RAM usage

[Jonathern]

I recently bought a 23inch DELL ST2310 LCD Monitor on special by special i mean half the price of your average 23inch, This was brand new.

So now i get the HDMI cable and 1920x1080p resolution and i was mostly used to 1600x900 on my 20 inch LCD and what iv come to notice especially in games is a performance hit as in my usages jumped up an extra half.

So before i was between 650 - 720 in usage IDLE, Now its between 803 - 1.22 ??? is ths because of my new screen?

I currently use win 7 ultimate 32 bit

Core2quad Q8400 2.66
3 GB of DDR2 800 MHz
4 TB HDD
EVGA GTS 450 FPB

Just to name the main components

 

[fowang]

propbably, but more likly due to new applications you are using more regulary.

 

[Jonathern]

I closed those gadgets on my desktop which made a significant leap in performance but ever since i started using this new resolution of 1920x1080 my FPS dropped to lower rates.

My old screen 20inch VGA, 1600x900 max resolution, 30 - 45 FPS average.
New screen HDMI 23 inch, 1920x1080 max resolution, 22 - 35 FPS average

Surely i shouldn't be having such a problem as i don't rally have many games or applications installed

 

[evilgenius134]

Your resolution above all else determines performance, the higher the resolution you run at the more demanding it becomes.

The FPS drop you see is about right for the increase in resolution. You have to buy a more powerful GPU to get better performance.

 

[Jonathern]

Your resolution above all else determines performance, the higher the resolution you run at the more demanding it becomes.

The FPS drop you see is about right for the increase in resolution. You have to buy a more powerful GPU to get better performance.

I think the GPU is fine i mean its a 400 series came out last year september, I am starting to believe its my RAM thats the Issue considering it is only 800MHz opposed to DDR3 1333 - 1600MHz, My board can support up to 1066MHz maybe getting a RAM card like that should ease the loss

 

[noble]

I think evil genius is right. GTS 450 is new but it has its limitations.

That's why much more expensive cards exist.

Before you had 1600*900= 1.440.000 pixels now you have 1920*1080=2.073.600 pixels that's around 40-50% more.

 

[Jonathern]

Ok if you go read on the highest resolution support for the GTS 450 its much higher with the monitor thats supports, Mine however supports 1920x1080 so i am starting to believe its my sytem itself not being capable of handling the more demanding apps. i mean the card is GDDR5 1GB DX11 got a free perfomance boost at 822Mhz. So how is it the card?

 

[noble]

Every card has a certain processor on it (GPU) as much as your system has a CPU.

Each GPU has certain processing power and the more you increase graphics detail and resolution the more power is needed.

Each card can only process a certain amount of frames each second depending on its power.

Its not just a matter of GDDR memory and speed. Its GPU architecture and speed as well. And your card can't handle that resolution in all games with details maxed out.

Some games will be better some worse.

Besides if you see the performance drop you mention you will notice that the increase in FPS going from 1920 * 1080 to 1600 * 90 is just about the increase in total pixels when going from the lower resolution to the higher one. i.e. ~ 40%. More pixels = less FPS as a rule of thumb.

 

[Ijack]

Just look at the performance charts in this review of a GTS450. When you go from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 you get a significant drop in performance - just what you are experiencing. That's normal; mid-range cards always suffer when you up the resolution to these sort of levels.

 

[Jonathern]

I have a 730 watt modular PSU, So this being a 400 series graphics card is unable to handle it in otherwords?

 

[Ijack]

No! It's just the card itself. It's a simple matter of physics. If you want better graphics performance you need to upgrade to a more powerful graphics card.

 

[noble]

It's unable to handle it because its a 450 not a 400 series in general. If you go up the ladder in 400 series (460,465,480 etc) you will notice higher performance when playing at that resolution.

 

[Jonathern]

Guess i have been living under a rock, Sorry guys from last i saw it was doing well against the ATI 5770, Amazing how things change hey, I noticed in the graph that the GTS 250 is better than mine

 

[Jonathern]

Well in the ladder of Nvidia its classed as a 400 series, But im sure just a replacement to another low end card. So my end result is to just replace the card to higher end card as you all recommend

 

[noble]

It's a good card but at 1920*1080 you will have to lower details I think in some newer games.

If you want full details maybe add another 450 in SLI (if motherboard supports) or replace with a slightly better model like the 460.

That resolution is really pushing that card.

Hope we helped 😀

 

[Ijack]

The GTX 460 is very good value. You need to pay quite a bit more to get significantly better performance.

But look on the bright side - your graphics card is just as good as it ever was; it's just that newer graphics cards are even better. And they are falling in price all the time so if you can live with it for a few months you'll get a significantly better deal.

 

[Jonathern]

The GTX 460 is very good value. You need to pay quite a bit more to get significantly better performance.

But look on the bright side - your graphics card is just as good as it ever was; it's just that newer graphics cards are even better. And they are falling in price all the time so if you can live with it for a few months you'll get a significantly better deal.

Moores law, Well i hope il be able to grab a decent card soon just tired of replacing, i only noticed this in some newer games such as bad company 2.

In other words i need a whole new PC and its getting to that point slowly but surely. Thanks guys as its always better to get a outside perspective on things