Screen resolutions and GPU's

[Swaye]

Greetings all,

My current monitor is failing me and i think it would be smart to do some research because i just might need a new one soon.I have very little knowledge concerning monitors and such.Since i'm looking to build a rig focused on gaming i would like to know how my GPU affects my screen resolution? It is also because recently i've been told that it would be a waste to buy a high end GPU and play at certain resolutions.
what pros and cons are there in getting LCDS in comparison to CRTS? what would be a good reccomendation for a good monitor for mid range?My main concern is good response time and image quality i dont mind settling fro a 17' over a 19" if my recquirements are met.

Any relevant feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Swaye

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Hey there,

I'll try to answer some of those questions.

Firstly, most any current GPU will display any resolution that the monitor in question is capable of; however the more powerful the GPU, the faster the frame rates will be. A slower GPU might have trouble driving high resolutions, especially on graphically demanding games. If you're limited to 17" or 19", it's unlikely you'll get any resolutions above 1280x1024 which is pretty easy for most GPU's.

As far as high-end GPU's and low resolutions; whether it's a waste or not depends on your gaming style. Lower resolutions will speed up the GPU frame rate; but turning on all the eye candy and anti-aliasing and etc. will lower it right back down, so even a top-end card can be dropped to its knees on average resolutions if you try to play a very demanding game with every detail on maximum. In short... no matter what resolution, a faster GPU will speed up your frame rates. In any case, I would get the best GPU your budget allows, unless you just don't get into the graphically intensive stuff. (Oblivion, FEAR, etc.)

As far as CRT's vs. LCD's... big can of worms. Generally, most gamers prefer CRT's for gaming; however the sheer amount of space they require automatically disqualifies them for me, period. I'll never NEVER own a CRT. LCD's generally have slower refresh rates than CRT's (even the fastest refreshing LCD's do) but personally... I don't notice it. With LCD's, most 17's have the same resolutions as 19's, which means the 19's have slightly larger pixels and therefore aren't quite as crisp as a 17 (all else being equal). 19's still look very good; but if you step up to 20" then you have available 1600x1200 resolution.

That's my understanding of things... hope some of that helps.

 

[Swaye]

Indeed it helped alot mate... thanks
ahhh.. i see i see.. so sticking to a 17" does have it's advantages. i was orginally thinking bout getting a Samsung Syncmaster 940Bw widescreen or the Viewsonic VX922 but both would break my budget rather badly. but the comparison here would be the 940's dynamic widesreen(5ms) VS the Vx922's (2ms) response time. Does anybody here have any experience with either one? or care to offer any reccomendations?

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I don't have experience with those two; but one thing to keep in mind is that everybody has "different" ways to measure response times. Some companies measure time to go black-white-black; others use gray-white-gray; others use something else entirely. Very few ever specify which method they use. Trying to compare them is about impossible to do accurately. I think I saw a website somewhere that actually demonstrated how a 16ms monitor from dell had less ghosting than an 8ms monitor from somebody else. If possible... go to a local retailer and check out the monitors in person.

 

[hans007]

i think it would help if you told us what your budget was. if you dont mind 6bit TN panel, that benq for $200 for a 20 " at newegg seems like a great deal

 

[akshayt]

As a simple rule which makes games look good while reducing the need for AA significantly:

Use 10x7 with 15" monitor, 12x10 with 17, 16x10 with 19 and so on. Off course you can use wide screen equivalents like 16x10 as well. However if you reduce the res, the game won't look good, and if you don't use a high enough res you will need AA desperately which in turn needs a higher GPU, else you will be forced to reduce graphic detail.

 

[Swaye]

Originally posted by: hans007
i think it would help if you told us what your budget was. if you dont mind 6bit TN panel, that benq for $200 for a 20 " at newegg seems like a great deal

Thats the thing my budget would depend on how much money i spend on my upcoming rig.If i spend quite a sum on my pc i might have to prolong the buy to a further time.how it's looking now i might just go with a 17" LCD.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: akshayt
As a simple rule which makes games look good while reducing the need for AA significantly:

Use 10x7 with 15" monitor, 12x10 with 17, 16x10 with 19 and so on. Off course you can use wide screen equivalents like 16x10 as well. However if you reduce the res, the game won't look good, and if you don't use a high enough res you will need AA desperately which in turn needs a higher GPU, else you will be forced to reduce graphic detail.

the need for AA is never reuced once you get addicted to AA.
on a 17" crt at 1280x1028 i still need AA to reduce the horrible jaggies. even in oblivion and fear.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: akshayt
As a simple rule which makes games look good while reducing the need for AA significantly:

Use 10x7 with 15" monitor, 12x10 with 17, 16x10 with 19 and so on. Off course you can use wide screen equivalents like 16x10 as well. However if you reduce the res, the game won't look good, and if you don't use a high enough res you will need AA desperately which in turn needs a higher GPU, else you will be forced to reduce graphic detail.

Not really... Look at a movie like Toy Story that runs at 480p... Do you see any Jaggies? Nope... Increasing the resolution to remove jaggies is overrated and doesn't really work as well. Sometimes the performance cost of AA is cheaper than even moving the resolution up a notch. Note: I am aware that Toy Story and the likes are rendered at a very high resolution and then brought down, but my point has nothing to do with that, just that 480p is plenty resolution to have a crisp, clear picture provided supersampling or multisampling is done to the real time render.

 

[AFurryReptile]

For just a little over $200 you can get this Acer. It has great reviews, plus a 2ms grey to grey response time, which is more stressful on an LCD than the typical wite to black. Perfect for gaming, if your on a budget.

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16824009087

Plus only 1 in every 100 of Acer's monitors comes with dead pixels.