFS carbon is the one that would require more FMS since it is about velocity, but the other one is more about strategy (1st person shooting)
 
heck yeah, by a very long shot...
Do you think that is a good deal to get the Asus GeForce 8800GTS 640MB for about $400.00?
Or the PNY GeForce 8800GTX 768mb for about $555.00?
 
A 7900gs for $150 shipped will handle 1600 x 1200 perfectly with high settings with the games you want to play. I play Counter Strike: Source (similiar to COD2) and NFSMW with full settings at 1680 x 1050 and the FPS stays above 60 - which is what you should shoot for. Your eyes cant tell the difference aboue 60fps. No need to spend $400. But it is worth considering if you plan on taking advantage of DX10 and the newest titles for the next couple years.
 
How does my 6600LE do at 1280x1024 native on the 17"lcd? How many frames per second would get decently in those 2 games?

Any place where I could compare video cards per their FMS by resolution capability?

I'm planing to build a new computer in the summer, perhaps with the 975X intel chipset and a E6600 processor and by then I could get the 8800GTX too.
 
Well i run my GTS on my 17inc lcd at 1280 X 1024 and i get dam good fps at max settings on most games i play, havent tried oblivian. bf2 runs great and looks fantastic...
 
How does my 6600LE do at 1280x1024 native on the 17"lcd? How many frames per second would get decently in those 2 games?

Any place where I could compare video cards per their FMS by resolution capability?

I'm planing to build a new computer in the summer, perhaps with the 975X intel chipset and a E6600 processor and by then I could get the 8800GTX too.

6600 probably does poorly-soso even on your 17" LCD. With the games you're playing now, a 7900GT would take care of the job.

HOWEVER, if you want DX10 and play newer games, wait for the mid-range 8600GT or get a 8800GTS 320mb. The 320mb isn't bottlenecked until 1920+ with AA/AF. So unless you plan to get a new bigger monitor, 2 8800GTSes work pretty well.

Also, it's FPS as in frames per second. I'm not sure what FMS refers to.
 
isai95 said:
Would the 8800 drive the Dell 30" lcd in 3D at 2560x1600 at acceptable or decent fms? What video card would drive 2 Dell 30" monitors? Would I need 2 video cards? Perhaps one for regular bussines apps and the other one for games only? I guess one needs 2 or 3 power supplies to drive these monsters huh?:)
Some 7900 cards will drive two 30" monitors, as will most 8800's - get one with two DVI-D connectors and 512MB of RAM. 3D performance will drag (and no SLI), so the more horsepower the better (but forget about AA at that res, not that you need it). One nice thing about 2560x1600 is that is scales beautifully to 1280x800. An 8800 will be awesome at the res, and you've got some headroom to toss in a little AA.
 
Some 7900 cards will drive two 30" monitors, as will most 8800's - get one with two DVI-D connectors and 512MB of RAM. 3D performance will drag (and no SLI), so the more horsepower the better (but forget about AA at that res, not that you need it). One nice thing about 2560x1600 is that is scales beautifully to 1280x800. An 8800 will be awesome at the res, and you've got some headroom to toss in a little AA.

All 8800s have dual dual-link DVIs. No point in getting a 7900 since it doesn't have DX10.
 
aznx said:
All 8800s have dual dual-link DVIs. No point in getting a 7900 since it doesn't have DX10.
Does anyone know if the 320MB version has enough RAM to drive two displays at 2560x1600? I've seen conflicting information on if this works on a 320MB card.
 
I have an x1950 pro agp on and old system. And Run bf2 @ 1680x1050 and it look awesome. I also play supcom on my 40 inch lcd @ 1900x1080 and it runs about 30ish fps. ANd looks incredibal on that
 
if u got the money, get the gtx. good for now and the near future.
 
Does anyone know if the 320MB version has enough RAM to drive two displays at 2560x1600? I've seen conflicting information on if this works on a 320MB card.

In 2d mode or 3d mode? 2d mode it's fine. 3d I doubt it.
 
Anything from around the 6800 series and up should handle most games with playable framerates no problem, but it depends on how much "eye candy" you want to turn on. I have been running 1600x1200 LCDs for a couple of years now, first I had the Dell 2001FP and now I have a Samsung 214T. My last card was a X1900XT, and it handled World of Warcraft and many other games at max settings using native resolution, and the 8800 cards blow that card away.

Do you think that is a good deal to get the Asus GeForce 8800GTS 640MB for about $400.00?
Or the PNY GeForce 8800GTX 768mb for about $555.00?

That card will totally destroy a 6600, it would be a huge and very obvious improvement.
 
Back
Top