Tech Report: Ultra-high-resolution Gaming ...
- Thread starter Jawed
- Start date
It did kind of blow me away how the HL2 was so flat though. It was surprising for me. The other tests did not show that at all, it makes me wonder if something was messed up or something.
Anyway I swore off ridiculously overpriced hardware (>$400) so it doesn't matter to me yet anyway
Anyway I swore off ridiculously overpriced hardware (>$400) so it doesn't matter to me yet anyway
Hellbinder
Banned
What i found most interesting was how close to the 6800's the X850 was in Doom 3. Even passing it a couple of times.
Thats like a *MAMOTHLY HUGE* improvement in drivers at least for that specific application.
It still gets a butt whippin most of the time but its still 94 FPS at the minimum settings they tested with wich is pretty darn good.
Thats like a *MAMOTHLY HUGE* improvement in drivers at least for that specific application.
It still gets a butt whippin most of the time but its still 94 FPS at the minimum settings they tested with wich is pretty darn good.
IgnorancePersonified
Regular
Interesting Article.
HaLDoL said:An ATi card beats 2 nv cards in an ATI game. Not interesting.Alstrong said:I find it more interesting that the X850 keeps up with the 6800U SLI and even beats it in the lower resolutions.
"X850 BEATS 6800ULTRA SLI!"
NV card beats ATi flagship in an ATI game with double the numbers. Interesting at least.
Oh ffs not this 'ATi game' crap again....
Anyway, thanks for the link Jawed 8)
Considering that ATI and Valve did sign some sort of marketting agreement, you pretty much have to expect it.
But, the comparison really isn't fair. The 7800 GTX is just a much more capable chip, and it should be given its release date. More fair will be comparisons that arise once ATI releases their next high-end product (and, potentially, nVidia's response to that product).
But, the comparison really isn't fair. The 7800 GTX is just a much more capable chip, and it should be given its release date. More fair will be comparisons that arise once ATI releases their next high-end product (and, potentially, nVidia's response to that product).
KeillRandor
Newcomer
Reading articles like this just makes me wish my 21" monitor (SGI/Sony GDM5011P) was on my gaming/internet comp rather than my DAW - not that my 9800Pro will probably be able to push to the max - but it'd still do a better job that the 9600Pro in the DAW...
(Cubase in 1920x1440@75hz is pretty useful though ).
One of these days I'll stick it on my gaming comp and see what the 9800 Pro can REALLY do
Darren Tomlyn,
Tune-writer & fiddle-player
(Cubase in 1920x1440@75hz is pretty useful though
).One of these days I'll stick it on my gaming comp and see what the 9800 Pro can REALLY do
Darren Tomlyn,
Tune-writer & fiddle-player
Well my 21" CRT can reach 2048*1536*32@75Hz, but it's not what I'd call a "real" resolution.
The manufacturer claims 406*305mm and a 0.20mm horizontal dot pitch. If the vertical dot pitch would be also 0.20 I doubt they would point out in the speclist that the value is only for the horizontal axis. Whether it's 0.22 or even 0.25mm, if you divide 305mm by other/or dot pitch value, it gets pretty obvious that the monitor is stretching the content at resolutions beyond 1600*1200. Not necessarily a bad thing since it equals in a highly relative sense to "oversampling".
Actual viewable space should be at 400*300mm or 15.8*11.8 inches.
One further thing is that 21" CRTs usually display ~101 pixels/inch in 1600*1200. A higher resolution means also >101 dpi which is normally way more detail than these monitors usually (or even the human eye) can handle.
That doesn't mean of course that I won't use 2048 whenever performance allows it in 3D, but there are cases where the use of any form of AA due to above reasons might get somewhat redundant and the IQ is not at all times that much higher than in let's say 1600 due to the prementioned restrictions.
A ~$3000 Apple 30" Cinema HD would be more like it, but the user would be in relative terms bound to the ultra high 2560*1600 native resolution, or lower the resolution and tolerate the expected side-effects.
The manufacturer claims 406*305mm and a 0.20mm horizontal dot pitch. If the vertical dot pitch would be also 0.20 I doubt they would point out in the speclist that the value is only for the horizontal axis. Whether it's 0.22 or even 0.25mm, if you divide 305mm by other/or dot pitch value, it gets pretty obvious that the monitor is stretching the content at resolutions beyond 1600*1200. Not necessarily a bad thing since it equals in a highly relative sense to "oversampling".
Actual viewable space should be at 400*300mm or 15.8*11.8 inches.
One further thing is that 21" CRTs usually display ~101 pixels/inch in 1600*1200. A higher resolution means also >101 dpi which is normally way more detail than these monitors usually (or even the human eye) can handle.
That doesn't mean of course that I won't use 2048 whenever performance allows it in 3D, but there are cases where the use of any form of AA due to above reasons might get somewhat redundant and the IQ is not at all times that much higher than in let's say 1600 due to the prementioned restrictions.
A ~$3000 Apple 30" Cinema HD would be more like it, but the user would be in relative terms bound to the ultra high 2560*1600 native resolution, or lower the resolution and tolerate the expected side-effects.
Pete said:
Look again it says horizontal and it's a shadow mask.
It's an LCD isn't it? LOL
Jokes aside those aren't "true" 130dpi in my case in 2048*1536. Rather 116dpi "stretched" up to 130dpi. Even the desktop gets slightly blurier in 2048; the added detail most of the time gets blured away by the monitor itself.
If the above wouldn't be true then I should see a noticable difference in high resolution digital photos for instance while running a 2048 vs. a 1600 desktop.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
My 22" Iiyama has done quite well with ultra high resolutions for the past 5 years. Too bad my video card sucks... photos and CAD are nice at 2048, but gaming has to stay below 1280.
