Video card reviews these days...

[timzak]

Has everyone upgraded to monitors that can handle 1600x1200 and higher? My monitor is still limited to 1280x1024 *useful* resolution. It handles 1600x1200 but the clarity is gone. Why not test video cards at lower resolutions but with the AA and AF jacked up? Like, 8X AA and 16X AF. It seems that the results would be more meaningful to a bigger majority of readers. Unless I'm the minority now being limited to 1280?

I recently downloaded a demo that was capped at 640x480 and it actually looks and plays great with 8X AA/16X AF.

 

[secretanchitman]

well think about it this way, if it gets 60fps at 1600x1200 with AA/AF turned on, you're basically guaranteed that at lower resolutions with even higher fps and possibly more AA/AF.

im used to not seeing reviews that dont have 1280x1024. i actually look for 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 now.

 

[ArchAngel777]

The majority of gamers are indeed 1280 X 1024, you are correct. I agree with you for the most part. However, the reason they don't is that they are interested in what the graphics card can do, so they push it to the limit by using the highest resolution display readily available, which is 2560 X 1600. They should really have multiples resolutions for their testing instead of wasting time comparing 20 different generations of cards in the same review.

 

[Keysplayr]

I think I just heard a light bulb switch on..

 

[BFG10K]

if it gets 60fps at 1600x1200 with AA/AF turned on, you're basically guaranteed that at lower resolutions with even higher fps and possibly more AA/AF.

This is a very good point.

Furthemore low resolutions like 1280x1024 defeat the purpose of comparing GPUs since they often make the tests CPU limited.

 

[timzak]

I thought that 8x AA still brought the best video cards to their knees in the higher resolutions? If I'm going to be playing in 1280x1024 then I'm going to jack up all the details as much as I can, including AA (which is usually the limiting factor).

 

[Johnbear007]

If that were entirely true then the graphics card you use at 1280 wouldn't matter, which is not the case. I agree that you won't find the limits of the card at this resolution, however throwing it in to give us a picture of what these cards perform like at a *realistic* resolution would be nice.

 

[BFG10K]

I thought that 8x AA still brought the best video cards to their knees in the higher resolutions?

It depends which 8xAA we're talking about and what games we're talking about.

If it's 8xS in modern games then yes but regular 8x (and even 8xQ in many cases) can be handled at ease on a 8800 GTX in modern games.

Also 1280x1024 isn't a high resolution so applying any form of 8xAA won't really tax the card.

 

[BFG10K]

I agree that you won't find the limits of the card at this resolution, however throwing it in to give us a picture of what these cards perform like at a *realistic* resolution would be nice.

It's not a realistic resolution - if you're running a high-end video card with such a low resolution you have a lopsided and unbalanced system.

It's kinda like asking a Core 2 Duo 6800 to be benchmarked with 256 MB system RAM.

 

[PingSpike]

Anandtech's charts have different resolutions. But come to think of it, I'm not sure if they go lower then 1280x1024. I'd like 1024x768 because my wife has an old CRT and isn't as descerning as I so if we play a game together I don't need as high end of a card for her.

 

[betasub]

This is the same as asking reviewers to benchmark a system exactly how you run it, from hardware, resolution, AA/AF to drivers etc. The reviewers have chosen benchmark conditions to stress a particular feature: in this case differences between high-end graphics cards (and that requires high resolutions/detail).

 

[KeithTalent]

They should only benchmark at 1920x1200 as that is the resolution I use, all others are irrelevant.

 

[RajunCajun]

Firing Squad

One good thing I like about them is usually they start at 800/600 and go up, using most evey combination with/without AA/AF

 

[Atty]

Needs more benchs on 1680x1050 and all other WS res.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: RajunCajun
Firing Squad

One good thing I like about them is usually they start at 800/600 and go up, using most evey combination with/without AA/AF

Aye, that's a good point. These "low" resolutions are still useful to the non-1337 gamers who don't have ridiculously large monitors and ultra fast graphics cards.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: A554SS1N

Originally posted by: RajunCajun
Firing Squad

One good thing I like about them is usually they start at 800/600 and go up, using most evey combination with/without AA/AF

Aye, that's a good point. These "low" resolutions are still useful to the non-1337 gamers who don't have ridiculously large monitors and ultra fast graphics cards.

ie. most of the world

 

[BFG10K]

These "low" resolutions are still useful to the non-1337 gamers who don't have ridiculously large monitors and ultra fast graphics cards.

But why would a "non-1337" gamer have a fast graphics card?

most of the world

Most of the world is running integrated video.

 

[aka1nas]

I agree with that rationale for ultra high-end setups like an 8800GTX or most SLI/Crossfire reviews. However, it's a bit ridiculous if it's for a card in the $300 and under price bracket. If I could afford a $700 monitor, I would probably also be able to pony up the cash for a GTX and not be looking at 320MB GTS cards.

 

[rhinohide]

I think it would be nice if some of the review charts included a sound card. Maybe a chart showing performance with no sound card and one showing performance with sound?

I know the reviews are meant to show the difference between the various VIDEO cards, so they don't want any peripherals mucking up the test.

Maybe one chart at the end that says "and here's what you can expect on a sub-$1000 cpu, like most people can afford, and with a sound card in your system like most people game?

RE: the high res monitor issue, I have a 1600x1200 (Samsung 204B) and if I crank up the res in most FPS games the characters become so small I can't hit them. I usually run it at 1024x768 or 1280x960. Somehow the most common game engines can't increase the resolution without making everything smaller.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

These "low" resolutions are still useful to the non-1337 gamers who don't have ridiculously large monitors and ultra fast graphics cards.

But why would a "non-1337" gamer have a fast graphics card?

most of the world

Most of the world is running integrated video.

Teh WinRar Is Yu0.

- M4H

 

[Agentbolt]

It's not a realistic resolution - if you're running a high-end video card with such a low resolution you have a lopsided and unbalanced system

Resolution is not a component of a computer. You can't compare resolution to, say, RAM or a CPU. 1280x1024 will still be a useful resolution 5 years from now, so buying a really high end video card is okay because there will be games that max out an 8800GTS even with the lower resolution. A C2D6600 will never each it's max potential with that little RAM.

 

[BFG10K]

Resolution is not a component of a computer

But a display is and having a good one is essential to getting the best out of your equipment.

If you have a crappy display your high-end components are being wasted.

 

[Agentbolt]

If you have a crappy display your high-end components are being wasted.

I guess I just disagree with that resolution being considered "crappy" Of course games look better in 1600x1200 rez, but I don't think 1280x1024 is archaic by any means just yet. I'm perfectly happy with how games look at that resolution. If there's ever a strong opinion that some new game that comes out simply does not look good in that rez, I'll be trading in my monitory for sure.

Until then, though, I agree that including some 1280x1024 benches would be handy. LOTS of people floating around with LCDs that max out at that, and there will be for quite awhile.

 

[betasub]

Most benchmarks included in reviews aren't there to show the reader how a graphics card performs in your system, but to show how it compares to other graphics cards (under stressful conditions that provide some differentiation).

1280x1024 doesn't do that for high-end GPU reviews. It would be useful for future mid-range cards, & I suspect AT will use it as they did for reviews of the 6600 & 7600 series cards.

 

[BFG10K]

I guess I just disagree with that resolution being considered "crappy" Of course games look better in 1600x1200 rez, but I don't think 1280x1024 is archaic by any means just yet.

1280x1024 is low resolution mush while 1600x1200 can barely be classed as a middling resolution.

I'm perfectly happy with how games look at that resolution.

Try gaming at 1920x1440 for two months and then go back to your old monitor.

LOTS of people floating around with LCDs that max out at that, and there will be for quite awhile.

Unfortunately for them it's yet another example of the inferiority of LCDs and the general public's insistence of buying them over CRTs.

Somehow the "flat is cool" gets in the way of hard facts about performance, or lack thereof.