Widescreen vs fps

Fragger · Post by **Fragger** » 25 Jan 2006, 18:46

Hi,
I've recently got a new dell 24" 2405FPW tft :D and I have to say widescreen gaming is great!
I have little problem though, where the fps tends to fall quite low in various games (especially CSS) at 1920x1200 res with full settings and high quality in nvidia display. I'm using V-sync to counter tearing in games, which usually keeps the fps at a solid 60fps, however when there is too much to render it falls too low (try cs_militia with full HDR on and 4xAA, 8xAF)!
I'm a bit bankrupt at the moment so I can't afford another 256mb 7800gtx, however I do have a water cooling kit connected to the cpu which I could also attach to the graphics card for overclocking. I'm just wondering if the payoff would be worth the effort?
Thanks

IIDX · Post by **IIDX** » 25 Jan 2006, 23:08

It would help a bit, but I don't think it would be too significant. (will allow you to overclock a lot higher than normal, but if you're not into OCing then I wouldn't bother)

I think the tradeoff should come with turning down the anti-aliasing or af. It should still look pretty good with a little bit lower aa and whatnot, and you won't take as big an FPS hit.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 25 Jan 2006, 23:15

Try running games at a lower res ... they really don't look so bad on the Dell 24" ... 8)

pubjoe · Post by **pubjoe** » 03 Feb 2006, 02:01

You should be ok if you get rid of AA, keep the other settings as high as you can.

AA is a MASSIVE strain at high resolutions and not worth the effort imo. In fact, personally I wouldn't sacrifice just 5-10 fps for it let alone the 30-50 fps I seem to loose between 0xAA - 4xAA.

Just my opinion.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Feb 2006, 23:58

I won't play any game if I don't have atleast 2xAA ... even at 1920x1200 ... I hate jaggies ! ... :? ... but you shouldn't need 4xAA at 1920x1200.

Shalashaska · Post by **Shalashaska** » 08 Mar 2006, 00:48

Hi,
I've recently got a new dell 24" 2405FPW tft :D and I have to say widescreen gaming is great!
I have little problem though, where the fps tends to fall quite low in various games (especially CSS) at 1920x1200 res with full settings and high quality in nvidia display. I'm using V-sync to counter tearing in games, which usually keeps the fps at a solid 60fps, however when there is too much to render it falls too low (try cs_militia with full HDR on and 4xAA, 8xAF)!
I'm a bit bankrupt at the moment so I can't afford another 256mb 7800gtx, however I do have a water cooling kit connected to the cpu which I could also attach to the graphics card for overclocking. I'm just wondering if the payoff would be worth the effort?
Thanks

Are you just showing off with your specs, coming dude your asking quite a lot form your video card..... And yes militia is a map wich sucks fps out of your machine but 4 x AA is just to much and I can't even see the difference, i just want fps and i'm shutting it down.

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 08 Mar 2006, 00:52

Turn off HDR and cs_militia will run at normal framerates, i.e. framerates similar to the ones in other maps. ;)

ajg · Post by **ajg** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:19

if your a risk taker overclock the cpu to at least 2.8 (easy bit) and do a hard voltage mod on your card (very hard bit). this means basically overvolting your card like you would your ram to get better overclocking potential. but you really need to be sure of what your doing and i still cannot see you will be happy with the results. sorry, even 2 gtx cards at 1920 and full candy, AA?AF etc will struggle. Paddy is right though, 1680 x 1050 will look fine on the 24, and with everything on high you will not have jaggies. Everyone seems so hung up on native res, i am sure that from 36 inches away if i did a "blind test" and set up 2 monitors side by side, one at 1680 and one at 1920 on a 24 dell, half of us would not be able to tell the difference, except maybe a slight softening of the image (which can be quite nice)

neoWidescreen · Post by **neoWidescreen** » 09 Mar 2006, 13:33

At insanely-high-resolutions like 1600x1200+ (oops! i mentioned a non-WS resolution! :P ) you don't really need AA. There are so many pixels on screen, that diagonal lines dont appear jagged.

AA is a God-send if you are running low resolutions where a 45' line looks like series of steps. :lol:

So dump the AA and pump up the resolution i say. 8)

tomatoesontoast · Post by **tomatoesontoast** » 13 Mar 2006, 13:43

Play in native resolution. The interpolation used in stretching from a lower res will decrease your accuracy.

I play DoD: Source (pubs and clan matches) on my 2405 every day. After a lot of experimenting, I ended up keeping the native res, and dropping all of the other gfx settings to their lowest.

Getting between 60 and 120fps now, with no massive dips in framerate in large firefights.

my specs: P4 2.8c, 1 gig ddr400, x850xtpe.

Drop all your settings to their lowest, and slowly bring them back up - one at a time. The shadows setting will give you big gains, as will turning off the hdr.

FramerateUK · Post by **FramerateUK** » 13 Mar 2006, 22:49

At insanely-high-resolutions like 1600x1200+ (oops! i mentioned a non-WS resolution! :P ) you don't really need AA. There are so many pixels on screen, that diagonal lines dont appear jagged.

AA is a God-send if you are running low resolutions where a 45' line looks like series of steps. :lol:

So dump the AA and pump up the resolution i say. 8)

AA still does help a lot :) Ive been playing morrowind again the past few days and at 1920x1200 with 4XAA and 16XAF it looks amazing :)

However, i find that a lower resolution with AA looks better than a higher without it. 1680x1050 with AA instead of 1920x1200 for example.

jeffmd · Post by **jeffmd** » 19 Mar 2006, 20:25

If you are seeing jaggies at that resolution then something is wrong.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 19 Mar 2006, 20:51

Dependent on the pixel pitch, you'll see jaggies without AA. With it, it's better at tricking your eyes.

However, I'd rather have something at native res with no AA, than a non-native with. Of course, the best is native+AA, but there we are... ;)

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 19 Mar 2006, 23:16

If you are seeing jaggies at that resolution then something is wrong.

I see jaggies even at 1920x1200 ... although I do have a particular eye for detail ... :wink: ... and I can assure you nothing is wrong ... :lol:

@ PS ... I'd much rather have non-native with AA than native without ... even if that native is 1920x1200 ... :? :lol: ... wouldn't the world be boring if we were all the same ... :lol:
... but (now) I don't think I have a game that I can't run at 1920 with at least 2xAA ... :wink: :lol: ... just hoping Oblivion or GRAW don't upset things.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 20 Mar 2006, 18:55

I agree, mate :D - nothing I've tried playing yet hasn't done at least 40fps at 1920x1200 with 2xAA and max settings...

jeffmd · Post by **jeffmd** » 20 Mar 2006, 21:51

meh.. this 2005, while sure if I look hard enough I notice them, but they seem much more natural and therefor hidden then my last large screen crt monitor. The crispness of the games blows me away, I dont think id ever turn on AA again for fear of bluring it. ;)

Widescreen Gaming Forum