Please Mr.Tom! VGA charts: add 800x600x16.

Frisbee

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2002
87
0
18,630
Hello everybody;

I have a question for the people of Tom's Hardware:
In the VGA charts, so far you have only used resolutions of 1024x768x32 and above.
This is NOT very interesting for people who have a budget card, because these cards were never made to run games at such high relosutions.

Don't forget that MOST people have a budget video card, so I think that with the current VGA charts, you are only adressing the people who have an expensive video card.
That means that the VGA charts may not be interesting for, say 50% of your readers!

So PLEASE: add 800x600x16, so that people like me can see if their budget card perfroms adequately in this resolution.

eg. I have a GF2MX, a Kyro1 and even an old TNT2.
If I want to know if these cards can play UT2003, the current VGA charts are useless to me. I know that these cards cannot play UT2003 or Jedi Knight in 1024x768x32,
but I would like to know if they can play those games adequately in 800x600x16.

So please, for the people with a lower budget, add 800x600x16 to your charts, so that they can see if their budget card CAN play these games at this lower resolution.
My opinion is that currently, your VGA charts are only interesting for people who bought expensive video cards, like the GeForce 3 and up, but not interesting for people who have budget cards like the Kyro1 or GF2MX.
Even for the GF4MX which you tested it is not very interesting, because the only thing the charts show is that it is not fast enough for 1024x768x32 in most cases. So even people who have a GF4MX still have an unanswered question: if I go down to 800x600x16, will my card be fast enough then to make the games "playable"?

Thank you and greetings from Belgium;
Carl

PS: If you still have a Kyro1, I hope that you will add this card to Part II of your VGA cards, not just the Kyro2.
 
1024 x 768 x 32bit is the standard gaming resolution. It's the resolution to use with VGA charts. If they want to add 800 x 600 res., then they should also add 1600 x 1200 res. for benchmarking high-end card. That would make the VGA chart much longer.

I think, THG is doing right by using only 1024 x 768 x 32bit res.

Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26410#26410" target="_new"> Click </A>
 
Hmm, while I partly agree with the guy who suggested this, I should also add that very few use resolutions higher than 1024*768. I still don't see how some can enjoy 1600*1200, it is horribly small!
Personally I see that resolution as only a benchmark barrier that tests how far can vid cards be pushed in a game, because hell, even 1280*1024 seems less common than 1024*768, at least for the people I know, around me.

--
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">The THGC Photo Album, send your pics and see others'!</A>
 
1600 x 1200 should not look too small in a 21" CRT. Personally I use 1024 x 768 in my 15" CRT (13.8" viewable) for everyday use, not only for gaming. This seems OK to me.

Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26410#26410" target="_new"> Click </A>
 
Man 15" is so small nowadays heh.
If you ever had some $ to splurge, go for a Samsung 753DF fast, it's a 17" with absolute flat CRTness and a sharp image, all for like 150$ US or less.

--
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">The THGC Photo Album, send your pics and see others'!</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 12/23/02 11:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
I agree: 15inch is small.
But I have 2 pcs, 1 with a 17" screen,
and 1 second hand pc with a 15"-er.
Playing at higher res than 800x600 seems useless to me on a 15inch screen.

But even then, regardless of the screen size: Many people have a 17inch screen but a basic video card, eg GF2MX or so.
Playing UT2003 or other new games isn't really doable with a basic video card at 1024x768 or higher, so these people will have to go downto 800x600 or even 640x480 if they want to play these games, even though they may have a 17" screen.
That's why I believe THG should add at least 800x600x16, so that those (millions!) of people who have a basic video card can see if these games will be playable on their pc at a lower resolution.

Greetings;
Carl
 
15" is way to small... I can't take this stupid 17" anymore, My next monitor is gonna be 19" LCD... because CRT is out of the question..

This Community is like a Second Family!!
 
Hmm you do have a point.

But in my case, I am noticing that changing resolutions is having less and less impact these days on games. I notice that going down from 1024*768 to 800*600 in new games often barely changes the game smoothness for my Ti200. Especially in UT2003 Demo and Battlefield Earth 1942.

I think one reason to really opt for these low resolutions will be Doom III. Ain't no Geforce 3 user gonna try 1024*768*32 with that game at max settings! I'll prolly go down to 640*480 to play at better settings.

--
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">The THGC Photo Album, send your pics and see others'!</A>
 
First of all, I need to buy some PC2100 DDR, 'cause I have only 96 to 120 MB RAM. It might be next year, when I will buy a 19" mobitor. Actually I don't want bigger things that Samsung 753DF will offer compared to my Samasung 550s. I need 1024 x 786 res. and I am satisfied with the size of objects. I want 1280 x 1024 or better res. from my next monitor

Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26410#26410" target="_new"> Click </A>
 
I can find difference between 1024x768 and 800x600 res in my 15" monitor as much as I find in a 17" monitor.

Let us know what is the Best Chipset of 2002 in your eye.<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26410#26410" target="_new"> Click </A>
 
Umm who was the guy who said that he doesnt find much diff in frame rates b/w 800*600 and 1024*768?? well thats coz u have a ti 4200 try playing ut 2003 on a geforce4 440 mx like me gives and average of 30fps but in 800*600 it's around 60-70

My computer NEVER cras...DOH!.
 
You're right.

This thread is not about high end graphics cards,
but for budget cards or even integrated thingies.
Its the people with budget cards for which 800x600 or even 640x480 are interesting if their card won't do the job at 1024x768 or higher.
 
Dude I own a Ti200, it's pretty low performing in new games now. It is about 20% better than the MX440. Then again the MX440 suffers more because it depends on the CPU for vertex shading, so it's no doubt resolution changes will affect.
My card is low budget one btw, since the Ti4200 dropped in price and the R9700PRO's release.

--
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">The THGC Photo Album, send your pics and see others'!</A>
 
I have a budget video card from Hercules:
A Kyro1 with 64Mb RAM and TV Out.
The Kyro 1 has no T&L.

Are there any games which REQUIRE T&L?
And if so, is there any way around this problem, like software emulation?
If not, it means that I won't be able to play them.

Greetings.
 
No One Lives Forever 2 requires hardware T&L. There are some emulators available, but don't know how well they work. ATI has included an emulator in their last Catalyst driver release for those boards that don't have it, again I don't know how well it works.

Just as an aside, the NOLF2 support board lists the Radeon 7000 series as being incompatible as it has no hardware T&L engine. My current board, an old Radeon 32meg DDR board does have a hardware T&L engine, but WinXP calls the board a Radeon 7200 in the device manager.