x-Bit Article: What about costs?

[legion88]

Assuming the user already has an Athlon XP 1600+ system and wants to upgrade. User is looking at the xBit Labs article to help him decide. User has money to burn but likes to get some 'value' for the money.

Using Serious Sam: Second Encounter scores on Athlon XP systems at 800x600x32, no aniso, no FSAA, from xBit Labs.

GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+: 90.6 FPS
Radeon 9700Pro/Athlon XP 1600+: 68.6 FPS

Clearly, strictly from performance standpoint, the GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo is faster by about 32% at 800x600x32.

"Street Prices"
Athlon XP 2200+: $139
GeForce4 4600: $210
Total cost: $349

(Approx. current retail costs would be: $189 + $349 = $538)

Radeon 9700 Pro:
Cost: $310

(Approx. current retail cost would be $395).

Difference (excluding tax and shipping): $39 or $143 if you are paying retail.

Add another $47 if the user needs a new motherboard.

The user will pay $39 extra (upto $86 at "street prices") for 32% faster performance. Not bad at "street prices" and no mobo upgrades needed. No longer really cost effective, however, if the user pays at retail (+$143), gets worse if a new motherboard is needed (+$190).

Now let us look at 1600x1200x32, no aniso, no FSAA.
GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+: 35 FPS
Radeon 9700Pro/Athlon XP 1600+: 51.9 FPS

The Geforce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo is 32.5% slower at an additional cost of at least $39. (At 1280x1024x32, it is 20% slower.) Definately not cost effective.

The user can decide to get a slower video card to pay for a faster CPU.

For nearly the same "street price" as the Radeon 9700Pro, the user can buy a faster Athlon XP 2400+ and a slower GeForce4 4200 128MB at a combined $314 instead. Assumes no additional cost towards purchase of a new motherboard. Unfortunately, neither the 4200 nor the XP 2400 was used in the xBit Labs article.

At retail prices, an Athlon XP 2400+ and a GeForce4 4200 128MB would run about a combined $420, compared to retail price of $395 of the Radeon 9700Pro. Obviously, retail markups sucks as it actually begins to negate any cost effectiveness that the GF4/Athlon combo might have over the Radeon 9700Pro.

Additional comments on performance:
As noted above, the Radeon 9700Pro/Athlon XP 1600+ combo (68.6 FPS) is slower than the GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo (90.6 FPS) at 800x600x32. This statement is also true when you compare the scores of the GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo (90.6 FPS) to the Radeon 9700Pro/Athlon XP 2200+ combo (79.4 FPS).

As also indicated in the xBit labs article, there are some 'optimizations' problems with the drivers. Those problems could possibly be negated in future drivers revisions. If this happens, then the performance advantage of the GeForce4 4600 in the scores would be negligible, making the Radeon 9700Pro a cost effective solution with all systems running faster than an Athlon XP 1600+, even at CPU-limited conditions. That's IF there were future drivers revisions. Wait and see, I guess.

(Prices obtained from Pricewatch.com)

[Bigus Dickus]

I have to make a comment just looking at your analysis above:

If you get the Ti4600/2200+ combo, you have playable frametates at 800 x 600, but not 1600 x 1200. If you get the 9700, you have playable framerates at both 800 x 600 and 1600 x 1200.

Looking at AF/AA situations, you would see more of the same: the 9700/1600+ combo is still playable where the GF4/2200+ combo is faster (low res, no eye candy), and it is also playable in cases where the GF4/2200+ combo is not.

I think that has to be figured into any analysis of "better value" or "cost effective" or anything similar. The money for the 9700 is buying you more options of resolution and IQ settings which are still playable, including those settings where they GF4/2200+ are playable.

In fact, going the other direction and opting for a Ti4200/2400+ seems to be making the problem worse: you are only picking up speed in the cases where it was already fast enough (CPU limited low res no IQ enhancements), and losing more setting combinations that are playable (high res/IQ).

You seem to be suggesting that the 9700 isn't "cost effective" with an XP1600+ or slower CPU. I'd love to hear the explanation for such odd logic.

[sebazve]

i dont understand why all the problem.

the R9700 is the fastest card period.

One other thing drivers for the 9700 are very new while gf4s drivers are a lot more mature. The same happened to the GF3vsGF2ultra when it was released.

Besides no AA/AF benchs!!!:D lol give a break!.

[legion88]

Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
I have to make a comment just looking at your analysis above:

If you get the Ti4600/2200+ combo, you have playable frametates at 800 x 600, but not 1600 x 1200. If you get the 9700, you have playable framerates at both 800 x 600 and 1600 x 1200.

Looking at AF/AA situations, you would see more of the same: the 9700/1600+ combo is still playable where the GF4/2200+ combo is faster (low res, no eye candy), and it is also playable in cases where the GF4/2200+ combo is not.

I think that has to be figured into any analysis of "better value" or "cost effective" or anything similar. The money for the 9700 is buying you more options of resolution and IQ settings which are still playable, including those settings where they GF4/2200+ are playable.

In fact, going the other direction and opting for a Ti4200/2400+ seems to be making the problem worse: you are only picking up speed in the cases where it was already fast enough (CPU limited low res no IQ enhancements), and losing more setting combinations that are playable (high res/IQ).

You seem to be suggesting that the 9700 isn't "cost effective" with an XP1600+ or slower CPU. I'd love to hear the explanation for such odd logic.

Your constant fanboyism is showing again. The problem with fanboyism disease is that it prevents you from reading correctly.

The xBit labs article (
http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/ati-cpu-dep/) did not provide any benchmarks with FSAA or AF, as you already know. But there you are pretending that such discussion was evident.

The xBit article was only focusing on non-FSAA and non-AF scores. The xBit Lab then made a conclusion based on those scores. From the xBit Lab article, it states:

Our advice is simple: when buying a graphics card based on ATI RADEON 9700 PRO, stop and think if you need to "secure your rear" by [sic] a new CPU and more RAM. Because if you install such a graphics card in a slow system, the performance in games may prove lower [sic] than expected.


(Pelly claims that their conclusion was the same as his, which is that it was better to purchase a new CPU/video card rather than purchase the Radeon 9700Pro. It actually does not read that way. xBit seem to suggest that given a choice: CPU or videocard, it would be better to purchase a new CPU. That is how I read their conclusion but, apparently, others read it differently and I'm going by what others said--mainly Pelly.)

As already shown, the faster performance of the GF4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo at 800x600x32 comes at a price. It is more expensive. Or did you conveniently not bother to read that part.

Everyone knows about the faster real-world performance of the Radeon 9700Pro's FSAA and AF. Everyone knows that the Radeon 9700Pro has more than twice the fillrate of the GF4 4600, giving the Radeon 9700Pro a longer useful lifespan of "playable" frame rates. Everyone knows about this and that feature.

Talking about what everyone knows already adds absolutely nothing to the table and allows fanboys like yourself to "respond" while whining away like you just did.

Did you even bothered to look at the scores? Of course not. You are just babbling away--whining like so many of you fanboys do.

The Radeon 9700Pro on an Athlon XP1600+ system (68.6 FPS) is slower than a GeForce4 4600 on the same Athlon XP1600+ system (79.3 FPS). That's a difference of about 15%.

What is talked about but mostly ignored is that driver revisions of the Radeon 9700Pro could possibily eliminate any performance disadvantage it has in CPU-limited cases, which currently stands at 8% to just over 15% (xBit lab scores, XP systems). I believe I already mentioned this in my previous post but, naturally, was ignored by fanboys.

Turning on FSAA and AF only hides the fact that there are some optimizations issues with ATI's drivers. I'm sure you already know that and that is why you want these features turned on in benchmarks. You fanboys need to do better than that. Hiding something does not make it go away.

Further, what is not talked about is that, in general, the GF4600/Athlon XP 2200+ is a more expensive combo than just upgrading the video card to the Radeon 9700Pro.

If the user is going to spend money for faster performance at 800x600x32 then the user needs to realize beforehand that it will actually cost more than just buying the Radeon 9700Pro by itself. The actual cost comparison was never conducted in xBit's article or Pelly's review. It was just assumed that the costs would be about the same or cheaper by going the GeForce/Athlon combo route.

[1eppan]

well, this is nVidia fan site, but legion88, you sound like Hellbinder sounded at Rage3D when Radeon8500 was losing to GF4Ti4600.

come on. grow up. nothing stays forever (except real diamond... ooops... Diamond is gone too so, now there's nothing permanent. ;) ) and this conserns nVidia's leadership on High end graphics too. Radeon 9700pro is fastest graphics card right now. Of course you can always make up a bench where 9700 gets knocked, but there's is no use of it. xbitlabs bench (800x600, no AA no AF) are like buying Komatsu 696 and using it for delivering tooth sticks one by one. (and btw, Komatsu 696 is the world's biggest dumper truck with max load of 696,000 kgs (696 tons if you prefer it that way.))

hold on and maybe NV30 will be faster than Radeon 9700. then there's something to compare about. :)

EDIT: and no, I don't have Radeon 9700Pro nor Ti4600. And I am not going to buy either one. :)

[jbirney]

If the user is going to spend money for faster performance at 800x600x32 then the user needs to realize beforehand that it will actually cost more than just buying the Radeon 9700Pro by itself.

So you have a point...but really who cares to run a card like the R9700 with out AA/AF never mind the fact that they run it at 800x600? How many users that have went out and bought the 9700 are running it at that setting? I really dont understand your point since its not use in that manner in real life.

Also dont forget that the GF4 has had what almost 2 years of driver optimizations (remember GF4 is nothing more than a tweaked GF3 with the core rendering engine being the same) working for it vers the brand new 9700? Do you think there wont be any more driver updates that improve on the 9700?

Talking about what everyone knows already adds absolutely nothing to the table and allows fanboys like yourself to "respond" while whining away like you just did.

Then if everyone knows this then why on gods green earth did you bother to bring this up? People dont buy $300 cards to play at 800x600 with out AA/AF. Really whats the point?

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally posted by legion88
Your constant fanboyism is showing again. The problem with fanboyism disease is that it prevents you from reading correctly.

The xBit labs article (
http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/ati-cpu-dep/) did not provide any benchmarks with FSAA or AF, as you already know. But there you are pretending that such discussion was evident.
What... I'm only allowed to directly address topics that were specifically covered in that hack website's pitiful excuse for an article? :rolleyes: I'm sorry, you didn't put any disclaimer at the top of your thread such as "please, no logical arguments or introduction of additional facts is allowed." What a joke.

And, since you seem to be suffereing from reading comprehension, let me bold the parts of my post that followed your phantom rule:

I have to make a comment just looking at your analysis above:

If you get the Ti4600/2200+ combo, you have playable frametates at 800 x 600, but not 1600 x 1200. If you get the 9700, you have playable framerates at both 800 x 600 and 1600 x 1200.

Looking at AF/AA situations, you would see more of the same: the 9700/1600+ combo is still playable where the GF4/2200+ combo is faster (low res, no eye candy), and it is also playable in cases where the GF4/2200+ combo is not.

I think that has to be figured into any analysis of "better value" or "cost effective" or anything similar. The money for the 9700 is buying you more options of resolution and IQ settings which are still playable, including those settings where they GF4/2200+ are playable.

[b]In fact, going the other direction and opting for a Ti4200/2400+ seems to be making the problem worse: you are only picking up speed in the cases where it was already fast enough (CPU limited low res no IQ enhancements), and losing more setting combinations that are playable (high res/IQ).

You seem to be suggesting that the 9700 isn't "cost effective" with an XP1600+ or slower CPU. I'd love to hear the explanation for such odd logic.

Does that help? Do I need to put the pertinent parts in pink perhaps? Ignore any mention of FSAA/AF/IQ, and my point is still valid. In all your frothing rhetoric, you conveniently side-stepped that.

The xBit article was only focusing on non-FSAA and non-AF scores.And I wonder why? :rolleyes: Maybe you haven't quite understood the basic logical flaw here, so I'll spell it out for you:

Even in the cases where the 2200/GF4 combo is faster, the 1600/9700 combo is still perfectly playable (above 60fps is good by most anyone's criteria).

Getting a faster CPU doesn't buy you anything. It's faster only in cases that were already fast enough, and the CPU doesn't help in the cases that were already too slow. How, by any idiot's stretch of the imagination, could that be "cost effective?"

As already shown, the faster performance of the GF4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo at 800x600x32 comes at a price. It is more expensive. Or did you conveniently not bother to read that part.That's only one of the prices of the 2200/GF4 combo. The other is that you haven't improved your performance in areas that were too slow before the upgrade. I didn't ignore it, I simply think it is irrelevant. Even if the 2200/GF4 combo was only half the cost it would still be pointless, since you would be wasting money on something that didn't improve performance.

Talking about what everyone knows already adds absolutely nothing to the table and allows fanboys like yourself to "respond" while whining away like you just did.What everyone knows is that you can't ignore the most important part of an argument simply because you don't like it. That's what fanboys do. That's what you, and Pelly, and xBit did.

Did you even bothered to look at the scores? Of course not. You are just babbling away--whining like so many of you fanboys do. Did you even bother to read my post? Did you try to actually grasp the concept that upgrading your CPU doesn't increase your performance in any area that needed performance increasing? Are you a fanboy because you ignore logic and attack those that make rational arguments? Ahem...

The Radeon 9700Pro on an Athlon XP1600+ system (68.6 FPS) is slower than a GeForce4 4600 on the same Athlon XP1600+ system (79.3 FPS). That's a difference of about 15%.And both are perfectly playable. So, you're going to spend the money to upgrade just to increase one setting from 80 fps to 90 fps, even though it won't help in cases where you are already below 60 fps? Brilliant.

What is talked about but mostly ignored is that driver revisions of the Radeon 9700Pro could possibily eliminate any performance disadvantage it has in CPU-limited cases, which currently stands at 8% to just over 15% (xBit lab scores, XP systems). I believe I already mentioned this in my previous post but, naturally, was ignored by fanboys.What, you want me to admit that the 1.5+ year old GF4 drivers are more optimized than the 2+ month old 9700 drivers? Of course they are. Do you want a cookie? Here, have an Oreo. And here's some milk to wash it down... whole milk; I hear babies need that.

Hiding something does not make it go away.Some vague rememberance of a story about a pot and a kettle comes to mind... can't remember all the details.

If the user is going to spend money for faster performance at 800x600x32And there is the heart of the matter. Why would anyone in their right mind spend money to increase 80 fps to 90 fps at one setting only, with no improvement for settings that really needed an increase?

[StealthHawk]

is it just me, or is everyone here saying that the R9700Pro is probably the better deal?

what are you guys arguing about? semantics? :rolleyes:

[Bigus Dickus]

Not just semantics.

Quote from legion:

As also indicated in the xBit labs article, there are some 'optimizations' problems with the drivers. Those problems could possibly be negated in future drivers revisions. If this happens, then the performance advantage of the GeForce4 4600 in the scores would be negligible, making the Radeon 9700Pro a cost effective solution with all systems running faster than an Athlon XP 1600+, even at CPU-limited conditions.

His wording implies that currently, the 9700Pro isn't a cost effective solution with CPU's around the speed of an XP 1600+. I simply disagree with his "logic" in reaching that conclusion, and everyone else's "logic" that has reached that conclusion.

The bottom line is that they cling to a handful of benchmarking circumstances where the GF4 is faster, and, with all the loyalty left in them, proclaim that the GF4 is the better deal (along with a CPU now, I suppose) at least in those circumstances. They're wrong, and it's simple to see why.

[imtim83]

Well the true thing is no one in the world i would hope not game at 800x600 with the ATI 9700 pro so it really does not matter. I mean the resolution should even be used on the ATI 9700 pro. Most people will play at resolutions of 1024x768 , 1280x1024, and 1600x1200 with the ATI 9700 pro with at least some FSAA or AF. Thats what the ATI 9700 pro is for to beable to turn on at least 4x FSAA and 8x AF if not the maximum 6x FSAA and 16x AF sense its just as playable espically in 1024x768 resolution. Heck people play at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 with some FSAA and AF. Some maybe even play with it at maximum FSAA and AF with resolutions of 1280x1024 and 1600x1200.

[StealthHawk]

and yet, you seem to be discounting or ignoring what he previously saidThe user will pay $39 extra (upto $86 at "street prices") for 32% faster performance. Not bad at "street prices" and no mobo upgrades needed. No longer really cost effective, however, if the user pays at retail (+$143), gets worse if a new motherboard is needed (+$190).

Now let us look at 1600x1200x32, no aniso, no FSAA.
GeForce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+: 35 FPS
Radeon 9700Pro/Athlon XP 1600+: 51.9 FPS

The Geforce4 4600/Athlon XP 2200+ combo is 32.5% slower at an additional cost of at least $39. (At 1280x1024x32, it is 20% slower.) Definately not cost effective.

The user can decide to get a slower video card to pay for a faster CPU.

For nearly the same "street price" as the Radeon 9700Pro, the user can buy a faster Athlon XP 2400+ and a slower GeForce4 4200 128MB at a combined $314 instead. Assumes no additional cost towards purchase of a new motherboard. Unfortunately, neither the 4200 nor the XP 2400 was used in the xBit Labs article.

At retail prices, an Athlon XP 2400+ and a GeForce4 4200 128MB would run about a combined $420, compared to retail price of $395 of the Radeon 9700Pro. Obviously, retail markups sucks as it actually begins to negate any cost effectiveness that the GF4/Athlon combo might have over the Radeon 9700Pro.

could it be that he just used bad wording? i think so. the essence of his post seems to indicated that a faster CPU and any GF4 is not more cost effective than a R9700Pro. for reference the first "paragraph" quoted was in the context of the only situation where the GF4/faster cpu won out in terms of performance, yet the conclusion was that the upgrade was not "really cost effective" when comparing retail prices. soa minor victory when looking at cheap online prcies, but the R9700Pro wins all the other rounds.

legions conclusion then, at least to me, is that with future drivers the R9700Pro could become the more cost effective solution in all situations.

[Megatron]

Ummm were not talking about Voodoo2s here.
Is there any real reason why 800x600 is anyones concern at all when discussing GF4s and Radeon9700s???

Nobody bought any of these cards on the hopes of a better 800x600 experience....

[ragejg]

Y'all will care next summer about 8x6 again... and it's not that far away. Whether we like it or not, some games coming next year will slow many systems down to death crawl, and many users will be looking for that 8x6, 2xAA, 2xAF sweet spot again... I don't mind that rez personally. I don't have a killer monitor (market grade 17") or an AF/AA crunching beast of a system, so I'm sure that me and some other games will be in that rez range for at least a little while... Till someone comes out with a comparison article to spur new '03 purchases...


-r-a-g-e-j-g-

[imtim83]

ragejg i see what you are saying now. Like doom 3, etc right? I could be wrong.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Megatron
Ummm were not talking about Voodoo2s here.
Is there any real reason why 800x600 is anyones concern at all when discussing GF4s and Radeon9700s???

Nobody bought any of these cards on the hopes of a better 800x600 experience....

oh please. we both know(or should) that lots of people buy new cards and don't use any AF or FSAA, and use low resolutions.

my friend just bought a new computer with a GF4 and he was playing CS at 800X600 with 4x AF and 2x FSAA. now obviously his card can handle a lot more than that without losing any speed(ie, running at a full 100fps).

[NZedPred]

All I want to say is that when playing Morrowind I need a faster CPU. I can live without extreme AA or AF if I need to - just give me better framerates. Quite often the game drops down to below 20 fps when in some cities and changing resolution etc doesn't really make any difference.

UT2003 is CPU limited when playing against bots. If I want it to play faster, I need a faster CPU.

Yes it's good to be able to turn on AA and / or AF and have little or no performance hit, but at the end of the day, a 0% reduction on bad frame rates, still equals bad frame rates.

My current system is an AMD XP 1800+ and GF4 Ti4400 (Leadtek one, with built in fridge :)). My first priority will be getting a faster CPU, the videocard can wait...

[Megatron]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
my friend just bought a new computer with a GF4 and he was playing CS at 800X600 with 4x AF and 2x FSAA. now obviously his card can handle a lot more than that without losing any speed(ie, running at a full 100fps).

Well then do him a favor and teach him where to find the resolution settings..because if hes got a real GF4 he can go higher than that on CS...and if its not a real Gf4 ..IE..MX...give him a slap. :D

The kind of person who buys a 9700...or decides to go with a new cpu/Gf4 combo, knows what resolution is all about...and isnt looking for 800x600...sorry just dont buy it.

It may be different for someone who bought a "whole PC" that came with a GF4...sure maybe they dont care about res, and 800 is fine. However this discussion seemed to be pointing towards the person who was going to "upgrade"..go shopping for more gaming performance...these people are not looking for that low res today.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Megatron
Well then do him a favor and teach him where to find the resolution settings..because if hes got a real GF4 he can go higher than that on CS...and if its not a real Gf4 ..IE..MX...give him a slap. :D

The kind of person who buys a 9700...or decides to go with a new cpu/Gf4 combo, knows what resolution is all about...and isnt looking for 800x600...sorry just dont buy it.

It may be different for someone who bought a "whole PC" that came with a GF4...sure maybe they dont care about res, and 800 is fine. However this discussion seemed to be pointing towards the person who was going to "upgrade"..go shopping for more gaming performance...these people are not looking for that low res today.

no, he built his pc himself, so i'm pretty sure that he knew what he was getting into. he consulted me several times about different parts as well.

his official story is that "800X600 makes it easier to aim" and that's why he uses it. of course when he wasn't around i cranked the settings(AF+FSAA) to the max :p

and no, it is not a gf4mx. yes, and this computer is relatively new, he built it a few weeks ago.

the lesson? you can't make blanket statements about what settings people will use even if their hardware is capable or not. would it be nice if everyone turned up their IQ settings? sure. but not everyone does, and saying that everyone does is a gross lie.

[Megatron]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
his official story is that "800X600 makes it easier to aim" and that's why he uses it. of course when he wasn't around i cranked the settings(AF+FSAA) to the max :p

:D


Of course not every one turns up IQ Stealth...however arent those the people who wouldnt really be looking for a high end gaming card..ala GF4/9700?
I feel safe in assuming the people buying those cards are wanting high res/IQ.
As you pointed out..sure not everyone will do that..and your right, I just believe the majority of people shopping for those cards would, and hence wouldnt even care about 800x600.
Not a lie..just an opinion..maybe wrong/right who knows.

Now of course Doom3 is a whole other story..800x600 may HAVE to suffice for alot of us when it arrives..but luckily for the wallet not all games are Doom3 :D

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
his official story is that "800X600 makes it easier to aim" and that's why he uses it.

I can guarantee you that, in UT at least, resolution does not "make it easier to aim." In fact, with the reduced mouse precision, I think it tends to go the oposite direction.

I thought that way for years (about UT specifically). I think it's some kind of optical illusion... the crosshair, the text, menus, hud, etc. shrink, and that somehow convinces you that the players/monsters/whatever you are aiming at shrink as well.

It wasn't until a friend and I were discussing that very phenomenon a year or so ago that I decided to test our perceptions. Some quick screenshots with bots in the game taken from identical places showed without a doubt that all map and player models were exactly the same size on screen, no matter what the resolution. Changing mouse sensitivity accordingly gave the same feel to the game, but with the extra mouse precision (related to the extra pixels on screen) it should actually be easier to hit a small target.

It's weird, but it's just an illusion. I have no idea why I'm rambling on so... :D

[Scrazz]

Nice pissing contest! lol

Everyone talks about framerates and low/hi res.

But one point that is important to me that I fail to see many speak of, is refresh rates of monitors.

Maybe some people can stand low refresh rates, I can't. I really prefer 100Hz as a minimal refresh rate. With that in mind

My (good old) Nokia 21" monitor does 1600X1200. but the refresh rate isn't something I like to run for very long, 75 Hz. Maybe it's time for a new monitor that has a decent refresh rate (100Hz Min) @ 1600x1200 so I can stand to view a game @ hi-res. Hmm, Sony's top of the line 21" CRT does 85Hz @ 16x12

Anyone know of a monitor that will refesh @ 100Hz or more @ 1600x1200? For me concerning $$$ vs. getting framerates up @ higher resolutions add this cost in!

Some game don't scale right the charactors and huds/text do get smaller@ higher Resolutions. Some games Don't. I do think most DX8 requiring games do scale correctly with resolution changes. So the models/huds/text stay the same size @ any res.

With my current monitor I prefer 1024x768 because of the 120Hz refresh rate.

Game on!
- Scrazz

[thcdru2k]

refresh does make a difference, but 100hz minimal..i guess my eyes aren't as sensitive as yours. but 22in monitors nowaday can handle 1600x1200 at 85hz. the sony gdm-fw900 24in widescreen handles 2304x1440 @ 80 Hz and gdm-f520 handle 2048 x 1536 @ 85Hz

[SlyBoots]

iiyama Vision Master Pro 512

Max Resolution :2048 x 1536 @85 Hz
Max Refresh rate :1600 x 1200 @105 Hz

I have the VMP 510 w/same specs...

[Bigus Dickus]

Another vote for the Iiyama monitors.

I run my 22" at 1798 x 1344 @ 90Hz day in day out.