1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

New Monitor or Upgrade My Video Card

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by xstayxtruex, May 13, 2008.

  1. xstayxtruex

    xstayxtruex

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    91 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12
    i've got $240 that's burning a hole through my wallet and im trying to decide on whether i want to upgrade to a 19" Acer widescreen 5ms relative res at 1440 x 900 from a 18" crt monitor that i've had for the past 3 years.

    Or.

    Upgrade my video card to sustain a higher relative resolution if i decide to get a bigger monitor down the line like a 22" 1680 x 1050. A HIS Radeon HD3870 IceQ3 Turbo 512MB GDDR4 from a Sapphire HD2600XT 512MB GDDR3


    must have some kind of insight before i decide to let go of this kinda money

    both choices are equally as expensive as the other
     
  2. Joshmcmillan

    Joshmcmillan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    892 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Location:
    Australia, NSW,Mid North Coast.
    Scaling down too below native resolution (720p on a 1680x1050 for example) isn't as bad as some people say. It still looks really awesome.

    What games do you play? Maybe 2600XT would cope in 1680x1050 anyway.
     
  3. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    that ENTIRELY depends on the screen. i can tell you for fact that 90% of screens i have used, it looks HORRIBLE.

    Nvidia have an option to disable scaling and add black bars, while ATI do not (the option is there, but it does NOT work. do not argue this, period.)

    your 2600xt is enough to game at 1440x900, so i'd say get the monitor first.
     
  4. xstayxtruex

    xstayxtruex

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    91 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12
    i play a little bit of everything, first persons, a little rts. some games that are a little more demanding than others, and some that arent.

    im in a bind though, i would like more eye candy than im getting.

    but i would also like to get out of the stone age with this monitor.
     
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    the monitor is what will bring the eye candy at the moment, 1440x900 is no more demanding a res than your CRT will already produce, and it will give you full LCD prettiness in a widescreen format - not just games, but movies and media will look a hella lot better.
     
  6. JC316

    JC316 Knows what makes you tick

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    9,364 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    914
    Video card, hands down, but I think that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can sell your 2600XT for $50 pretty easy, so that would get you $290, with that you could get this monitor Hanns-g
    and this video card 3850

    Grand total = $302
     
  7. xstayxtruex

    xstayxtruex

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    91 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12
    i still need some more insight.
    maybe some advice from the people who might own these products im looking at getting.

    either the

    Acer 19" 5ms 1440x900 700:1

    or the

    HIS Radeon HD3870 IceQ3 Turbo 512MB GDDR4 850 core/2380 mem
     
  8. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    i think i've heard about overheating problems with ICE-Q 38x0 cards - it was fixed with a bios update or manually controlling the fan speed.
     
  9. hat

    hat Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,176 (5.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,191
    Location:
    Ohio
    lol, epic fail
    those ICE-Q cards are supposed to cool BETTER, lol
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  10. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    its because they didnt change the bios settings for fan control on some of them, this fan is lower RPM so while it cools better/quieter at high %'s, at the lower %'s it was too slow.
     
  11. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,603 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    502
    I would say wait a while for the 4850 to come out
     
  12. smig New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    156 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Israel
    I would say go for a 22" monitor :)
    not much more expanive then a 19" one, but much more bigger.

    don't put your money on a 19" one. you will replace it shortly.

    BTW - this houle wide screen is crap.
    it's only advertisment to save money for the manufators. do you remember the old CinimaScope movies ? most didn't like them.
    why do we realy like the wide screen now ? what changed ?
    moving to digital - that's what changed.
    pixels costs a lot of money, and wide screens help to save :p

    a 22" wide 1680*1050 (16:10) ==> 18.65" * 11.66" = 217.45 sqr inch.
    a 22" normal (4:3) will be 17.6" * 13.2" = 232.32 sqr inch.

    you can do the math if you wish. I did :D

    more sqr inch = more pixels = more money...

    for TV they save more money since they went down to 16:9 format.
     
  13. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    you watch widescreen movies? i do. they look a lot better. widescreen gaming is also a lot better.

    You want to know a cool fact? your 22" thing notices the widescreen one has less pixels, this is true. It makes my games run faster at that given resolution, so i can actually run a 22" widescreen at a higher FPS than a non wide.

    Also, since my eyes are laid horizontally (i assume yours are as well) i can actually see further to the sides in my peripheral vision, so i prefer the wide format. we dont have a choice about DVD movies being widescreen (or HD DVD, or Blu ray) so i prefer my movies full screen - they are a lot bigger. If you are one of the people who crops or stretches widescreen movies to fit a 4:3 screen.... well in imo, that makes you lose out on any quality arguments, period.
     
  14. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,609 (1.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    537
    Location:
    Australia
    Id go for the monitor hands down, and i think that monitor you are looking at is the same as the one i just got my dad, looks good. (P193W) i think its called =/

    Anyway a monitor doesn't have to be upgraded as often as a GPU does, i find u have to upgrade a GPU almost every yr, and there is no way u would do that for a monitor thats just crazy =/ and talk about take up room gezzz =/ and at this time ATI will be bringing out new cards soon, so hold off until they come out, by then u might have the money again after u got your monitor to buy something kick ass ;)

    Go for the monitor dude ;)
     
  15. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    And to add to what mussels said, you are actually losing part of the picture in 4:3. In 99% of cases, 4:3, in both games and movies, is actually widescreen, with the sides chopped off. You actually miss out on some of the picture.

    Widescreen is the way to go, with more content showing, and expanded peripheral views. 4:3 is dead, and thank god it is.
     
  16. smig New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    156 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Israel
    sure if you take a wide screen movie (or HD DVD, or Blu ray) and stretch it to 4:3 format it will look crap.
    the truth is the houle industry (or HD DVD, or Blu ray) moved to wide format because this industry is digital now, and wide format save money mostly. not because they think it looks better.
    in the old industry (CRT screens) it was more difficult to create good looking wide screens, that will also be flat. it also caused problems for the old cameras. you had to bend the film to evoid distortions of the pictures. this is why the scrrens in Cinemas that where showing CinemaScopes movies where bended.

    you see - you get what is better for the industry.

    you'r point of having the game runs faster, because there are less pixels is only strengthen my point :p


    but we are going totaly OT here :D
    back to topic - get a 22" monitor. I guess you'll find wide ones only and this is where the industry is going...
    the Samsung 226BW is a good one. 259 US$ - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001096R&Tpk=samsung+226bw.
    I have 2 Samsung 225MS at home, that are also used for Cable TV and DVD.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  17. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    Mr conspiracy man: who gives a crap about this mysterious industry you talk about. you realise CINEMAS have been widescreen for a long, LONG time, and to fit 4:3 screens "this movie has been altered to fit your screen" - widescreens not new. its old hat. its just that we're getting the better stuff now. I dont give a crap if its 'cheaper' for them to make, its also cheaper for me to buy! i can buy a 22" wide LCD for what i paid my 19" CRT 4 years ago, and i sure know which one looks better.

    If all you care about is the industry, sit in the corner with your CRT while the rest of us enjoy widescreen, cinema grade movies and games.
     
  18. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    No, widescreen isn't only to save money. Movies have been made in Widescreen since the 40s. All Hollywood films have been shot in widescreen since then, except for the extremely low budget ones.

    And it doesn't matter that it saves a monitor company money anyway. It provides more for the consumer to look at as well. It's a win-win for both.
     
  19. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    lol wile, we're both posting the same things with a delay.
     
  20. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    lol. I just noticed that. Only for once, your are beating me to the punch. Haha
     
  21. smig New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    156 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Location:
    Israel
    I didn't give you any nick names, so do you ?
    I don't know you and you don't me, and this was not a nice way to reply.


    @Wile E - read a again what I wrote. the industry left the wide screens films when TV started to show, because wide screen didn't worked well for old CRT TV.

    with wide screens they give you less not more

    do some reaserch and you'll find that the price of producing a big LCD monitor with more pixels is not linear.
    a 22" wide sells better then 20" normal, even though they have almost the same number of pixels.

    you get less and pay less :)
     
  22. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    No, they didn't move away from widescreen in movies. You are flat-out wrong. They didn't care about the television. All they were worried about is their ticket sales in Theatres, because that's where they made their money.

    And the number of pixels doesn't matter when the picture's sides are getting chopped off like they are in 4:3. You still see less in 4:3, than you do in widescreen.
     
  23. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
    sorry about the conspiracy man comment. it was intended as a jest. you seriously are taking this out of proportion, to conspiracy like levels.
    a 22" widescreen and a 20" do have the same amount of pixels... only they are larger bigger pixels are easier to see. oh and dont forget, CRT's dont even have pixels - they have a mesh over a nice radiation gun.

    The industry never... ever... left widescreen. movies have always been widescreen. its about one in 50 that i see, that are not - and those are usually budget horror movies. TV shows were never really widescreen, but they too are converting.

    I ask you this: with all your claims, do YOU own a widescreen? have you used a quality one? I can assure you that most people who have gone from a CRT to a quality wide LCD will always tell you the LCD looks better. those missing extra pixels that save money, save US money when we buy the screens - and they were pixels you'd hardly see anyway. two eyes horizontally spaced see more to the sides, not more to top and bottom. I actually cant see both sides of my TV if i close one eye, at my 2M viewing distance.
     
  24. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,990 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,303
  25. Edito

    Edito

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    349 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Maputo-Mozambique
    I have a a collection of chinese and japanese movies (I Love Jap Movies) and they used to shot in widescreen for a long time 2 since since 1938 if im not wrong, but its just to support Mussels and Wile E and agree with them when they say that widescreen isn´t something new.

    I feel realy unconfortable in my office cause there i have a 17" CRT and at home a have a 19" widescreen Benq (Samsung 22" or Lenovo 22" Soon :) and i think there is nothing to discus abtou CRT 4:3 and widescreen.

    Widescreen all the way...
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page