I've been visiting AT for many years (since around the time when a GeForce 3 was state-of-the-art) and I don't seem to remember any polls being available. They must have really been back in the early days of the site.
They are an excellent idea though. Knowing what your readership are most interested in will help ensure future articles are of more relevance to them, increasing the likelihood they will return in future. One point I will make is that whilst you did include the option for "other" in which GPU manufacturer you would choose for an upgrade, an option like "other lower resolution" and "other higher resolution" should have been offered for the other question. There may still be some people running at 800x600, and likewise it is possible with multiple monitor setups (possibly using an external splitter-box) to run at above 2560x1600.
The graphics related question I would most like you to ask is "what is your current graphics card?". I know a poll with fifty or more answers would be madness, so you could in the short accompanying article group similar performance-level cards from nVidia and AMD together, along with Intel, and even SiS and VIA/S3 when you get low enough, then ask which group of cards yours falls into. Starting from SLI'd GTS280s and the like in the top category, by halving in performance for each group, the sixth or seventh option would probably be including the likes of "Intel Extreme Graphics II (i865G)", the GeForce 2MX, and the Radeon 7500.
That would give you some idea of what your readers are currently using, and what the majority of them are likely to be upgrading from (not all of us buy a new card every year, and my own nVidia history has been 2MX -> Ti4200 -> 6800GT -> 8800GTS640) which means that reviews of high-end cards which only compare them with similar cards from the previous generation aren't entirely useful. I could understand this in the AGP->PCIe change-over, but there is no reason now why you can't dig up a popular card from some time ago, like a 6600GT, along with a 6800GT, 7900GT, 8800GT (or equivalent at each performance level from AMD) and include them in the mix alongside the 9800GT and other recent cards. Even if the older cards often have slide-show framerates at higher resolutions, that is the information people with them need to judge how effective an upgrade will be.
Answered the honest thing and put 1920 for res, but 2560 is in the very, very near future.
No matter what res you are at now, it would be interesting to ask if folks plan to up that resolution over 2009, and if so, what resolution they would be going to.
It would give you some sense of the growing need for more gpu power down the road. And that's not even accounting for the quad resolution displays that will be all the rage in the next few years. At 5120 resolution, you'll put even moden SLI 295's to shame.
Since I started to play a bit with 3D graphics I can't stand ATI cards. For lack of other words they SUCK big time. Just to be able to use certain effects, you need to set the size of certain value to specific number. And their cards are full of that. Honestly if you miss black book with list of these "features" you won't be able to run anything but very basic 3D with ATI cards while with nVidia everything runs fine (_so far_).
The pixels doesn't bother you than it's ok. Games on PC or consoles are fine on my 1080P 73" :P so I can't complain either. But then they're much nicer on the 30" LCD.
Feedback is always good imo, and I've mentioned similar with polling in the past, although I'd rather see a follow-up poll for further investigation in that article, or a follow-up based on the findings of the original article.
But honestly, I'd settle for better quality reviews done in a more timely fashion that get away from some of the bad habits AT has gotten into. Using archived results based on old drivers is clearly something AT needs to stop doing given how much performance gains newer drivers have shown lately.
I understand that the number of solutions, particularly in CF/SLI, increase the number of potential tests exponentially, but the obvious trade-off would be to cut the number of configurations tested per benchmark, not to keep using months-old benches with old drivers and sometimes, different hardware. Which is another point, if you're using archived benches and relying on the same test bench as the reasoning, this also prevents you from using the fastest hardware available at any given time.
It is interesting to compare this with Valve statistics, basically what you would get versus what you have, though not 100% accurate since the demographics may just overlap a bit. With Valve stats, NVIDIA has the "currently using" lead. In this poll, ATI/AMD has the "next upgrade" lead.
Its not surprising at all really, this site's readers have always historically favored ATI/AMD parts. Remember, this is the site that returned 100% favorable with regards to ATI driver quality with a 50/50 split for Nvidia. It also returned 100 votes for those who would purchase a 4870X2, 50 votes for GTX 280 and 50 votes for neither. Feedback is good, but any feedback from the reader's of this site are obviously going to be skewed.
I use my (old) CRT at the resolution of 1152x864 - and that option wasn't available. Am I the only one using it? (Chose 1024x768 since my monitor doesn't allow more than 1152 at 75hz of refresh rate).
This poll, dare I say, is bad. I have a 9600GT, and if I was to upgrade, I'd pick either the 9800GT, 9800GTX+, GTX260 Core 216, or the ATI 4830/4850/4870, based on the price and whether I could upgrade to a bigger resolution when I upgrade.
I did vote however. I chose 1280X1024 resolution and NVIDIA GPU just cus it beats ATI in F@H. Come the real upgrade time, and my upgrade decision will be based on the above.
My 24" CRT can support 2304x1440, I game at 1920x1200, and I run Vista at 1600x1000. Perhaps in the future the question could be "the primary gaming resolution" or "the maximum resolution" to make things a bit more clear.
I'm not sure any CRT user uses the max resolution, simply because the refresh rate would be hideous at that res. My last CRT could go way higher than my video card (video card max was 1600x1200), but I kept it at 1280x1024 so I could run at 75Hz refresh rate.
I'd say you qualify for 1920x1200, since that's the highest res you ever use, and it's your gaming res.
I'm a Linux user, and that allows me to do some things that are "off the list." I am running a 10-way virtual-2560x2200 display on a physical-1920x1200 monitor. How should that be counted?
While the price/performance ratio for Nvidia's GPUs aren't exactly the best, by far they have the superior driver team. While I'd love to own an ATI 4800-series, I am currently steering clear until the driver team can fix the issue they're having with Left 4 Dead and properly rendering shadows:
I play L4D a lot, and it would bug me to no end if I saw such graphical anomalies while playing, especially knowing that it doesn't happen on Nvidia cards.
Since moving from the 4850 to the 285, I've seen less texture line crawling in Left 4 Dead, better AA @ distance in GRID, and overall improvements in AS and AA in COD4. Also, the card doesn't heat the shit out of my case.
Nice list of resolutions, you only left out every single resolution I use. 1440x900, 1360x768, 1280x800. 1280x800 is probably the most common; so I'd answer that. Why would I want things so tiny I can't even read them? Not to mention the web isn't designed for 1920x1080 let alone 1600x1200. It's just stupid to run things at that high of a resolution. 1920x1080 for high def movies, and maybe some games; but desktop res shouldn't ever be that high. I will never understand how anyone could LIKE it that high. And I've never met anyone who does.
I see where your coming from, but these high resolutions are typically on larger monitors. For example, my 22" (which has about the same area of two 17" monitors @ 1680x1050) looks fine at 96 DPI. I typically run a web browser in the normal Windowed mode, not full screen. And that leaves me plenty of room to run other tasks in the background and able to view them at the same time. (Such as Windows Media Center to watching TV - I prefer to mute and ignore commercial breaks and catch up on posts like yours!) This is like having two 17"'s side by side, so the font's are better than what you might first think.
I have used some ultra high-res netbooks, that had a 1366x768 native resolution in a 8.9" screen. In that case the display fonts looked like microfiche at the normal 96 DPI fonts. Increasing the fonts to 120% helped, but caused some problems.
So, in some respect I completely agree with you in the notion that some settings can be useless, but it should be taken into context with the display panel's size.
Um... 1920x1200 on 24" looks just fine to me and web isn't the only thing people do on their computers, or so I thought:) Everyone I know who has a 24" monitor runs it at 1920x1200 and loves it. I really can't quite grasp your comment, unless you have really bad eyesight, then I can understand.
If you have a 1920x1200 monitor, run it at that resolution, then turn up the dpi setting, and increase text size if you want things to be bigger on the monitor.
But you should NEVER run an LCD at anything but native res. The only exception is 3D games if your video card can't handle your res. I have an older system, so most newer games have to run at 1024x768, despite my monitor being 1440x900.
You're kidding yourself with 1920x1200 on 15" display. It's already tiny on my 17" and my eyesight isn't that poor. I just don't want to hunch over the screen just so be able to view text.
You know how in the car world they say "There's no replacement for displacement"? Well I don't have a cute saying, but a higher resolution is always better. :)
If you have trouble reading text, then turn up the text size, or the dpi setting on your monitor, but always go for as many pixels as you can. :)
My next build, in a month or so, will be dual GTX280 or GTX285 since you can't get the new Nvidia driver SLI/dual displays switching feature to work with a single SLI card, apparently, you need each monitor to be connected to a separate card to avoid painful switching between games (1 monitor, SLI) and everything else (2 monitors, no SLI). Two GTX280s would be around $650 versus $500 for GTX295, but you also get 1GB or memory which may help with 1920x1200 resolution. I had a 9800GX2 so I considered getting another one for SLI (cheap way out) but the 9800GX2 had problems at higher resolution and AA due to 512MB of RAM per GPU.
Only problem is that I have a CRT, so the resolution is whatever I set it at. But I like the idea of finding these things out.
If you really are taking requests, I would like to see how the Phenom II does against a C2D Quad when both use the same RAM and aproximately $100-$150 MB, since that is the most common configuration for both systems. (For some reason you use a X48 MB and DDR3 RAM in your review, even though no-one would use that configuration if buying new today; they would buy a Core i7 at that price.)
Technically, a CRT can support any of these resolutions... but I chose 1600x1200 since that's where I prefer to run games, if possible. (I don't run many modern ones, so even my low end 7800GS card was fine for this res.
It's definitely Intel for me - I've really come to appreciate how it has become completely effortless to install any free software distro since I bought an (almost) all-Intel system.
I know AMD and nVidia have been making a lot of progress in this respect, too, but I guess my money's voting for a product that delivers, not for mere good intentions...
i haven't had problem with nvidia or amd hardware with free software / OS installations in a long time... and if you want intel then I assume you only want X windows anyway, right? if you don't need 3d you'll have a super easy time with any hardware vendor ... IME anyway ...
Apparently VIA chipsets for VIA processors don't necessarily play nice with Linux. Which is rather strange, as with cheaper hardware you would think the likelihood of installing a free OS goes up.
I would consider a Larrabee card when they become available if it performs well and fits my budget, but now that Photoshop can take advantage of GPU power I don't think I'll do integrated graphics again.
IME, indeed simply displaying 2d on the desktop is not a problem with any of the mentioned brands, but there are all kinds of obscure problems with e.g. the display adapter not waking up from resume, or running really hot and draining the laptop battery in no time, or not handling switching between consoles and X properly, things like that.
You're absolutely right that 3d performance is poor with Intel, so it's not all roses...
Who could really afford to use triple SLI though with three 295's?? Granted, it would be sweet, but I'd rather get me a 4870 1GB model just because it's price is within reason compared to the amazing ability to render quality graphics.
Being that said... definitely chose AMD/ATI for the graphics card and until i build my new computer, I'm using 1280x1024.
triple SLI does not work with 295s ... you can only put two of them in a system (which gives you quad sli). three 285s seems to be faster in many cases than two 295s also ...
Is that due to the lower memory buffer on the GTX 295 vs 285? Because the scenarios where you would actually use two GTX 295s in QuadSLI versus triSLI GTX 285 could be limited by only having 896MB instead of a full 1GB.
Memory bus is smaller as well, but more importantly clock speeds are not as high on the 295. The much higher clock speeds on the 285 combined with the fact that more games can take better advantage of 3 cards than 4 (the 4th generally has diminishing returns), means that 3 285s will often out perform 295 quadsli ...
there are exceptions in DX10 where 4 way afr shows very good scaling ... but afr of sfr or sfr of afr or whatever else they do to get 4 cards working together isn't as fast and efficient as 3 frame afr (which works with dx9 and dx10).
beyond that, you've got the split PCIe bandwidth, though I'm not sure how that impacts anything -- it's a very hard aspect of the system to target test with real world scenarios.
That first question was actually really hard... :/
I toss out both the 4870x2 and GTX 295 as options, since I don't like dual-GPU solutions. With those out of the way, I really don't know whether I'd buy a 4870 or spend the extra money to get the GTX 280 (which is priced very reasonably now that the GTX 285 has come along).
But on the other hand, I know I'll be buying an AMD card in the near future, since they currently have better options for low-power, low-cost, fanless GPUs - of which I actually need a few.
The graphics card on my primary computer is an AMD/ATI 4850, and I'm not sure a 4870 (or GT260) would be big enough improvement to justify an upgrade - so that leaves GT280/GT285, 4850X2, 4870X2 and GT295, and having "only" a 1920x1200 display I don't think the higher cost and additional driver issues of Crossfire/SLI are justified. So if I were to upgrade my GPU today, I'd probably buy one of the factory overclocked GT285's. So I voted Nvidia.
My secondary PC has a Geforce 7600GT, I have no reason to upgrade it (don't play games on that machine), but if it failed I'd probably replace it with an AMD/ATI 4550.
What I like about Valve's survey is that it covers a HUGE range of hardware, and a huge range of users. It doesn't just cover people who like to get 60fps on high quality on huge monitors -- it covers anyone who plays games on Steam, whether they play Left 4 Dead and TF2 on their laptops, or whether they only play Peggle on their 30" monitors.
That's true, and it is very interesting ... It'd be interesting to see the same stats on everyone that uses windows ...
but it still isn't universally applicable data. i'm not saying it isn't useful or cool or whatever ... just that to target things better we need to ask the question ourselves ;-)
This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
i second this. that table is great for a quick estimation, but it would have to be updated constantly to be truly useful. taking new prices, new games, new cards into account. not sayin to update it hourly though, monthly or less even would do just fine.
This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
Whilst I hesitate to recommend anything at that place, and am scared to even mention visiting something there on most sites; I must admit that their table of graphics card categories is very good indeed. I also admire the fact that they continue to do tests every so often of CPUs and graphics cards which don't just include the latest and greatest, but include those from many years ago so they can show exactly how far things have progressed.
Disclaimer: I am not recommending THG as a site to visit generally for reviews, but I do feel they are arguably the best place to visit for a comparison of modern and old CPUs and graphics-cards.
After another look at that graphics-hierarchy list, they should really include another column for integrated-graphics from all providers, as well as Matrox (remember the Parhelia?), S3 (Chrome series). Actually a review of how well those cards from S3 perform (and whether they have drivers stable enough to make them a viable option) would be nice to have here, if they're willing to risk sending a sample to a site which won't pull punches.
yeah, just pick the nearest option -- sorry about not covering everything. like I said, this is sort of a test of polls in addition to the info gathering effort.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
65 Comments
Back to Article
setzer - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
You are missing 1152x864.I use that resolution and quite like it :P
PrinceGaz - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
I've been visiting AT for many years (since around the time when a GeForce 3 was state-of-the-art) and I don't seem to remember any polls being available. They must have really been back in the early days of the site.They are an excellent idea though. Knowing what your readership are most interested in will help ensure future articles are of more relevance to them, increasing the likelihood they will return in future. One point I will make is that whilst you did include the option for "other" in which GPU manufacturer you would choose for an upgrade, an option like "other lower resolution" and "other higher resolution" should have been offered for the other question. There may still be some people running at 800x600, and likewise it is possible with multiple monitor setups (possibly using an external splitter-box) to run at above 2560x1600.
The graphics related question I would most like you to ask is "what is your current graphics card?". I know a poll with fifty or more answers would be madness, so you could in the short accompanying article group similar performance-level cards from nVidia and AMD together, along with Intel, and even SiS and VIA/S3 when you get low enough, then ask which group of cards yours falls into. Starting from SLI'd GTS280s and the like in the top category, by halving in performance for each group, the sixth or seventh option would probably be including the likes of "Intel Extreme Graphics II (i865G)", the GeForce 2MX, and the Radeon 7500.
That would give you some idea of what your readers are currently using, and what the majority of them are likely to be upgrading from (not all of us buy a new card every year, and my own nVidia history has been 2MX -> Ti4200 -> 6800GT -> 8800GTS640) which means that reviews of high-end cards which only compare them with similar cards from the previous generation aren't entirely useful. I could understand this in the AGP->PCIe change-over, but there is no reason now why you can't dig up a popular card from some time ago, like a 6600GT, along with a 6800GT, 7900GT, 8800GT (or equivalent at each performance level from AMD) and include them in the mix alongside the 9800GT and other recent cards. Even if the older cards often have slide-show framerates at higher resolutions, that is the information people with them need to judge how effective an upgrade will be.
FXi - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
Answered the honest thing and put 1920 for res, but 2560 is in the very, very near future.No matter what res you are at now, it would be interesting to ask if folks plan to up that resolution over 2009, and if so, what resolution they would be going to.
It would give you some sense of the growing need for more gpu power down the road. And that's not even accounting for the quad resolution displays that will be all the rage in the next few years. At 5120 resolution, you'll put even moden SLI 295's to shame.
Holly - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
Since I started to play a bit with 3D graphics I can't stand ATI cards. For lack of other words they SUCK big time. Just to be able to use certain effects, you need to set the size of certain value to specific number. And their cards are full of that. Honestly if you miss black book with list of these "features" you won't be able to run anything but very basic 3D with ATI cards while with nVidia everything runs fine (_so far_).Revolution - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
1024x768 on my Samsung 15" CRT..........:(The0ne - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
Why haven't you made the upgrade yet? :)StraightPipe - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I'm currently using a 50" Sony 720p on my gaming rig.I've always had the PC in the living room on my bigscreen. Even back in the day when i played on a 36" tube over S-video (my eyes hurt ;)
I never saw the point in buying a 24-30" monitor for gaming, when you can buy a 50" Projection LCD for $1000 and it's got a tuner.
The0ne - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
The pixels doesn't bother you than it's ok. Games on PC or consoles are fine on my 1080P 73" :P so I can't complain either. But then they're much nicer on the 30" LCD.StraightPipe - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Ps. that's 1280x720 on my 50" Sony.I figure the 1080P resolutions will be big too.
chizow - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Feedback is always good imo, and I've mentioned similar with polling in the past, although I'd rather see a follow-up poll for further investigation in that article, or a follow-up based on the findings of the original article.But honestly, I'd settle for better quality reviews done in a more timely fashion that get away from some of the bad habits AT has gotten into. Using archived results based on old drivers is clearly something AT needs to stop doing given how much performance gains newer drivers have shown lately.
I understand that the number of solutions, particularly in CF/SLI, increase the number of potential tests exponentially, but the obvious trade-off would be to cut the number of configurations tested per benchmark, not to keep using months-old benches with old drivers and sometimes, different hardware. Which is another point, if you're using archived benches and relying on the same test bench as the reasoning, this also prevents you from using the fastest hardware available at any given time.
Zap - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
It is interesting to compare this with Valve statistics, basically what you would get versus what you have, though not 100% accurate since the demographics may just overlap a bit. With Valve stats, NVIDIA has the "currently using" lead. In this poll, ATI/AMD has the "next upgrade" lead.chizow - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Its not surprising at all really, this site's readers have always historically favored ATI/AMD parts. Remember, this is the site that returned 100% favorable with regards to ATI driver quality with a 50/50 split for Nvidia. It also returned 100 votes for those who would purchase a 4870X2, 50 votes for GTX 280 and 50 votes for neither. Feedback is good, but any feedback from the reader's of this site are obviously going to be skewed.MrWho - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I use my (old) CRT at the resolution of 1152x864 - and that option wasn't available. Am I the only one using it? (Chose 1024x768 since my monitor doesn't allow more than 1152 at 75hz of refresh rate).geokilla - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
This poll, dare I say, is bad. I have a 9600GT, and if I was to upgrade, I'd pick either the 9800GT, 9800GTX+, GTX260 Core 216, or the ATI 4830/4850/4870, based on the price and whether I could upgrade to a bigger resolution when I upgrade.I did vote however. I chose 1280X1024 resolution and NVIDIA GPU just cus it beats ATI in F@H. Come the real upgrade time, and my upgrade decision will be based on the above.
Crusty - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
So you've been slaving away trying to get these polls running instead of working on getting rid of Fusetalk. Back on task!!!Sunrise089 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
My 24" CRT can support 2304x1440, I game at 1920x1200, and I run Vista at 1600x1000. Perhaps in the future the question could be "the primary gaming resolution" or "the maximum resolution" to make things a bit more clear.UNHchabo - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I'm not sure any CRT user uses the max resolution, simply because the refresh rate would be hideous at that res. My last CRT could go way higher than my video card (video card max was 1600x1200), but I kept it at 1280x1024 so I could run at 75Hz refresh rate.I'd say you qualify for 1920x1200, since that's the highest res you ever use, and it's your gaming res.
cjcoats - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I'm a Linux user, and that allows me to do some things that are "off the list." I am running a 10-way virtual-2560x2200 display on a physical-1920x1200 monitor. How should that be counted?piroroadkill - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I have 4 physical monitors.Simply choose your largest physical monitor.
michaelheath - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
While the price/performance ratio for Nvidia's GPUs aren't exactly the best, by far they have the superior driver team. While I'd love to own an ATI 4800-series, I am currently steering clear until the driver team can fix the issue they're having with Left 4 Dead and properly rendering shadows:http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSw4LC...">http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSw4LC...
I play L4D a lot, and it would bug me to no end if I saw such graphical anomalies while playing, especially knowing that it doesn't happen on Nvidia cards.
Jodiuh - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Since moving from the 4850 to the 285, I've seen less texture line crawling in Left 4 Dead, better AA @ distance in GRID, and overall improvements in AS and AA in COD4. Also, the card doesn't heat the shit out of my case.Megaknight - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
That's weird, I play L4D on my 2900XT with everything maxed and the shadows don't have a single problem...Hrel - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Nice list of resolutions, you only left out every single resolution I use. 1440x900, 1360x768, 1280x800. 1280x800 is probably the most common; so I'd answer that. Why would I want things so tiny I can't even read them? Not to mention the web isn't designed for 1920x1080 let alone 1600x1200. It's just stupid to run things at that high of a resolution. 1920x1080 for high def movies, and maybe some games; but desktop res shouldn't ever be that high. I will never understand how anyone could LIKE it that high. And I've never met anyone who does.9nails - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I see where your coming from, but these high resolutions are typically on larger monitors. For example, my 22" (which has about the same area of two 17" monitors @ 1680x1050) looks fine at 96 DPI. I typically run a web browser in the normal Windowed mode, not full screen. And that leaves me plenty of room to run other tasks in the background and able to view them at the same time. (Such as Windows Media Center to watching TV - I prefer to mute and ignore commercial breaks and catch up on posts like yours!) This is like having two 17"'s side by side, so the font's are better than what you might first think.I have used some ultra high-res netbooks, that had a 1366x768 native resolution in a 8.9" screen. In that case the display fonts looked like microfiche at the normal 96 DPI fonts. Increasing the fonts to 120% helped, but caused some problems.
So, in some respect I completely agree with you in the notion that some settings can be useless, but it should be taken into context with the display panel's size.
Zak - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Um... 1920x1200 on 24" looks just fine to me and web isn't the only thing people do on their computers, or so I thought:) Everyone I know who has a 24" monitor runs it at 1920x1200 and loves it. I really can't quite grasp your comment, unless you have really bad eyesight, then I can understand.Z.
UNHchabo - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
If you have a 1920x1200 monitor, run it at that resolution, then turn up the dpi setting, and increase text size if you want things to be bigger on the monitor.But you should NEVER run an LCD at anything but native res. The only exception is 3D games if your video card can't handle your res. I have an older system, so most newer games have to run at 1024x768, despite my monitor being 1440x900.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Text is plenty big at 1920x1200 on a 24" monitor. I'm looking for a 1920x1200 15.4 inch display for my next laptop.The0ne - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
You're kidding yourself with 1920x1200 on 15" display. It's already tiny on my 17" and my eyesight isn't that poor. I just don't want to hunch over the screen just so be able to view text.UNHchabo - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
You know how in the car world they say "There's no replacement for displacement"? Well I don't have a cute saying, but a higher resolution is always better. :)If you have trouble reading text, then turn up the text size, or the dpi setting on your monitor, but always go for as many pixels as you can. :)
Zak - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
My next build, in a month or so, will be dual GTX280 or GTX285 since you can't get the new Nvidia driver SLI/dual displays switching feature to work with a single SLI card, apparently, you need each monitor to be connected to a separate card to avoid painful switching between games (1 monitor, SLI) and everything else (2 monitors, no SLI). Two GTX280s would be around $650 versus $500 for GTX295, but you also get 1GB or memory which may help with 1920x1200 resolution. I had a 9800GX2 so I considered getting another one for SLI (cheap way out) but the 9800GX2 had problems at higher resolution and AA due to 512MB of RAM per GPU.Anyway, my 2 cents...
Z.
Martimus - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Only problem is that I have a CRT, so the resolution is whatever I set it at. But I like the idea of finding these things out.If you really are taking requests, I would like to see how the Phenom II does against a C2D Quad when both use the same RAM and aproximately $100-$150 MB, since that is the most common configuration for both systems. (For some reason you use a X48 MB and DDR3 RAM in your review, even though no-one would use that configuration if buying new today; they would buy a Core i7 at that price.)
schwinn8 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Technically, a CRT can support any of these resolutions... but I chose 1600x1200 since that's where I prefer to run games, if possible. (I don't run many modern ones, so even my low end 7800GS card was fine for this res.Patsoe - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
It's definitely Intel for me - I've really come to appreciate how it has become completely effortless to install any free software distro since I bought an (almost) all-Intel system.I know AMD and nVidia have been making a lot of progress in this respect, too, but I guess my money's voting for a product that delivers, not for mere good intentions...
DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
i haven't had problem with nvidia or amd hardware with free software / OS installations in a long time... and if you want intel then I assume you only want X windows anyway, right? if you don't need 3d you'll have a super easy time with any hardware vendor ... IME anyway ...strikeback03 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Apparently VIA chipsets for VIA processors don't necessarily play nice with Linux. Which is rather strange, as with cheaper hardware you would think the likelihood of installing a free OS goes up.I would consider a Larrabee card when they become available if it performs well and fits my budget, but now that Photoshop can take advantage of GPU power I don't think I'll do integrated graphics again.
Patsoe - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
IME, indeed simply displaying 2d on the desktop is not a problem with any of the mentioned brands, but there are all kinds of obscure problems with e.g. the display adapter not waking up from resume, or running really hot and draining the laptop battery in no time, or not handling switching between consoles and X properly, things like that.You're absolutely right that 3d performance is poor with Intel, so it's not all roses...
prophet001 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
son....triple SLI on the GTX 295???
i almost put ATI though but the 295 is the sweet sauce :-D
Judguh - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Who could really afford to use triple SLI though with three 295's?? Granted, it would be sweet, but I'd rather get me a 4870 1GB model just because it's price is within reason compared to the amazing ability to render quality graphics.Being that said... definitely chose AMD/ATI for the graphics card and until i build my new computer, I'm using 1280x1024.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
triple SLI does not work with 295s ... you can only put two of them in a system (which gives you quad sli). three 285s seems to be faster in many cases than two 295s also ...Roland00 - Saturday, January 31, 2009 - link
Just want to echo, while you can only have 2 295s in sli (for a total of 4 gpus) you can have a fifth gpu dedicated soley for physics.Denithor - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Is that due to the lower memory buffer on the GTX 295 vs 285? Because the scenarios where you would actually use two GTX 295s in QuadSLI versus triSLI GTX 285 could be limited by only having 896MB instead of a full 1GB.DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
It's not just memory size.Memory bus is smaller as well, but more importantly clock speeds are not as high on the 295. The much higher clock speeds on the 285 combined with the fact that more games can take better advantage of 3 cards than 4 (the 4th generally has diminishing returns), means that 3 285s will often out perform 295 quadsli ...
there are exceptions in DX10 where 4 way afr shows very good scaling ... but afr of sfr or sfr of afr or whatever else they do to get 4 cards working together isn't as fast and efficient as 3 frame afr (which works with dx9 and dx10).
beyond that, you've got the split PCIe bandwidth, though I'm not sure how that impacts anything -- it's a very hard aspect of the system to target test with real world scenarios.
VaultDweller - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
That first question was actually really hard... :/I toss out both the 4870x2 and GTX 295 as options, since I don't like dual-GPU solutions. With those out of the way, I really don't know whether I'd buy a 4870 or spend the extra money to get the GTX 280 (which is priced very reasonably now that the GTX 285 has come along).
But on the other hand, I know I'll be buying an AMD card in the near future, since they currently have better options for low-power, low-cost, fanless GPUs - of which I actually need a few.
RagingDragon - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
The graphics card on my primary computer is an AMD/ATI 4850, and I'm not sure a 4870 (or GT260) would be big enough improvement to justify an upgrade - so that leaves GT280/GT285, 4850X2, 4870X2 and GT295, and having "only" a 1920x1200 display I don't think the higher cost and additional driver issues of Crossfire/SLI are justified. So if I were to upgrade my GPU today, I'd probably buy one of the factory overclocked GT285's. So I voted Nvidia.My secondary PC has a Geforce 7600GT, I have no reason to upgrade it (don't play games on that machine), but if it failed I'd probably replace it with an AMD/ATI 4550.
PilgrimShadow - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
or Cowboy Neal.DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
The problem with Valve's data is that it is Valve's data. Not all AnandTech readers play Valve games and not all Valve gamers read AnandTech.Their data is certainly very interesting, but it is most interesting to Valve and not as useful for everyone else.
UNHchabo - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Just so everyone else knows what we're talking about:http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
What I like about Valve's survey is that it covers a HUGE range of hardware, and a huge range of users. It doesn't just cover people who like to get 60fps on high quality on huge monitors -- it covers anyone who plays games on Steam, whether they play Left 4 Dead and TF2 on their laptops, or whether they only play Peggle on their 30" monitors.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
That's true, and it is very interesting ... It'd be interesting to see the same stats on everyone that uses windows ...but it still isn't universally applicable data. i'm not saying it isn't useful or cool or whatever ... just that to target things better we need to ask the question ourselves ;-)
DLimmer - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
You can find a Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
crimson117 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Derek, one of the most useful things I've ever found on anandtech was the "Approximate Performance Ranking" table at http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=288...">http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=288... from way back in December 2006.I'd love to see an updated version of this table! It really helps consolidate a lot of data into a useful single source.
icingdeath88 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
i second this. that table is great for a quick estimation, but it would have to be updated constantly to be truly useful. taking new prices, new games, new cards into account. not sayin to update it hourly though, monthly or less even would do just fine.DLimmer - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
You can find a Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
DLimmer - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
You can find a Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-...This doesn't spell out exactly what a person would need for a particular resolution, nor the price for that exact performance, but it's a very helpful performance chart.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
Whilst I hesitate to recommend anything at that place, and am scared to even mention visiting something there on most sites; I must admit that their table of graphics card categories is very good indeed. I also admire the fact that they continue to do tests every so often of CPUs and graphics cards which don't just include the latest and greatest, but include those from many years ago so they can show exactly how far things have progressed.Disclaimer: I am not recommending THG as a site to visit generally for reviews, but I do feel they are arguably the best place to visit for a comparison of modern and old CPUs and graphics-cards.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
After another look at that graphics-hierarchy list, they should really include another column for integrated-graphics from all providers, as well as Matrox (remember the Parhelia?), S3 (Chrome series). Actually a review of how well those cards from S3 perform (and whether they have drivers stable enough to make them a viable option) would be nice to have here, if they're willing to risk sending a sample to a site which won't pull punches.yyrkoon - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
1440x900 ? other "low res" HD options ?chronodekar - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I agree. My home monitor is 1440 x 900And at work I use, .. let me see now.. 1280x1024
Can we opt for more than just 1 option? You know a check-box or the like ?
anonemus - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I also use 1440x990 at home. In the survey, I clicked on the 12x10 reso at its the nearest to 14x9UNHchabo - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I did that too -- both resolutions are around 1.3 megapixels.DerekWilson - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
yeah, just pick the nearest option -- sorry about not covering everything. like I said, this is sort of a test of polls in addition to the info gathering effort.yyrkoon - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
err WS, or wide screen options. Sorry.wogzi - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Agreed. I'm sure more than enough people have either a high-res 17" widescreen or a standard 19" widescreen.DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
So I know the poll isn't quite working yet ... we're still working some kinks out. It'll be up asap.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Is it working now? LOL - so far I'm the only 2560x1600 vote. :-Drbfowler9lfc - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
It is now, but how on earth there are (X) votes for VGA card and (X-1) votes for resolution?