22' 1680x1050 or 22' 1920x1080?

[Lordegor3]

I currently own a 22' LG LED with 1680x1050 and I have an option to get a 22' Benq GW2250 LED with 1920x1080.
I am a gamer and currently running a gtx 670 OCed to 1267/3454.
If i switch to 1920x1080, what is the performance impact that could be?
What is the FPS drop would be?
On the 1680x1050 i could max out every game (Crysis 3: 34-40 fps, TombRaidaer: 50-60 fps, AC3 stable 60 fps)
And is the switching would make me see a better picture while playing? i mean, does it worth the performance impact, since both are 22'?

 

[expl0itfinder]

You will see a 5-15 fps drop in most games.

 

[PyjamasCat]

The picture quality would be a nice improvement, but you will lose some frames to that. Possibly 10 - 15 FPS average, depending on how graphically demanding the game is. I play AC3 with a 1080p monitor and GTX 670 and have no performance issues (Max settings 60fps with vsync) but Crysis 3 may take a hit as it is pretty intense( I don't have Crysis 3 but benches and videos etc). Not sure about Tomb Raider though.

 

[mouse24]

It won't be very much. I'd say 5 is being optimistic. You are going from 1.7m pixels to 2.05m. It won't be anything you'll notice.

I didn't feel like going through alot of benchmarks because its tiring but google is your friend and heres 2 from crysis 3.

 

[eklipz330]

there will definitely be a perferomance hit, but if you're using it to play games, i suggest getting that 144hz monitor with the lightboost hack, since you already have a nvidia card.


you'll always be able to drop the resolution if you want, and for games that run well past 120fps, you'll have some amazing clarity and buttery smooth gameplay

 

[Immaculate]

I have i5-4670K, cl9/1866 RAM, 7870Ghz and I get about 42-46 fps in TombRaider on Ultimate, FXAA, Shadows all Ultra, TressFX.
Everything I have is stock speeds. 1080p.
670 could handle it.
If under 60fps is unacceptable then stick with sub 1080p
If you want better quality with a slight performance hit then upgrade, I would not pay full price to upgrade from 1680x1050.
Anyone correct me but I thought ASUS monitors were better?

 

[Lordegor3]

I have i5-4670K, cl9/1866 RAM, 7870Ghz and I get about 42-46 fps in TombRaider on Ultimate, FXAA, Shadows all Ultra, TressFX.
Everything I have is stock speeds. 1080p.
670 could handle it.
If under 60fps is unacceptable then stick with sub 1080p
If you want better quality with a slight performance hit then upgrade, I would not pay full price to upgrade from 1680x1050.
Anyone correct me but I thought ASUS monitors were better?

40 fps and up is acceptable, even 35 + sometimes. i played Crysis 3, all settings on Ultra, TXAA x4, 34-60 fps, good enough, on 1680x1050

 

[Lordegor3]

It won't be very much. I'd say 5 is being optimistic. You are going from 1.7m pixels to 2.05m. It won't be anything you'll notice.

I didn't feel like going through alot of benchmarks because its tiring but google is your friend and heres 2 from crysis 3.

From those pics I see that i must upgrade to 1080p. 5 fps hit on Crysis 3 is nonsense.
But if i won't notice any difference, it's not worthy.

 

[Immaculate]

I have i5-4670K, cl9/1866 RAM, 7870Ghz and I get about 42-46 fps in TombRaider on Ultimate, FXAA, Shadows all Ultra, TressFX.
Everything I have is stock speeds. 1080p.
670 could handle it.
If under 60fps is unacceptable then stick with sub 1080p
If you want better quality with a slight performance hit then upgrade, I would not pay full price to upgrade from 1680x1050.
Anyone correct me but I thought ASUS monitors were better?

40 fps and up is acceptable, even 35 + sometimes. i played Crysis 3, all settings on Ultra, TXAA x4, 34-60 fps, good enough, on 1680x1050

Once I get ethernet cable running to the room where my PC is then I will be able to tell you what numbers I get on 1080p Crysis 3 on a card slower than GTX 670 OC'd

 

[PyjamasCat]

See If you can find a store advertising monitors and look for the difference in quality yourself. Some people will notice it more than others, so the quality side of this should really be for you to decide.

 

[Immaculate]

See If you can find a store advertising monitors and look for the difference in quality yourself. Some people will notice it more than others, so the quality side of this should really be for you to decide.

If you mean actually go inside a store, Id be very detailed about what I look at. Usually display models settings are all jacked up to look the brightest, eye popping settings. Personally, I hate using Dynamic Contrast, drowns out everything and stuff doesn't look as sharp and detailed to me... to me that is...

 

[Lordegor3]

Well, after googling, i found that the higher ress is better, since the higher ress (1080p) is on the same 22' (like my 1680x1050). i would not need to use AA, which means more fps. Correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[plznote]

You're not wrong, but IMO, you don't need to upgrade, the resolution boost is slight. Maybe wait for a 4K monitor 😛?

 

[Lordegor3]

You're not wrong, but IMO, you don't need to upgrade, the resolution boost is slight. Maybe wait for a 4K monitor 😛?

Well, I already own the monitor. My parents got it really cheap for their new PC, so i can give them mine, the 16x10, they dont have any problem. Just was wondering if the impact worth it.

 

[Immaculate]

4k?NFM has a 80inch 4k Sony on display.....for $25k ... DAMN YOUUU 4K!!!!!

 

[Immaculate]

oh its free, then hell yea plug that shit in!!

 

[Lordegor3]

oh its free, then hell yea plug that shit in!!

Lol i ment the 1080p, not the 4k

 

[plznote]

Sure, if you already have the 1080p monitor, go for it and plug it in. You'll get a slight increase in quality, with an even slighter decrease in performance.

 

[Immaculate]

I know, I'm a doctor.

 

[Lordegor3]

Thanks for the help guys!