dragonfly April 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 13, 2008 (a standard rez i think everyone can run), hardly. only those with 24" or larger widescreens or older larger crt screens can run that res. a common res would be 1280x1024 as every 17 or 19" lcd uses that as native res. also, anything larger than a 20" widescreen can run that res. I may have been wrong but I was just thinking since my old 19" CRT and my 22" LCD could run 1600x1200, that there was a 6 year timeline that everyone could fit in. 1280x1024 seems a odd rez since it not the common 4:3 nor 16:10 widescreen. How about 1280x960? Seems kinda low by todays standards doesnt it. 1280x1024 is a common 4:3 used in 19" or lower. My old 19" lcd maxed at that (was not wide screen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 13, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 13, 2008 (a standard rez i think everyone can run), hardly. only those with 24" or larger widescreens or older larger crt screens can run that res. a common res would be 1280x1024 as every 17 or 19" lcd uses that as native res. also, anything larger than a 20" widescreen can run that res. I may have been wrong but I was just thinking since my old 19" CRT and my 22" LCD could run 1600x1200, that there was a 6 year timeline that everyone could fit in. 1280x1024 seems a odd rez since it not the common 4:3 nor 16:10 widescreen. How about 1280x960? Seems kinda low by todays standards doesnt it. 1280x1024 is a common 4:3 used in 19" or lower. My old 19" lcd maxed at that (was not wide screen). I'm sorry but do the math, 1280x1024 is not 4:3. That's not a typical rez unless you play at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 13, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 13, 2008 (edited) You're right, it's not a perfect 4:3 ratio - it's 1.25 instead of 1.333. It's still the max of a bajillion, yes, bajillion, monitors I've seen that are 19" or smaller (excluding wide screens, which are 1440x900 at 19"). please click on me if you want a bajillion examples If you want to do widescreens, almost all of them bigger than but not including 19" do 1680x1050. I think cujo mentioned the 1280x1024 to including both wide screens AND the old-school ones, so that we could all do our testing together as one big happy family. Edited April 13, 2008 by DarkArchon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 13, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 13, 2008 I thought this was also the bragging forum. Who runs a 19" monitor nowadays and brags? I don't want to hear about it, unless it's a CRT then I can respect that. Still, they can run whatever rez they want too and benchmark up to 1600x1200 with no problems. And thats within 6yr old technology, if you can't run that, we need to start a retro forum. I'm all for that, but that's why I havent posted my Abit BH6 and SLI Voodoo 2's in this forum. I think 1600x1200 is up to date and looking towards the future in benchmarking, whether you like standard or widescreen, CRT or LCD computing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo April 14, 2008 Share Cujo Member April 14, 2008 (edited) I thought this was also the bragging forum. Who runs a 19" monitor nowadays and brags? I don't want to hear about it, unless it's a CRT then I can respect that. Still, they can run whatever rez they want too and benchmark up to 1600x1200 with no problems. And thats within 6yr old technology, if you can't run that, we need to start a retro forum. I'm all for that, but that's why I havent posted my Abit BH6 and SLI Voodoo 2's in this forum. I think 1600x1200 is up to date and looking towards the future in benchmarking, whether you like standard or widescreen, CRT or LCD computing. bush, as i've stated that's very unreasonable. my monitor does 1920x1200 which pales in comparison to your 1600x1200. infact, my old crt monitor did 2048x1536 so should i expect that you benchmark in that resolution? i was simply suggesting if you want comparable data that you use a more common resolution. why do you think 3dmark 2006 uses 1280x1024?? the same reason i stated. everyone, except those with a 19" widescreen, can run that resolution. saying a 22" that does 1680x1050 is out of date is ridiculous. i would much rather have a widescreen 22" that does 1680x1050 then an old crt running 1600x1200. widescreen gaming is so much more immersive. i see things that others miss thanks to the extra horizontal space. btw, 1280x1024 is 5:4 ratio. not sure why it was decided that 17 and 19" lcd's use that res but i'm sure if you did some quick research on google you could figure it out. edit - after reading the other thread about your 22" asus monitor i'm trying to figure out how you're benching at 1600x1200... the max res on your monitor is 1680x1050... Edited April 14, 2008 by Cujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 14, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 14, 2008 Some how I can push my monitor to 1600x1200 (but in reality it looks worse). Immersion is up to ones own eye, I remember the first time I ran Descent on my 14" monitor with a Voodoo graphics card and almost lost my lunch cause I wasn't used to the fluid 3D motion. We can do 640x480 if you want. 3dmark 2006 is a couple of years old and I would imagine that the next 3dmark will bump up the rez a little, but i might be wrong. Thats why I suggested the older Aquamark 3, at 1024x768 if you can't run that then your playing Starcraft and any more power would be moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo April 14, 2008 Share Cujo Member April 14, 2008 Some how I can push my monitor to 1600x1200 (but in reality it looks worse). Immersion is up to ones own eye, I remember the first time I ran Descent on my 14" monitor with a Voodoo graphics card and almost lost my lunch cause I wasn't used to the fluid 3D motion. We can do 640x480 if you want. 3dmark 2006 is a couple of years old and I would imagine that the next 3dmark will bump up the rez a little, but i might be wrong. Thats why I suggested the older Aquamark 3, at 1024x768 if you can't run that then your playing Starcraft and any more power would be moot. if your monitor is allowing you to do 1600x1200 then it's not correctly installed. also, you will find you can scroll the screen up and down. it is NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for your monitor to actually display 1200 vertical lines as it only has 1050 lines built in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boiler April 14, 2008 Share boiler Member April 14, 2008 So if your standards are "anything smaller than 19" is not bragging and is out of date", then my 17" widescreen monitor that will do 1920x1200 is "out of date" then, right? Yes, that's the same res as Cujo's 24" beast, only 7" smaller. By my unofficial poll, an overwhelming majority of the monitors used by most people and businesses use 1280x1024 as their native (max) resolution. You're living in fantasy land if you think 1600x1200 is a standard res everyone can run. With widescreen monitors taking over, most people that even COULD run that resolution shouldn't, because it would look like crap. btw Cujo, I installed one of the new dell 24" ultrasharps for our new doc, and it is GORGEOUS! I am so jealous... subtle changes made, but I'm still wishing for $600 of my own right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo April 14, 2008 Share Cujo Member April 14, 2008 btw Cujo, I installed one of the new dell 24" ultrasharps for our new doc, and it is GORGEOUS! I am so jealous... subtle changes made, but I'm still wishing for $600 of my own right now... the 2408?? oh man, i'd love to see one in action to see all the pretty colours in the higher gamut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boiler April 14, 2008 Share boiler Member April 14, 2008 btw Cujo, I installed one of the new dell 24" ultrasharps for our new doc, and it is GORGEOUS! I am so jealous... subtle changes made, but I'm still wishing for $600 of my own right now... the 2408?? oh man, i'd love to see one in action to see all the pretty colours in the higher gamut. yes, the 2408. I drooled a little bit on the desk while I was installing the OS and software and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 14, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 14, 2008 Fair enough. I didn't realize how many people benchmark CSS at work cause I never hear them brag about it. As before all max and 4xaa and 4x anio 1600x1200= 209fps 1280x1020= 215fps Looks like the CSS benchmark is cockamamie and need to be thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthos June 17, 2008 Share monthos Member June 17, 2008 (edited) Intel quad core, Q9450 2.66. Turns out these OC real nice. got mine clocked stable at 3.36 without messing with voltage. Nvidia 780i chipset, ram is around 1150mhz. My 3dmark 2006 score came up 15087. Thats 2000 more than when I was clocked around stock. I havnt even begun to look at OCing the gpu yet... Edited June 17, 2008 by monthos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthos June 17, 2008 Share monthos Member June 17, 2008 Did a little more tweaking of cpu, and slightly touched the gpu. 3dmark gave me a 15782 this go around. Im positive I can get past 16,000 with a stable clock combination now. I will probably tinker with it tomarrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo June 17, 2008 Share Cujo Member June 17, 2008 nice monthos. i'm jealous. that's the cpu i want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthos June 25, 2008 Share monthos Member June 25, 2008 Finally got around to tweaking it to as far as I can go without major cooling upgrades. 3DMark06 gave me a rating of 16428, thats with my 2.6ghz cpu clocked at 3.61(seriously, I am amazed!) and I OC's the 9800 by75mhz both cpu and memory. I am content with this config, and I will probably move it closer to stock since I do not actually have a game that needs this performance. But its nice to know I have it here. for the record, I did need to start upping the core and cpu FSB voltages. I have some idea's on how to get even better cooling and I may revisit this system someday to see how far I can OC, but that will be sometime down the road when I dont look at this pc and have images of so much cash flying out the window... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNA June 27, 2008 Share DNA Member June 27, 2008 okay so new build: e8400 stock 4gigs 800mHz Gskill 8800 gts sata I WD 7200rpm Artic Freezer 7 3DMARK Advantage: 4389 3DMARK 06: coming soon - OLD score was like 8600 with the Opty 165 Stock/same GPU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthos June 27, 2008 Share monthos Member June 27, 2008 (edited) okay so new build: e8400 stock 4gigs 800mHz Gskill 8800 gts sata I WD 7200rpm Artic Freezer 7 3DMARK Advantage: 4389 3DMARK 06: coming soon - OLD score was like 8600 with the Opty 165 Stock/same GPU Whats that advantage score compare to? I ignored that 3dmark because of its one run license crap, I wanted to use a benchmark for tweaking. Edited June 27, 2008 by monthos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack June 27, 2008 Share bushwack Member June 27, 2008 Lemme see that 3dmark 2006 DNA. My setup is same as yours but I have an E2160@3.2 and still thinking about getiing a E8400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNA June 29, 2008 Share DNA Member June 29, 2008 So 3DMark 06 is giving me 9807 right now with the CPU OC'd to 3.75, with no vCore bump I am sure my bottle neck is in the gfx card at this point (8800gts 320mb) but I know I can go more on the CPU, but I thought fo sho i would crack the 10,000 mark.. Am i missing something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo June 29, 2008 Share Cujo Member June 29, 2008 have you done any overclocking of the video card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNA June 29, 2008 Share DNA Member June 29, 2008 none, after the cpu then i will hit the GPU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack June 29, 2008 Share bushwack Member June 29, 2008 So 3DMark 06 is giving me 9807 right now with the CPU OC'd to 3.75, with no vCore bump I am sure my bottle neck is in the gfx card at this point (8800gts 320mb) but I know I can go more on the CPU, but I thought fo sho i would crack the 10,000 mark.. Am i missing something??? Forget that, I'm sticking with my $70 2160@12318 marks LOL. But really, it's got to be your 320mb GTS. The 8800 GT is really that much faster almost on par with GTX in may cases. But don't freak out all your games are running just fine with the new system right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNA June 30, 2008 Share DNA Member June 30, 2008 ya i am getting some gliches, but I think it is an issue with the 750i, and not GFX card, but it could be because I was getting some of them b4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty August 5, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member August 5, 2008 Just starting out so let's see. New Rig (new parts are in bold italics): eVGA 780i SLI mobo Intel E8400 core2duo @3.0ghz (stock) 2 x 2GB OCZ Plat. DDR2 8000 (stock 5-5-5-18) Creative X-FI OCZ 600W PSU WD Raptor 150GB and 74GB WD Caviar 500GB 2 x eVGA 8800GT 512 oc @ 650 and 1900 in sli Logitech keyboard and G7cordless Zalman cnps 9500 9.2cm HSF finally made the jump to DDR2 and core2duo...big step. posted other thread about the fun build and subsequent crashes...but anyways. only done 1 run of 3dmark06 (free version, so 1280 x 1024 with no AA) 14,517 3dmarks Old best with my dual core athlon @2.7ghz with 8800GTs sli was 10,159 3dmarks. Almost 43% improvement by switching CPU. I will start overclocking tomorrow and see what I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack August 8, 2008 Share bushwack Member August 8, 2008 Just starting out so let's see. New Rig (new parts are in bold italics): eVGA 780i SLI mobo Intel E8400 core2duo @3.0ghz (stock) 2 x 2GB OCZ Plat. DDR2 8000 (stock 5-5-5-18) Creative X-FI OCZ 600W PSU WD Raptor 150GB and 74GB WD Caviar 500GB 2 x eVGA 8800GT 512 oc @ 650 and 1900 in sli Logitech keyboard and G7cordless Zalman cnps 9500 9.2cm HSF finally made the jump to DDR2 and core2duo...big step. posted other thread about the fun build and subsequent crashes...but anyways. only done 1 run of 3dmark06 (free version, so 1280 x 1024 with no AA) 14,517 3dmarks Old best with my dual core athlon @2.7ghz with 8800GTs sli was 10,159 3dmarks. Almost 43% improvement by switching CPU. I will start overclocking tomorrow and see what I can do. You had 2 8800GTs with the old setup? I hit 12000 with just 1 GT and a 1mb Pentium, I was thinking 2 would get you a little more...Surely things will get awesome once you hit 4ghz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now