A friend of mine just bought a GTX980 on a FX-6300 and a 1600x900 display

[Pill Monster]

No it doesn't! It depends on the pixel density. .

That's what Anubis said.

A higher resolution monitor at the same size will mean everything is smaller by default

PPI increases with res assuming viewable area stays the same.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

No it doesn't! It depends on the pixel density. Lets do some math, I'm going to tag @lilhasselhoffer because it's the end of the day, I'm having a drink, and I'm about do math.

A 20 inch panel is at a resolution of 1680x1050 is going to have 1,764,000 pixels total.
A 23 inch panel is at a resolution of 1920x1080 is going to have 2,073,600 pixels total.
(Notice it's not a huge difference.)

We need PPI, so to convert resolution into something we can use against diagonal measurement of the panel, we require the Pythagorean theorem.

diagonal = sqrt(width^2 + height^2)

Lets also define the two monitor sizes:

p1L = 20
p2L = 23

So we need to use this to get diagonal resolution because displays are measured from corner to furthest corner.

p1d = sqrt(1680^2 + 1050^2) = 1,981.14
p2d = sqrt(1920^2 + 1080^2) = 2,202.91

We now can calculate the PPI for both.

p1ppi = p1d / p1L = 1,981.14 / 20 = 99.06 PPI
p2ppi = p2d / p2L = 2,202.91 / 23 = 95.78

So not only is your claim wrong, it's the opposite in the case of a 23 inch panel at 1080p versus a 20 inch panel at 1680x10 as the pixel density is slightly less than 1680x1080. Simple fact is that scaling doesn't make a difference when the difference is really small. The jump from 1080p to 1440p or 4k is much different because the number of pixels will almost double (1440p,) or quadruple (4k), but the difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 is minimal when you consider a slightly larger panel like a 22 inch where the PPI is practically the same.

Or in other words, the scaling argument for these resolutions and display sizes is complete nonsense and has no basis in reality or theory. It would be different if we were talking higher resolutions but, we're not.

Simply put, we're not talking about going from 90-100 PPI to 150 PPI.

I'll go about this another way, that might make more sense than that bastardized PPI measure.

Pixel count is 1920x1080. The display has a 16:9 ratio. The advertise it as 23", which means the corner to corner distance is 23."

You can therefore construct a triangle using that ratio. The hypotenuse would be sqrt(16^2+9^2) = sqrt(337) = 18.357559.

23/18.357559 = 1.2529, which is the multiplier for the base and the height. This means that the screen has a width of 20.0464," and a height of 11.2761." The area is therefore 226.0452 in^2.

You've got 1920x1080 pixels, or 207360. That means the pixel density is 9173 pixels per square inch.

Skipping all the math (and assuming the 20" is in fact at 16:10 ratio rather than the 16:9 of the other one), the 1680x1050 at 20 inches is 9812 pixels per square inch.



You are increasing screen area by a 26%, while only increasing the pixel count by 18%. This means that the bigger monitor would produce a lesser quality image. Your conclusion is reasonable, bearing in mind the caveat that display ratios are changing so this isn't exactly a visual apples to apples. The question then becomes whether the GPU is at 100% to render the lower pixel count (thereby not being able to do the higher), or if there's enough resources not being used why aren't you pushing for a better screen. Ahh, the upgraders chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Sorry, but whomever decided PPI was a valid measurement deserves to be beaten with a sock full of old fish. You see a monitor in two dimensions, not 1. How in Hades did they make a single directional measurement something to sell a TV with?


If I'm reading this right though, we've missed the comparison. It should be a 1680x1050 monitor at 22". This produces a monitor area or 217.5280 in^2, or a 4% decrease in area with an 18% decrease in pixel count. This would produce a substantially worse image than the corresponding 1920x1080 at 23."

Honestly though, these are all numbers. I'm wary to say that numerically better is demonstrably better. Hell, in the last decade 480x360 was what we received TV at, and everybody thought that was acceptable. Getting up to 1920x1080 represents going from 4:3 ratios to 16:9, with a 1200% increase in pixel count. I'm not sure exactly what peoples opinions are, but I think a 14% difference on either side of the pixel density numbers represents functionally nothing in comparison to that. If I was truly honest though, the whore in me always wants more pixels on a larger display. Admitting anything else is a lie.

 

[R-T-B]

He's not overkill, I'm overkill. Look at my monitor. In my defense, I normally game at 1080p and this is a temporary situation.

 

[erocker]

Good. Now you can eventually upgrade around the GPU.

 

[Pill Monster]

I'll go about this another way, that might make more sense than that bastardized PPI measure.

Pixel count is 1920x1080. The display has a 16:9 ratio. The advertise it as 23", which means the corner to corner distance is 23."

You can therefore construct a triangle using that ratio. The hypotenuse would be sqrt(16^2+9^2) = sqrt(337) = 18.357559.

23/18.357559 = 1.2529, which is the multiplier for the base and the height. This means that the screen has a width of 20.0464," and a height of 11.2761." The area is therefore 226.0452 in^2.

You've got 1920x1080 pixels, or 207360. That means the pixel density is 9173 pixels per square inch.

Skipping all the math (and assuming the 20" is in fact at 16:10 ratio rather than the 16:9 of the other one), the 1680x1050 at 20 inches is 9812 pixels per square inch.



You are increasing screen area by a 26%, while only increasing the pixel count by 18%. This means that the bigger monitor would produce a lesser quality image. Your conclusion is reasonable, bearing in mind the caveat that display ratios are changing so this isn't exactly a visual apples to apples. The question then becomes whether the GPU is at 100% to render the lower pixel count (thereby not being able to do the higher), or if there's enough resources not being used why aren't you pushing for a better screen. Ahh, the upgraders chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Sorry, but whomever decided PPI was a valid measurement deserves to be beaten with a sock full of old fish. You see a monitor in two dimensions, not 1. How in Hades did they make a single directional measurement something to sell a TV with?


If I'm reading this right though, we've missed the comparison. It should be a 1680x1050 monitor at 22". This produces a monitor area or 217.5280 in^2, or a 4% decrease in area with an 18% decrease in pixel count. This would produce a substantially worse image than the corresponding 1920x1080 at 23."

Honestly though, these are all numbers. I'm wary to say that numerically better is demonstrably better. Hell, in the last decade 480x360 was what we received TV at, and everybody thought that was acceptable. Getting up to 1920x1080 represents going from 4:3 ratios to 16:9, with a 1200% increase in pixel count. I'm not sure exactly what peoples opinions are, but I think a 14% difference on either side of the pixel density numbers represents functionally nothing in comparison to that. If I was truly honest though, the whore in me always wants more pixels on a larger display. Admitting anything else is a lie.

Man are u writing a thesis? Your posts recently are all like half a page long full of deconstructions, and arguments from differnt sides.... Devil's advocate? ....

g.... u first wrote PPI isn't a valid measurent, then give a hypothesis and and plethora of calculations on how to gauge IQ. Nobody is measuring PPI anyway, PPI is just a result of res vs screen size.

Working out PPI is a really simple...resoultion vs screen size - PPI. You make it sound complicated. U can't see what the IQ looks like, but it still helps when comparing dispays...

 

[Dethroy]

People seem to focus too much on pixel count and ppi and all that stuff...
Accurate color reproduction, high contrast ratio, deep black levels, homogeneous illumination and good viewing angle stability will actually make a much bigger difference.
Also, people seem to underestimate bigger screen sizes. It helps bringing out small details just like zooming in on a picture would - in case the corresponding resolution is up to par.

 

[Pill Monster]

People seem to focus too much on pixel count and ppi and all that stuff...
Accurate color reproduction, high contrast ratio, deep black levels, homogeneous illumination and good viewing angle stability will actually make a much bigger difference.
Also, people seem to underestimate bigger screen sizes. It helps bringing out small details just like zooming in on a picture would - in case the corresponding resolution is up to par.

Yeah agreed, for me the important thing is I really, really miss my CRT.


Also @Aquinus You're measuring PPI of the display. Windows uses DPI scaling, so Anubus is right.
If you want to see for yourself open up displays manager and drop the res to 640x480. Half the desktop will disappear.

 

[Aquinus]

People seem to focus too much on pixel count and ppi and all that stuff...
Accurate color reproduction, high contrast ratio, deep black levels, homogeneous illumination and good viewing angle stability will actually make a much bigger difference.
Also, people seem to underestimate bigger screen sizes. It helps bringing out small details just like zooming in on a picture would - in case the corresponding resolution is up to par.

The pixel density came up as Anbis brought up scaling, nothing more. Before PPI came up I said:

If it's an old display, like it sounds like it is, I seriously doubt it's a good modern panel. If it's a slow TN panel display, just upgrading to IPS would look a whole lot different. If it's CCFL backlit, just going to LED backlit is going to make a huge difference as well with respect to contrast. So don't just assume that resolution and refresh rate has everything to do with a display. I have an old TN film panel that's 1920x1200 in my bedroom and it looks like absolute trash compared to my Dell S2340Ms that are 1080p.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Man are u writing a thesis? Your posts recently are all like half a page long full of deconstructions, and arguments from differnt sides.... Devil's advocate? ....

g.... u first wrote PPI isn't a valid measurent, then give a hypothesis and and plethora of calculations on how to gauge IQ. Nobody is measuring PPI anyway, PPI is just a result of res vs screen size.

Working out PPI is a really simple...resoultion vs screen size - PPI. You make it sound complicated. U can't see what the IQ looks like, but it still helps when comparing dispays...

No. It's my belief that pulling numbers out of your backside gives me no reason to trust you, because I can't check the math. Therefore, the math is provided. Remove the 10 lines of math from my post, via skimming if you trust my work, and I've written 5 lines. One paragraph, and you've decided that's a thesis... Sigh...

 

[Pill Monster]

No. It's my belief that pulling numbers out of your backside gives me no reason to trust you, because I can't check the math. Therefore, the math is provided. Remove the 10 lines of math from my post, via skimming if you trust my work, and I've written 5 lines. One paragraph, and you've decided that's a thesis... Sigh...

Just ignore me, I had a completely skewed view of the thread.....and yep correct, should be 22" at 1050p, 23.6" or 24" at 1080p.
Totally my bad, carry on..

 

[Blue-Knight]

Care to share your thoughts?

Excellent choice, except for the FX-6300.

My thoughts, you asked for it.

 

[MilkyWay]

Maybe they just really like 16:10 and the monitor was really cheap or free. Though if you can afford a 980 then i can't really say the FX-6300 was a good choice.

 

[kanjimanji]

Good. Now you can eventually upgrade around the GPU.

><
Everything tidily warped around the most expensive part.

 

[kanjimanji]

Excellent choice, except for the FX-6300.

My thoughts, you asked for it.

What CPU is good for the 980? fx8320?

 

[Kanan]

What CPU is good for the 980? fx8320?

Unfortunately no AMD CPU is really good for gaming now. If you really want a AMD CPU nonetheless, I would recommend the FX 8350 and minimum the FX 6300. But other than that, I'd take a Intel CPU, a i5 4460 is a very good price/performance part for example.

 

[Enterprise24]

What CPU is good for the 980? fx8320?

Anything above GTX 970 you should go with Intel.
860K or any APU or FX6300 or i3 best match with GTX 960 / R9-380.
FX 8320 8350 i5 4xxx 6xxx non K = GTX 970 / R9-390.
i5-4690K OC or i5-6xxx = GTX 980 / R9-390X.
i5-6600K OC or i7-4XXX 6XXX = GTX 980 Ti.

 

[Pill Monster]

Unfortunately no AMD CPU is really good for gaming now. If you really want a AMD CPU nonetheless, I would recommend the FX 8350 and minimum the FX 6300. But other than that, I'd take a Intel CPU, a i5 4460 is a very good price/performance part for example.

Would you mind posting a little less FUD.

What CPU is good for the 980? fx8320?

For DX11 an overclocked 8320 will be fine with a 980.... crossfire might be another story. But at 1080p or more you'll be GPU limited anyway.....

 

[thesmokingman]

Care to share your thoughts?

That's like doing an engine swap on a Prius.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Imo, the FX-6300 is not a problem IF its OC'ed and not some measly 5-10% either... but we don't know what mobo it's on? and other components come into play too, like PSU, cooling etc... remember this is just my opinion.. heck, I'll be upgrading my gpu to R9 Nano... so there you go!

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The advantage of the lower rez and a strong card is every visual maxxed out!

While still looking like ass.

 

[rtwjunkie]

While still looking like ass.

Yeah, there's that too...

 

[Basard]

My friend got a Xigmatek Battleaxe cooler for his 8800GT back in the day.... didn't even overclock it a percent.

 

[cdawall]

Unfortunately no AMD CPU is really good for gaming now. If you really want a AMD CPU nonetheless, I would recommend the FX 8350 and minimum the FX 6300. But other than that, I'd take a Intel CPU, a i5 4460 is a very good price/performance part for example.

Why would you do that? They have the same weak IPC he is better off buying a better CPU cooler and overclocking his 6300.

And for what its worth I still run 3 20" 1680x1050 monitors and they look better than most 24"+ 1080P monitors...I wont upgrade until I can grab 2560x1440's

 

[Kanan]

Why would you do that? They have the same weak IPC he is better off buying a better CPU cooler and overclocking his 6300.

And for what its worth I still run 3 20" 1680x1050 monitors and they look better than most 24"+ 1080P monitors...I wont upgrade until I can grab 2560x1440's

It was generally speaking, I didn't know he had a FX 6300. I indeed do not recommend any AMD CPUs to anyone (read, CPUs, not APUs), this is a exception because he mentioned wanting a AMD CPU.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I have a 16x10 monitor and until recently when it started to fade I preferred to play games at 1680x1050...it also did WUXGA but I buy upper mainstream GFX cards and 1680x1050 is good with that with full candy settings...my 6950 was able to do that

My 280 does what I want at 1080p..
I don't think it would do much better...

But a 980...I bet it does WUXGA the way I like...
Kanjimanji, if your used to 16x10 displays don't go 16x9...it sucks
Specially if you play shooter games..

 

[XiGMAKiD]

Still a much balanced setup than mine