Should we drop 1600x900 in VGA Reviews?

[Kursah]

I voted to drop it as an overall assessment if it is an across the board decision. I should add that on occasion, I use that resolution on my Dell 3540 when 1920x1080 is too much for the poor old AMD 8850M...but really the only time I could see that resolution being useful is with lower-end cards. And maybe that's where that resolution is worth keeping around and also where higher resolutions are worth dropping? Considering this is for GPU reviews and not necessarily laptop GPU reviews makes that resolution even less relevant IMHO.

 

[Tomgang]

I have no complains about dropping 1600x900 in reviews cause it is not that common any more and almost any old pc with a proper GFX card can handel atleast 1080P gamming.

I mean pc up to 10 years old can handel 1080P gamming like a Core 2 quad 6600 oc to 3.6 GHz can handel 1080P gamming if the game is not to demanding. I have a I7 920 CPU oc to 4 GHz and that cpu is over 7 years old now and handels 1080P gamming just fine and most games i can even max out more or less. So for a pc not can handel atleast 1080P gamming it has to be pretty old and/or weak as hell.

Last time i where gamming in 1600 x 900 is in 2011, so like 5 years a go and i would bet that is how it is for most users on TPU and other places. 1080P has been the standart in a long time and UHD or even 4K is in a future not so long from now to over take 1080P gamming for good, as the GFX get more and more powerful for less money and monitors for UHD or 4K aswell getting cheaper and cheaper 1080P will be out passed in the common years to come aswell.

Its time to say goodbey to 1600 x 900 for sure. Less and less people are playing on resolution less than 1080P. I would more like to see more games and details in sted of using time on 1600 x 900 that is if you ask me close to obsolete.

 

[Frick]

If you can bench more cards, drop it. If it gives time to look at at least some low end cards.

 

[chaosmassive]

900p closest to represent what lower-end resolution gameplay (720p, 768p) is like
look at steam chart, 768p is very popular because of cheap and availability
huge percentage of 768p means another part of majority PC user in market is there

if 900p abandoned, its mean we simply ignore what of lower segment market consumer need before they buy certain GPU (benchmark)

 

[Maban]

Thanks for all the feedback, keep it coming please.

I will definitely not add ultrawide at this time. 1) don't have a monitor 2) switching monitors during benchmark = pita 3) lack of game support

Why can't you just use the 4K monitor? 3440x1440 fully fits within 3840x2160. Its current market share doesn't make it a worthwhile benchmark though.

 

[GoldenX]

I use it to compare to my 1440x900, but never understood why 1600x900 and not 1366x768. The cheapest and more common screens are 768.

 

[xvi]

I'd like to keep it if only to help show a trend as resolutions increase, but I feel it's fairly irrelevant to most of the members here and if one less resolution means more time testing additional games, I feel like that's a good trade.

Those who still need 1600x900 results can look at the trends in resolutions and extrapolate from there.

 

[SniperHF]

Those who still need 1600x900 results can look at the trends in resolutions and extrapolate from there.

Yep, I used 1600x900 till recently and it's pretty easy to figure out where you'll end up based on a 1080p bench.

 

[manofthem]

The question is really
"are 1600x900 benchmarks worth 25% of wiz's time?" He could be reviewing 25% more games, or eating 25% more food, or being 25% more outside. Come on guys, have a heart!

Or knowing W1zz, he could be doing 25% more hookers and blow


I agree with everyone and say kill it.

 

[SaltyFish]

This is a tech enthusiast site. That's true but i wonder how many people land on one of W1zzard's reviews that did a Google on a new GPU that aren't tech enthusiasts. It's my understanding that sites make money from traffic so I would say take that into consideration. 1600 x 900 is an oddball resolution and my guess is people can extrapolate their resolution in general from 1080p results if they are on something lower but if most of the major tech sites keep a lower than 1080p resolution then I guess I would to but maybe not 1600 x 900.

Edit: If you did keep a less that 1080p benches it would probably only be useful to people considering an entry level GPU so that would cut out a lot of work.

I agree. We enthusiasts here tend to allocate a lot of disposable income for high-end graphics cards and monitors relative to normal people. For most people, spending 300+ USD on a 1440p 144Hz computer monitor is absurd. They're more likely to go budget (or maybe physical size) on it; how many normal people know physical size vs. display resolution anyway? And so sub-1080p is a likelihood, especially if they're not picky and/or can't tell the difference. So it's mainly a question of how wide of an audience our lord and master wishes to reach.

 

[EarthDog]

This is why, in my post, I said look at steam stats. This will give him an idea of how many people still use a 4:3 low res monitor here in the waning months of 2016.

Edit: can you still buy a 1600x900 monitor new?

Edit2: holy cow, you can... they are less than 100! Wow...


Still, drop it. Lol!

 

[W1zzard]

Edit: can you still buy a 1600x900 monitor new?

I bought a 19" 1280x1024 monitor last month, to sit to the right of my 30". The previous one died after like 20,000 usage hours

 

[Frick]

I bought a 19" 1280x1024 monitor last month, to sit to the right of my 30". The previous one died after like 20,000 usage hours

That is the purpose of old 1680x1050 monitors. You might not have the time to replace the caps in the PSU's though.

 

[Vayra86]

Changed my YES to a NO.

Low res is very useful to keep an eye on CPU load at high framerates.

 

[Champ]

I would say drop. Even the cheapo gaming laptops are past that resolution.

 

[qubit]

I bought a 19" 1280x1024 monitor last month, to sit to the right of my 30". The previous one died after like 20,000 usage hours

I'll bet the pixels look really big, lol.

Changed my YES to a NO.

Low res is very useful to keep an eye on CPU load at high framerates.

Exactly. What I've been saying a few posts up, to check for CPU bottlenecks which make a fast card look slower than it is, but no one seems to care about this.

 

[newtekie1]

Changed my YES to a NO.

Low res is very useful to keep an eye on CPU load at high framerates.

This isn't the purpose of the GPU reviews, and this also isn't an accurate way to measure that. This type of thing needs its own reviews.

 

[Vayra86]

This isn't the purpose of the GPU reviews, and this also isn't an accurate way to measure that. This type of thing needs its own reviews.

Of course it is. The purpose of a GPU review is to find the right choice of GPU for your budget, but also your existing rig, and to judge the GPU on all of its aspects. CPU bottlenecking matters in that choice.

Have you already forgotten the higher CPU load in DX11 on AMD? Just a random example of why it matters. And with the current 'war of the API's' CPU load is a hot item when related to GPU choice. Especially if you run a high refresh monitor.

I wouldn't be opposed to dropping the 1600x900 res down to 720p either. After all, that is the mainstream res of cheaper laptops and it serves its only real purpose better too.

 

[FYFI13]

Drop it. Most of sub-1080p users are on laptops and reviews of discrete GPUs aren't targeted for them.

 

[newtekie1]

Of course it is. The purpose of a GPU review is to find the right choice of GPU for your budget, but also your existing rig, and to judge the GPU on all of its aspects. CPU bottlenecking matters in that choice.

Have you already forgotten the higher CPU load in DX11 on AMD? Just a random example of why it matters. And with the current 'war of the API's' CPU load is a hot item when related to GPU choice. Especially if you run a high refresh monitor.

I wouldn't be opposed to dropping the 1600x900 res down to 720p either. After all, that is the mainstream res of cheaper laptops and it serves its only real purpose better too.

No, it isn't. Because W1z doesn't use a low end test rig. He even goes as fast to overclock the high end CPU being used. So if there is a CPU bottleneck shown in his results, then there will always be a CPU bottleneck, regardless of the readers current rig or what they plan to upgrade to. The reader can upgrade to the best rig possible, it's still going to have that CPU bottleneck. So any data that you could get from W1z's reviews relating to CPU bottlenecking would be useless, because there is currently no way to get rid of said bottlenecking. The only thing a CPU bottleneck in W1z's reviews at 1600x900 would tell the reader is that it is time to upgrade away from 1600x900.

 

[Shou Miko]

just drop it, and go 1080p and up.

 

[EarthDog]

I bought a 19" 1280x1024 monitor last month, to sit to the right of my 30". The previous one died after like 20,000 usage hours

There is no way in hell I can buy anything less than 1920x1080 at this point (and its been that way for years). If I needed a cheap arse monitor, I would still get the cheapest 1920x1080 monitor.

Steam stats:


Surprisingly its the 3rd most used behind 1080p and 1366x768!!! I still say drop it though... move on... start a trend, don't hang on to it!

No, it isn't. Because W1z doesn't use a low end test rig. He even goes as fast to overclock the high end CPU being used. So if there is a CPU bottleneck shown in his results, then there will always be a CPU bottleneck, regardless of the readers current rig or what they plan to upgrade to. The reader can upgrade to the best rig possible, it's still going to have that CPU bottleneck. So any data that you could get from W1z's reviews relating to CPU bottlenecking would be useless, because there is currently no way to get rid of said bottlenecking. The only thing a CPU bottleneck in W1z's reviews at 1600x900 would tell the reader is that it is time to upgrade away from 1600x900.

QFT!

 

[Vayra86]

There is no way in hell I can buy anything less than 1920x1080 at this point (and its been that way for years). If I needed a cheap arse monitor, I would still get the cheapest 1920x1080 monitor.

Steam stats:
View attachment 78216

Surprisingly its the 3rd most used behind 1080p and 1366x768!!! I still say drop it though... move on... start a trend, don't hang on to it!



QFT!

There you go, still 25% on that horrible 720p.

With regards to the CPU loads. It still has its use but that has more to do with the games in the bench suite than with the GPU. If you play only some select number of games, and higher CPU load pushes the FPS down and marginalizes top end cards, that is still useful info, because it would mean the benefit of a faster GPU is limited - more limited than its relative power would suggest. About newtekie's explanation, this is also true.

Then again we don't specifically need a very low res to see that happening.

 

[HaKN !]

we live in 2016, soon 17 and people still want the 900p results?? hmmm....

Wizzard , drop it completly ! i dont know a single person who use anything below 1080

 

[newtekie1]

Surprisingly its the 3rd most used behind 1080p and 1366x768!!! I still say drop it though... move on... start a trend, don't hang on to it!

I'd bet most of the 1366x768, and even 1600x900, are laptops. Even my laptop is 1366x768, and I do have steam installed on it.

With regards to the CPU loads. It still has its use but that has more to do with the games in the bench suite than with the GPU. If you play only some select number of games, and higher CPU load pushes the FPS down and marginalizes top end cards, that is still useful info, because it would mean the benefit of a faster GPU is limited - more limited than its relative power would suggest. About newtekie's explanation, this is also true.

Again, that isn't the purpose of a GPU review. That is what performance analysis of the specific games are for, and there are plenty of articles dedicated specifically to that around the internet if that is the information you are looking for.