An iiyama PLE2208HDS, 22" widescreen... Native resolution is 1920 x 1080, which is 16:9 ratio... My question is : what 16:9 resolution should i pick for games to keep a nice framerate... I have it hooked up to my graphics card with a DVI cable.. The card is a geforce 9500 GT... And i run Vista with 4GB ram...
1080P, cost me €169.00 So i guess, if i pick the max resolution for games that support it i play them in HD?!?
resolution vs framerate depends on the game. World of Warcraft? probably max resolution. How much ram does your videocard have?
a 9500 GT is not a powerful video card, you might find it difficult to play at 1920x1080 in newer games. Like the above poster stated, older games like WoW would be able to do it easily, but newer games, you may not be able to run at the native rez with that card. You'll see what's available in games when you launch them though. Going back just now and looking at the specs on a 9500 GT, it is real slow, I doubt you'll be able to play any games at the native resolution well enough, except for very old games, maybe.
It's from EVGA, here is a review for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJPkJyDmH10 And i wasen't planning on playing games on that resolution, that's why i asked what lower 16:9 resolutions would be better... I needed a new monitor, but a new graphics card can wait a couple of months...
That review is crap, here are some better reviews that might give you an idea of performance at several resolutions: http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9500-gt-review/1 http://www.legitreviews.com/article/760/1/ http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=596&type=expert http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3401 Like I said, games will show you what resolutions are available for your display ratio when you launch them. In a lot of games you can select the format, 16:9, and it will show the resolutions available at that ratio in-game, just select one that is lower than 1920 and see what happens with performance. It also depends on the games you will be playing obviously.
BTW, here is a list of 16:9 resolutions I just found through googling: List of 16:9 Widescreen Resolutions Resolution - Aspect ratio 852x480-----16:9 1280x720-----16:9 1365x768-----16:9 1600x900-----16:9 1920x1080-----16:9
This I agree on, when you use a lower resolution, and keep the same ratio and have the image stretched across the screen, it will indeed appear more blurry. If you have to run at a lower resolution than native, I suggest selecting "Do Not Scale" in the NVIDIA control panel under Adjust desktop size and position. This will cause the game not to stretch across the screen at a lower resolution, but it means the game will be smaller than the size of the display. Another option is to run in Windowed mode.
My old monitor was 1280x1024... Games ran good at that res, so looks like i will have to go with 1365x768 or 1440x900... Hm, just looked, but if i want a new, more powerfull or 2nd graphics card(another 9500 GT for SLI) i also will need a new PSU since i have a 350W one right now... So that wont happen this year... 1440x900 still looks sharp and crisp, so i think i will go with that...
That is indeed a low wattage PSU these days, I would suggest not even bothering with SLI on a 9500 GT, if you really wanted an upgrade I would suggest a newer PSU and then a newer single graphics card of the latest generation. Have fun gaming with your new display, let us know how it goes.
That does not have to be true. Some videogames, like Word of Warcraft, have an inferior game engine which isn't optimized, while other games (even newer ones) might have better engines. This translates into better framerates and higher resolutions.
It cannot be denied to be a part of the equation. So in part, it is. Take two competing games -- for example World of Warcraft and Guild Wars. World of Warcraft pushes far less vertices and effects on the screen at any given moment compared to Guild Wars, while its system specs are far more demanding. Given a completely identical system, the screen resolution and effects begin to impact the framerate in World of Warcraft far faster then in Guild Wars, thereby making it possible in the other to have a higher resolution and better effects. In other words: With Guild Wars you get more for less, all due to how well the engine is optimized. You can test this for yourself. Take a mid-range graphics card, set all game settings to maximum, turn off your videocard anti-aliasing and try the highest resolution that still has a playable framerate. If the game engine would have no effect, every game would begin to stutter at exactly the same resolution, or you would see a clear line where a graphically more complex game has a lower limit. But that's not always true. As such, to say that newer (and/or more complex) games always need better videocards is a generalization. In general, that is true. But there are huge differences between games.
I think its incorrect to call the WoW engine "Inferior" and "Unoptimized". The engine is old, and simple, and due to the amount of time it has been out is very optimized now. I also think it is incorrect to say that just because a newer engine is in use it will instantly have better framerates because it is better "Optimized". Most games I've played proves that wrong. Newer game engines allow newer effects, and game devs take advantage of this, and due to this, newer graphics cards can push them faster. This is a simplistic explanation that works generally.