EastCoasthandle
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6,885 (0.99/day)
System Name | MY PC |
---|---|
Processor | E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz |
Motherboard | Maximus Formula |
Cooling | D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB |
Memory | XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz |
Video Card(s) | HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean) |
Storage | 2 |
Display(s) | 24" |
Case | P180 |
Audio Device(s) | X-fi Plantinum |
Power Supply | Silencer 750 |
Software | XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7 |
Benchmark Scores | This varies from one driver to another. |
I am seeing that some games offer more viewable area when it's played at 16:9 instead of 16:10. This is because it's coded in such a way where there is more visible area to see on the left and right sides. When you compare the top and bottom they are similar between 1200 vs 1080. This is debatable as some believe that it's erroneous to allow 1080 to have more viewable area then 1200. The reason for this trend is also debatable with some blaming consolitis.
So, when you look at GPU reviews for certain games are we really seeing the whole picture of performance? What if a mistake is made and one card was reviewed at 1200 while the other at 1080 for a game that offered more viewable area at 1080?
For example:
AvP 2010
Just Cause 2
NFS Shift
Settler 7
As well as a few others out there. Should 1080 be the new high end standard for reviews?
So, when you look at GPU reviews for certain games are we really seeing the whole picture of performance? What if a mistake is made and one card was reviewed at 1200 while the other at 1080 for a game that offered more viewable area at 1080?
For example:
AvP 2010
Just Cause 2
NFS Shift
Settler 7
As well as a few others out there. Should 1080 be the new high end standard for reviews?
Last edited: