Benchmark request - 30" LCD owners only

Shinanigans · 10th December 2009, 2:28 AM

Oh hai there,

A conversation popped up the other day which was questioning the performance difference between 1920x1200 with 4/8xAA and 2560x1600 with 0xAA.

I'm curious myself to see which requires more grunt. Anyone willing to run a few benchmarks would be ~~blasted with piss~~ praised to the highest.

Cheers

MR CHILLED · 10th December 2009, 8:35 AM

What benchmark apps do you want?

nexx · 10th December 2009, 10:17 AM

I'll run some benchmarks tonight, but you can take a look at this, which compares Res Evil 5 with and without AA at various resolutions:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2474-13.html

Shinanigans · 10th December 2009, 1:21 PM

I don't really mind what benchmarks

3Dmark, Crysis, FC2, whatever you can get your hands on

Cheers for the link. So far looks like 25x16 is heavier.

Mau1wurf1977 · 10th December 2009, 1:38 PM

Thats an easy one!

1920 x 1200 = 2.3 megapixel
2560 x 1600 = 4.1 megapixel

That's 78% more pixels, turning on 4x AA reduces performance by less than 78%, thus 1920 x 1200 4x AA will render more frames than 2560 x 1600 no AA...

Shinanigans · 10th December 2009, 3:17 PM

Yeah i figured 25x16 would be heavier, but then again, some games really hate AA. I'm not actually sure how GPU's go about applying AA and what particular parts of the GPU need to be strongest to apply it effectively. Is it shader clocks? cores? memory bus/speed? etc etc

nexx · 10th December 2009, 9:20 PM

Alright here are some quick tests...

My Rig
CPU: Intel i5 750 (stock speed)
GPU: Asus GTX295
RAM: 4GB Corsair DDR3 PC12800
MB: MSI P55-GD65

Crysis
1920x1200 8xAA = 50.2fps
2560x1200 No AA = 37.4fps

Modern Warfare 2
1920x1200 4xAA = 150fps
2560x1200 No AA = 135fps

I think 2560x1600 looks better, since it's my monitor's native res.

terrastrife · 10th December 2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinanigans

Yeah i figured 25x16 would be heavier, but then again, some games really hate AA. I'm not actually sure how GPU's go about applying AA and what particular parts of the GPU need to be strongest to apply it effectively. Is it shader clocks? cores? memory bus/speed? etc etc

AA doesnt hurt as much as it used to before nvidia and amd had 'AA engines' the limit is now framebuffer, 4x fsaa should be very little performance hit.

Shinanigans · 11th December 2009, 1:02 AM

Oh wow, thanks for those screenies/benches! Here i was thinking that 25x16 would be a sharper image than 19x12 4xAA

Cheers terra, i thought something along those lines had happened. So now it's all about how much VRAM you got eh? Interestings

Cheers guys! I guess i'll just hug my 24" and stay right where i am!

10th December 2009, 2:28 AM	#1
Shinanigans Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 4,813	Benchmark request - 30" LCD owners only Oh hai there, A conversation popped up the other day which was questioning the performance difference between 1920x1200 with 4/8xAA and 2560x1600 with 0xAA. I'm curious myself to see which requires more grunt. Anyone willing to run a few benchmarks would be ~~blasted with piss~~ praised to the highest. Cheers __________________ i5 2500K @ 3.4GHz :: P67A-UD4-B3 :: 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1333CL8 :: Gigabyte GTX 580 WFX3 :: CM CM690 w/HX750 :: Samsung BX2450 LED :: *OCZ 60GB SSD/WD1001FALS2** Win7 Performance \| 4870CF Performance \| P182 vs 900

10th December 2009, 8:35 AM	#2
MR CHILLED D'oh! Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 90,749	What benchmark apps do you want? __________________ Co2 is weightless apparently. Be careful what you vote for. Howard on the economy: ''When the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most – they are right,'' Asked how cash payments of baby bonus and school bonus are any different, Opposition Leader tony abbott says 'well look, they just are.'

10th December 2009, 1:21 PM	#4
Shinanigans Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 4,813	I don't really mind what benchmarks 3Dmark, Crysis, FC2, whatever you can get your hands on Cheers for the link. So far looks like 25x16 is heavier. __________________ i5 2500K @ 3.4GHz :: P67A-UD4-B3 :: 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1333CL8 :: Gigabyte GTX 580 WFX3 :: CM CM690 w/HX750 :: Samsung BX2450 LED :: *OCZ 60GB SSD/WD1001FALS2** Win7 Performance \| 4870CF Performance \| P182 vs 900

10th December 2009, 1:38 PM	#5
Mau1wurf1977 Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Country WA Posts: 12,965	Thats an easy one! 1920 x 1200 = 2.3 megapixel 2560 x 1600 = 4.1 megapixel That's 78% more pixels, turning on 4x AA reduces performance by less than 78%, thus 1920 x 1200 4x AA will render more frames than 2560 x 1600 no AA... __________________ Ultimate GOG.com DOSBox Tutorial, Roland vs Yamaha General MIDI DOS Games Music Comparison

10th December 2009, 3:17 PM	#6
Shinanigans Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 4,813	Yeah i figured 25x16 would be heavier, but then again, some games really hate AA. I'm not actually sure how GPU's go about applying AA and what particular parts of the GPU need to be strongest to apply it effectively. Is it shader clocks? cores? memory bus/speed? etc etc __________________ i5 2500K @ 3.4GHz :: P67A-UD4-B3 :: 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1333CL8 :: Gigabyte GTX 580 WFX3 :: CM CM690 w/HX750 :: Samsung BX2450 LED :: *OCZ 60GB SSD/WD1001FALS2** Win7 Performance \| 4870CF Performance \| P182 vs 900

10th December 2009, 10:17 AM	#3
nexx Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,366	I'll run some benchmarks tonight, but you can take a look at this, which compares Res Evil 5 with and without AA at various resolutions: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2474-13.html

10th December 2009, 9:20 PM	#7
nexx Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,366	Alright here are some quick tests... My Rig CPU: Intel i5 750 (stock speed) GPU: Asus GTX295 RAM: 4GB Corsair DDR3 PC12800 MB: MSI P55-GD65 Crysis 1920x1200 8xAA = 50.2fps 2560x1200 No AA = 37.4fps Modern Warfare 2 1920x1200 4xAA = 150fps 2560x1200 No AA = 135fps I think 2560x1600 looks better, since it's my monitor's native res. Last edited by nexx; 10th December 2009 at 9:28 PM.

11th December 2009, 1:02 AM	#9
Shinanigans Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 4,813	Oh wow, thanks for those screenies/benches! Here i was thinking that 25x16 would be a sharper image than 19x12 4xAA Cheers terra, i thought something along those lines had happened. So now it's all about how much VRAM you got eh? Interestings Cheers guys! I guess i'll just hug my 24" and stay right where i am! __________________ i5 2500K @ 3.4GHz :: P67A-UD4-B3 :: 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1333CL8 :: Gigabyte GTX 580 WFX3 :: CM CM690 w/HX750 :: Samsung BX2450 LED :: *OCZ 60GB SSD/WD1001FALS2** Win7 Performance \| 4870CF Performance \| P182 vs 900