Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Nvidia Unveils New Mid-Range GeForce Graphics Card

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the waiting-for-shills-to-plug-their-versions dept.

Graphics 158

crookedvulture writes "Nvidia has uncorked another mid-range graphics card, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti. Every tech site on the web seems to have coverage of this new $250 offering, and The Tech Report's review will tell you all you need to know about the various flavors available, including how their performance compares to cards from 2-3 years ago. Interestingly, the review concludes that pretty much any modern mid-range graphics card offers smooth frame rates while playing the latest games at the common desktop resolution of 1920x1080. You may want to pay closer attention to power consumption and noise levels when selecting a new card."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mid-range? (5, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001194)

Somebody dropping two hundred and fifty big ones on a video card is mid-range?

Re:Mid-range? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35001280)

Somebody dropping two hundred and fifty big ones on a video card is mid-range?

Yes, $50 for the card and $200 for the monster cable.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001288)

Yeah WTF. An M5 isn't midrange just because you can buy 83% lean for way less than a dry-aged filet.

Re:Mid-range? (5, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001290)

Precisely my thought.

Budget: Free/Hand-me-down to $75
Mid-Range: $76-$150
Enthusiast: $151-$250
Takes gaming too seriously: $251+

Re:Mid-range? (1)

vintagepc (1388833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001362)

Precisely my thought.

Budget: Free/Hand-me-down to $75
Mid-Range: $76-$150
Enthusiast: $151-$250
Has parent's credit card or too much extra cash: $251+

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002432)

Its "mid Range" in Nvidia's line of cards. In that its not near the bottom, and its not near the top. I think its fair.

When you look at 'mid range' from the perspective of the buyer I think you are more or less right. But the upper "mid range" product is where enthusiasts with brains AND money tend to buy in at.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002460)

I was thinking almost the same thing. "Midrange" to me is $150-ish... and also what I consider the sweet spot for video card purchase. For that price, usually you're getting a good quality implementation of a die shrink of last year's GPU. Lower power consumption, better driver stability than bleeding edge, no redonculous(not a typo) heatsink/fan, and no need to throw your power supply out the window because it has a 6-pin connector instead of 8.

Re:Mid-range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35002702)

Don't forget Workstation ($500 - $3000)

Re:Mid-range? (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001300)

Video cards seem to be the one aspect of computers that doesn't follow both Moore's Law and the cost reduction model that we've seen elsewhere. It would appear that for most computer components and systems, over time power increases and costs drop. In the case of video cards though, prices seem to have been stable or on the increase for the various classes of components at a given point. When my first-generation 3dFX card was top-of-the-line-consumer class it was less than $200 if memory serves. My (at the time) high end Matrox G-series dual head card was about the same price or maybe a little more expensive. Modern ATI and nVidia products seem to be more expensive compared to what the previous cards were introduced at.

I guess that the cost to game is why I got out of most computer gaming. I found myself with less and less time to play, and it's hard to justify $300 for an expansion card when I'll use it twice a month and when it'll be "obsolete" in six. Ditto for the games themselves, when they're $50 each it's hard to play more than one with such a small amount of time. I get a lot more value for my money buying games at a books/media store that buys the remnants that didn't sell originally a year ago and sells them for $10 a title or less, plus they work on hardware I already have.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001496)

Maybe you should read up on what Moore's Law actually is.

Re:Mid-range? (4, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002268)

Video cards seem to be the one aspect of computers that doesn't follow both Moore's Law and the cost reduction model that we've seen elsewhere.

How do you mean? Moore's law is all about transistor density - the fact that Nvidia maintains specific price points and varies performance to compete is irrelevant.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003006)

In a broader sense Moore's law has been applied to computing power doubling every eighteen months. Yes, specifically it's it's transistor density.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003700)

Video cards seem to be the one aspect of computers that doesn't follow both Moore's Law and the cost reduction model that we've seen elsewhere.

How do you mean? Moore's law is all about transistor density - the fact that Nvidia maintains specific price points and varies performance to compete is irrelevant.

Actually, Moore's law focuses more on the economics of chip making. Because chips become cheaper to make over time, manufactures are able to double the transistor density every 18 months without increasing the cost.

The Moore's law states that the increased transistor density is a side effect of cheaper manufacturing processes, not the other way around.

Re:Mid-range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35003818)

moores law was about cost per transistor too... Read the paper...

Re:Mid-range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35002500)

Just FYI I've got a Radeon HD4770, it cost me ~150 a month or two after release (When they were impossible to buy online, but happened to show up in a few stores). While it won't run most games in 1080p, it'll play quite a few in 720p, and at 1024x768 (which is STILL my standard gaming rez 10 years later), it'll handle pretty much everything you throw at it with the settings up, assuming it'll fit in the card's memory.

Honestly nowadays it seems like getting the slightly cheaper card with the much higher memory capacity makes a lot more difference than getting the fastest card out there. Additionally it'll let you keep using that same card for quite a while longer.

Flipside of this is that graphically it seems like most videogames are stagnating, from what I've heard in large part due to having to hobble themselves to support intel cards on the low end, especially true with F2P MMOs. Some of which honestly look pretty nice even on intel GFX hardware. Gameplay on the other hand....

Bargain bin gaming is for single players (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002506)

I get a lot more value for my money buying games at a books/media store that buys the remnants that didn't sell originally a year ago and sells them for $10 a title or less

In a lot of cases, these games are in the bargain bin precisely because 1. the publisher has pulled the plug on the online multiplayer matchmaking servers, and 2. the game offers no local multiplayer (shared-screen or spawn installation) option.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002510)

I think it's because video cards are becoming more like whole computer systems in themselves. More and more general purpose computing features and such. Just recently I have been playing with GPU development and I have to say that for certain tasks it's quite impressive.

Really $250 (GTX560) or $350 (GTX570) is not out of line for what you pay for a mid-range CPU, it makes sense that the video card is in the same ballpark.

But like everything I do wish they were cheaper.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35003416)

I think that the power of graphics cards, relative to that required to run the latest games, has increased. If you compare a high-end graphics card from 10 years ago (runs the latest games with max resolution) with a low-range graphics card from today (runs the latest games with max resolution), you find that the cost has decreased. The only benefit to an expensive card today is to be ready for future games.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001344)

You're right and I completely agree. Just because it's in the middle of $50 and $600 doesn't mean it's midrange. I just bought a GTS450 for $140-ish not too long ago and it can run Oblivion at near maximum settings at 1280x1024 so that's what I'd call midrange. And I don't think I've ever in my life seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively. Just for comparison, my 32" 720P TV runs at 1366 x 768. THAT is definitely not midrange! If it can run a modern game at a more normal resoltion maxed out, it's more of a top of the line card for sure.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001420)

My Samsung SyncMaster T240HD can do 1920x1200 native I forget what I paid, but I don't think it was that much more than this video card. Plus I can watch Blurays on it and use it as a TV.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001516)

So you've never seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively. I had a laptop 8 years ago that could run it natively. I'm not sure what either anecdote says about what is midrange.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001820)

1280x1024 is one hell of a low resolution. 1920x1080 is pretty standard these days, I have had monitors higher. It is only 1080p.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002950)

Until recently, 1280x1024 was the most common gaming resolution on PC's.

Now 1680x1050 [steampowered.com] is in the #1 spot and 1920x1080 is #2, with that 1280x1024 at #3.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001924)

And I don't think I've ever in my life seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively.

I own several. As a matter of fact, MOST of my monitors run it natively. Two are Vizio 42" TVs that I use for monitors, the rest are 24" monitors at home and work. 1920x1080 is not even remotely a big deal. Most newer 37" TVs do that, and many 32" TVs are starting to.

And 1280x1024 is a 4:3 aspect ratio, unlike 1920x1080, which is 16:9, so obviously your 4:3 monitors aren't running HD natively, and since most new monitors are 16:9, it sounds like you are talking about monitors over 2 years old. Not a good guide for how common "new" stuff is.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002454)

It's actually 5:4. Remember that when you set your CRT to 1280x1024. What you're looking for is 1280x960.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002168)

I hate to say it, but 'in the middle of the two end points of the range' is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'mid-range'.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002470)

I went out and bought the cheapest small monitor I could find 2 years ago, to set up my media center PC before hooking it up the TV. Its native resolution is 1440x900, so I don't think you've been looking hard if you haven't seen a monitor that can do 1920x1080 natively.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004548)

And I don't think I've ever in my life seen a monitor that can run at 1920x1080 natively.

You obviously don't deal with hardware much in the past few years then. My 15" LAPTOP (a HP Elitebook 8540p) has a native screen resolution of 1920x1080.

The new 27" imacs are 2560x1440, which is a massive step up above that.

TVs are a different matter and have traditionally had much lower DPI than PC monitors. This has not changed. An 11" macbook air has the same screen resolution as your TV, and thats about the lowest resolution screen you can buy on a non-netbook computer these days.

Re:Mid-range? (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001430)

Somebody dropping two hundred and fifty big ones on a video card is mid-range?

I see this reaction a lot in people who don't know the market. Ignorance of what the low and high ends of the 'range' wind up surprising people. If you're ignorant of the numbers 1 through 10, someone randomly reciting the number 5 might seem high to you. In video cards, there are $350+ cards, and even $500+ cards, in the consumer space. And that's just PER CARD, and doesn't take into account multi-card setups.

So yeah, $250 is a MID-range card. That's not to say it does (or doesn't) meet your specific needs, but expressing shock at something you're obviously ignorant of really doesn't make you sound like a smart consumer.

Re:Mid-range? (4, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001500)

Depends how you define mid-range. Steam has a nice breakdown of actual graphics cards used to play their games: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ [steampowered.com] Keep in mind that these stats are for players, the actual market is much more low-end that that.

So $250 would be about in the top 5% of the gamers' market, 1% general market ?

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001592)

Depends how you define mid-range

I define it by the prices involved, since that's what people are talking about in the first place - the price of the card. You'll always find fewer users at the high end of any price range.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001898)

So it's low end then?

Given a Quadro 6000 from nvidia will set you back between $3000 and $4000, the a mid-range card must be $1500-$2000, right?

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001948)

So it's low end then?

Given a Quadro 6000 from nvidia will set you back between $3000 and $4000, the a mid-range card must be $1500-$2000, right?

That's not a consumer graphics card, though. :)

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003078)

That's not a consumer graphics card, though.

But you have now gone from saying that mid-range is not defined by the consumer to saying that the top of the range is defined by the consumer.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004584)

No, you can't just pick a mid point between zero and max cost. Hardware gets more expensive for diminishing returns at the high end.

Its quite likely you'll get 90% of the performance of a $2000 card for half the price. Mid-range performance wise is much cheaper.

Otherwise we'd be calling $800,000 cars "mid-range" as they're halfway between zero and a veyron's price tag.

Re:Mid-range? (5, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002568)

You should look at the chart again. The top two cards of each graphics series is going to be in the $200 and up range when purchased, so tallying those up from the December survey, you get somewhere around 45% of the users. Significantly higher than the 5% you seem to have pulled out of nowhere.

Now what is the general market? The people who are going to buy their own graphics cards are going to be professionals doing 3D or computational work, gamers, and HTPC builders. Everyone else is going to stick to their integrated Intel graphics and be none the wiser. The HTPC market is going to buy all low end stuff, the professional market is going to buy primarily high end stuff, and the gamer market, according to that survey, seems to be right in the middle of that price range. For people who actually would buy a video card, which is the only market that matters to video card manufacturers, $250 indeed does seem to be mid-range.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001972)

Mid-Range typically refers to what the majority are willing to spend on something, not what prices are offered. The buyers, not the sellers, determine mid-range and the buyers aren't scrambling to grab $250 cards.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002208)

Mid-Range typically refers to what the majority are willing to spend on something, not what prices are offered. The buyers, not the sellers, determine mid-range and the buyers aren't scrambling to grab $250 cards.

People don't generally buy video cards. They buy computers with (or without) video cards. For people who actually buy video cards, $250 is mid-range.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002328)

I'm not sure you can assume that just because someone is buying a video card that it will necessarily be the most expensive thing possible.

Not everyone is trying to play the latest shooter at the highest resolution and frame rate possible. Not even people building or upgrading their own boxes.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002442)

I'm not sure you can assume that just because someone is buying a video card that it will necessarily be the most expensive thing possible.

Good thing that's not remotely what I said. We're talking about 'mid-range' here, after all. A $250 card is not a $499 card, and certainly isn't a $599 card. It's much closer to the $150 everyone here seems to WANT to be the mid-range, simply because they're cheap, I guess. But wishing doesn't make it so. I've used $150 cards for the last several generations myself, but I'm not trying to fool myself into believing that I'm getting a mid-range card for that price.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004282)

An ATI 5870 isnt midrange? What about a 6850? Are they low-end?

Last-gen doesnt mean "garbage" or even "low-end"; a coworker bought a 7900GTS about 2 years ago and it would still probably rank as "low-midrange" today.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002516)

Not everyone is trying to play the latest shooter at the highest resolution and frame rate possible.

And a lot of these people are happy with Intel onboard "Graphics My Arse".

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002734)

It's mid range for high end gamers. However it is not mid range for average consumers! Do not compare to your peers, or you'll get a misleading number. Someone who drives a Lexus might have an inflated notion of what a mid range automobile is too.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003158)

"Mid-range automobile"? What possible use would it be to consider that? When there are multiple manufacturers with multiple "ranges" and multiple classes of cars from $2m supercars right down to $18,000 economy cars. If instead you asked a sensible question like: "What is the mid-range Ford saloon-car?" the Lexus owner would look at the most expensive model, then the least expensive, and tell you that the mid-range Ford saloon-car offering was the model closest to the mid-point.

The new "mid-range" GeForce is what we're talking about. Not the most expensive, nor the least expensive, but the new card which has a price-point somewhere between the two. The "mid-range" doesn't depend on what you or anyone else is prepared to pay, it depends only on the prices of the other cards in the range.

Re:Mid-range? (2)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001672)

No. The MSRP is $250. This means they will actually sell for $200, which is midrange (I say $100-$200 is midrange).

Re:Mid-range? (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002144)

Yes, it is in the middle of the range from people who spend $0 additional for the on the on-board graphics of their motherboard/cpu, and the people who spend $500 for a top-of-the-line card. Mid-range, exactly fitting the definition.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Zebai (979227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002536)

leading edge right now is pushing $500, so technically it is exactly mid range price wise. Performance wise nvidia models under in the x60 generally would less powered than older generation x70 models, or as close to it to not be a worthy upgrade.

I do buy high end cards but I usually buy 2nd gen. I have a 275 right now, and my next upgrade will either be the 475 when it drops under $200 or the 570 when it eventually drops to $250-300 range, at the going rate I expect that by the 4th quarter this year I will have one of these cards.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002716)

Also surprised that they say 1920x1080 resolution is "common".

Basically a year or two ago I got the best card I could get that didn't require an extra fan or upgraded power supply. It actually did better than my older one that was a loud space heater. But I was somewhat discouraged to find that it was about the only one of it's kind, every other card on the shelf recommended more watts than my tower supplied and came with an integrated fan.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004630)

1920x1080 is common if you're in the market for new hardware. i.e., if you're building a new box with new monitor, etc. Its also the lowest res you've been able to buy in an iMac for some time now.

Given that the monitors we've been getting with our Dells lately have been 1920x1080 and cost about 250 bucks, it isn't going to break the bank.

1920x1080 is HDTV res, and as more people are doing things like processing high def video on their PCs, it is very likely to become the "Standard" resolution on any new desktop hardware for a long time to come.

Re:Mid-range? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003736)

>>Somebody dropping two hundred and fifty big ones on a video card is mid-range?

High end cards hover around $500, and get 33% to 100% more performance than the mid-range cards at $250, who get the same performance edge over the low-end cards around $125, which blow the hell out of the performance of entry level or integrated graphics.

The new generation is no exception. The 580 is intriguing to me, but the 560 Ti (especially overclocked) looks like it has the best combination of price, performance, temperature and noise.

1920x1080 is considered common these days? (2)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001198)

Jeez, I feel old.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001232)

Jeez, I feel old.

I suspect that is because you are. *tramples all over your lawn*

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001234)

Apparently 1680 x 1050 is still winning, by a little bit, Though lower resolutions overall are still quite common. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ [steampowered.com]

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35001278)

Apparently 1680 x 1050 is still winning, by a little bit, Though lower resolutions overall are still quite common.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ [steampowered.com]

Wow a lot of lamer CRT users out there. They need to destroy their crts for a shiny new 1280x1024 LCD 19" monitor. And kick their 1988 3dfx card from their Windows 97 system in their 2ghz Pentium II with 583mb ram. they really need to get an life. theres more to games than valves game of the year 'half flie' which is what steam is made for and only for and what the surveys about.

captcha: changes. CAN YOU FEEL THE WINDOWS OF CHANGE?

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001480)

Cathodes still offer the fastest refresh rates and highest contrast ratios, and on top of that are the most durable displays manufactured. CRT televisions also have much longer lifespans and can generally be serviced if problems develop, unlike throw-it-away LCD and Plasma units. On top of that, CRTs aren't fixed resolution or refresh rate, so different inputs can be handled optimally instead of having to interpolate or antialias the image to make it show if it's not the same as the physical display like on an LCD.

If they offered a widescreen 32" CRT television with 1080p and HDMI that would fit into a 33" by 24" space I'd buy it. Kids couldn't wreck it with a Nintendo Wii controller, if I bump into it I won't break it or knock it off of the cabinet, and since all of my equipment is 10-20" deep it's no hardship to have depth to my TV and my cabinet. Since I don't plan on moving it once it's set up, weight is not really an issue to me either, other than the benefits of having something difficult to knock over and difficult to steal.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002528)

Since I don't plan on moving it once it's set up, weight is not really an issue to me either

A lot of people follow the jobs and thus have to move from city to city. Other people are children of divorced parents and essentially have to move every 7 days. It appears you aren't among them.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35002862)

If they offered a widescreen 32" CRT television with 1080p and HDMI that would fit into a 33" by 24" space I'd buy it.

You are fucking insane. There's NO reason to buy a CRT over an LCD today - performance, weight, space - all overwhelmingly in the LCD favor. Only some idiot with a ridiculous list of nitpicks could justify a CRT. The visual equivalent of an audiophile buying his gold cables for $200 a pop.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004200)

There are a lot of professionals who need extremely good color matching who would disagree with you Mr. Coward.

For a consumer, sure, LCD is the way to go. But there is a reason for some to prefer CRTs. Saying there is NO reason for most things is usually not a smart statement.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002486)

Using a CRT at 1600x1200 right now. If I get around to ordering the non-conductive screwdrivers to adjust the focus, it'll be running at 2048x1536.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35001296)

Jeez, I feel old.

Nope, you're just poor.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001314)

it's *because* I'm old I bought the 1920x1080 graphics card (used, $70) and 23" widescreen monitor (refurbished, $100), for the big fonts yet two pages on a screen. I might even get a 2nd monitor this is sooo nice

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001414)

Yeah, I hear you. I was used to 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, so these 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios take some getting used to.

What really irks me, though, is a seeming lack of development for inexpensive high-res monitors that go beyond "1080p". My current display is a 20" 4:3 ratio 1600x1200 unit, and if I wanted to go bigger I'd want more than 1080 rows. I sort of understand the complaints that audiophiles had back in the eighties with the Red Book CD standard and being limited to 44KHz 16 bit audio and no functional implementation of more than stereo audio. Before that they enjoyed quadraphonic sound in whatever quality the analog recording equipment and playback equipment could achieve, and while lower end equipment and poor media maintenance might have led to results less than 44KHz 16 bit, high end stuff and good practices would have yielded much better sound. By releasing Compact Disc as the high end system and later as the de facto standard for everyone they cut off the ability to get more.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35001810)

It's economies of scale, where the scale (for > 20" screens) is being created by the HDTV market, not the computer monitor market. Higher resolutions are available, but they will cost you simply because they aren't in demand, so not very many of them are made.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001850)

Smartphones push 200, 300, 400dpi already so it's not like 96dpi is even a hard limit. I'd be willing to pay the premium for a 300dpi desktop screen with insanely high resolution, but nobody wants my money apparently...

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002014)

I'm with you on that. I paid $800 for my first 1600 x 1200, 21 inch monitor. Completely worth the price. I'm more than willing to pay that much again for a 24+ inch with 2K resolution.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (2)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002096)

What really irks me, though, is a seeming lack of development for inexpensive high-res monitors that go beyond "1080p". My current display is a 20" 4:3 ratio 1600x1200 unit, and if I wanted to go bigger I'd want more than 1080 rows.

I had the same dilemma a few years ago and decided to get a 2560x1600 monitor. They cost a bit more, but given the lack of progress, it'll still be high tech ten years from now. Although some 2160p TVs have been demo'd I'd call it pretty unlikely you can get those at a decent price within a decade.

Well four reasons (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002388)

One is as you say the de facto standard thing. The top ATSC rez is 1080, so that is what a lot targets. However another part is just money. It is expensive to pack more transistors in a small space and that's what you need for higher rez monitors. People are pretty price sensitive so the market would be kinda small, meaning the unit price goes up meaning the market is even smaller. Another is interconnect bandwidth. Single link DVI and by extension older HDMI only supports up to 1920x1200@60Hz. That's just all the more bandwidth it has. Newer standards support higher resolutions, but they are pretty new. Many things still don't support them.

However a big one is simply interface scaling. Until recently, OSes couldn't really handle resolution independence well. In fact many still can't. Even those that can, they have to wait for apps to catch up. Windows 7 handles scaling flawlessly and if you have apps that support it, it all works great. However when you get an app that does it at best looks ugly, sometimes doesn't scale at all, or at worst has some elements (like the fonts) scale but not others. Developers have to get on board and start using new methods to allow the OS to scale their app arbitrarily. Otherwise, a high rez monitor just means tiny items and that is a no-go for most people with less than perfect vision.

We'll see higher rez monitors in time, and there already are some (you can get 2.5k 27" and 30" displays from a number of companies for reasonably affordable prices), however it'll be a bit. There's a number of issues t be dealt with.

Re:Well four reasons (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002664)

So, let's be in the future, already.

I've had a 15.4" 1920x1200 display on my Dell Inspiron laptop for six and a half years. Scaling problems? I haven't seen any in a long, long time -- even XP was behaving pretty well in that regard when I last used it.

7, as you say, is flawless and I've had precisely zero issues with that end of things: It even tends to set things up with reasonable scaling, based on actual display DPI automatically, out-of-the-box, while also automagically configuring things at native resolution (given a proper computer monitor and an HDMI or DVI link, at least).

Nowadays, it feels positively silly to be looking at a 24" desktop display which, at 1920x1080, has fewer pixels than that tiny little laptop panel does.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002590)

I'm a big fan of vertical pixels too. One of the things I did with my old Dell 2407 was turn it 90 degrees. The rotated 1980x1200 screen is perfect for web browsing, gmail, and other 'tall' layout apps.

The 'cheap' panels are 16:9 form factor - you see the 1080p stuff everywhere because it costs nothing. Think I paid around $130 for a 22" 1080p monitor that *just* fits inside a carry on suitcase. Those can be rotated as well. (Tis a crime you can hardly find a laptop not using a 16:9 aspect - I really liked my 4:3 t60p and would settle for 16:10 at this point)

I really, really enjoy the 2560x1600 with my primary monitor. Best 1k I ever spent, and comperable to the monies put out for the Hitachi 20" CRT in the day.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003146)

Kinda reminds me how you are full of shit. 44k 16 bit was and is kickass. You would know that if you actually encoded more than fart air from your buttocks. For real. More quality than 44k audio you could not afford buddy; you probably couldn't tell the difference at all. I've used old reel to reel systems and no matter what , you have the quality of the studio and the master as the only important matter. Here is cd vs mp3 http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html anyway who gives a fuck.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35004604)

Not to mention the lack of decent, affordable IPS LCD panels. Thanks to their narrow viewing angles, TN panels have a significant stereographic effect that is so horrible, they give me eyestrain worse than any tube I've ever used. Even the crappiest LCD TV is better than a high-end computer monitor.

I find it distressing how many people will spend $300 for a new video card every two years, but then they spend several years using some $150 LCD they bought on sale. My dad, for example.

Re:1920x1080 is considered common these days? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001436)

Assuming you bargain hunt they aren't that expensive. But they do require some outlay of cash, I think mine was under $300 and serves as an HDTV as well. It wasn't that long ago that 15" LCDs were going for $300+

250 is midrange? (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001640)

5770 is a nice midrange card. Plays everything well, mostly with high settings. 140$ is a nice price for a 5770 w/ 1GB GDDR5. For nearly the same price as the one mentioned here you're in CrossfireX with more power behind it

Re:250 is midrange? (2)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002480)

Uh sure, or you could get a $125 nVidia GTX 460 and completely destroy that 5770 in terms of performance and features. Plus you get a lot better drivers.

Re:250 is midrange? (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003154)

I went from an nVidia card to the 5770 purely because I didn't want to heat up my computer room just by having the computer on. (I also went for a low powered CPU for the same reason).

I live in Australia and which gets rather hot around here. I found that it doesn't matter how much better the performance is of one card if it makes the room so oppressively hot that I just don't want to use the computer in the first place. With my current setup, I can use the PC on the hottest day and still have the room only 1 or 2 degrees higher than the rest of the house. It is also nice that I often have to look at the computer lights to know if the PC is on, as compared with than being able to hear the fans from another room.

During winter I have been known to turn on my old computer just to warm the place up. It really does make a difference!

Re:250 is midrange? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003262)

Completely destroy as in marginally better. And a GTX 460 1gb averages closer to 200 than 125. Cheapest on newegg is 170 on special, average price for the wide range of manufacturers is 199(sorry, I'll stay away from Powercolor and HIS, thank you).

And driver problems? This isn't 2002.

1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (0)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001678)

why would PC gamers use a TV as a screen? true gamers don't cut their screen so much, we use 1920 x 1440 or 1920 x 1200

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001714)

why would PC gamers use a TV as a screen? true gamers don't cut their screen so much, we use 1920 x 1440 or 1920 x 1200

Please tell that to the companies that make computer monitors. Models that run at 1920x1200 are much less common now, they've all gone to 1920x1080 which is sad.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35001736)

42" TV is not bad, and very inexpensive, for a monitor.

Buying an "equivalent" monitor, labeled as such? Prohibitive.

You lose a bit in screen real estate for word processing, coding, or the like, but meh, I can live without it. Very nice movies and games right there.

Mouse and keyboard on a TV tray (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002552)

42" TV is not bad, and very inexpensive, for a monitor.

Sure, if you want to put your mouse and keyboard on a TV tray and do all your web surfing, word processing, and coding on a television while other members of your household sit and wait for you to finish.

Re:Mouse and keyboard on a TV tray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35002914)

thanks goodness for multiple monitor/tv outputs

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001752)

My Tri-monitor Eyefinity at 5760x1200 sez, why just one monitor?

With a $250 Radeon HD 5870, new intensive games like Need for Speed : Hot Pursuit look freaking awesome.

If anything, Nvidia's unwillingness to support multi-monitor gaming without SLI says to me that their cards don't handle larger resolutions nearly as nicely as ATI cards.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002262)

Because the thick bars in the middle of the viewfield drive most of us crazy.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002578)

Only when you choose games that don't support player 1 on one monitor and player 2 on another.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003800)

Are there really games that do that, I haven't heard of that.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002624)

It's not "in the middle of the viewfield." I have the same standard perspective as anyone else. I just happen to -also- have peripheral vision. It's no more interrupting after about 5 minutes of adjusting, than it is to have the roof supports of your car 'blocking your viewfield' either.

It's particularly hilarious in FPSs. Sniping will get me banned on suspicion of 'hax' on a regular basis, just because there's NO way to sneak up on me or go around me. It's a lot of fun. Their tears of sorrow are delicious.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003778)

Are you telling me the roof supports of your car don't bother you? I hate them. I so wish we could get domes or transparent supports.

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003896)

Yeah, sitting under a glass dome has the tendency to act much like a magnifying glass. There's a reason they didn't take off in the 1950's when the fad first hit.

I love the look too, but it's neither safe, practical or comfortable.

And no, my car roof supports don't bother me, because if they did, I'd take my 1100 Sabre [totalmotorcycle.com] out instead and have no worries at all. :3

Re:1920 x 1080 is TV resolution (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002600)

why would PC gamers use a TV as a screen?

For same-screen multiplayer games (which need not be split). These include Trine, Street Fighter 4, Soldat, and classic arcade games in emulation.

Power/performance envelope (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001686)

It would appear that, based on power use and the performance of various chips, that the CPUs days of being the power hog and performance workhorse of the common desktop are over. Anything which today needs high-end CPU can (or at least, should) be able to utilize the GPU on the card as well - and to greater effect.

At the same time, We're seeing similar power use increases in our GPUs today that we did 8-10 years ago with CPUs. Performance is increasing, but power input is, as well. 40db for a graphics card is quite a bit, as is 230+ watts (ohmygod, that's more than my entire system while playing a game).

I wonder how long it'll be until we see the same kind of power performance improvements in GPU design as we saw in CPU design a couple years ago.

All said, it's quite a contrast from the 700Mhz celeron I still have cooking away with the 'whole system' power envelope at about 25 watts (PSU is only 35 watts), and have for the past 8 years. No, it's not gaming, but it's doing quite a lot just the same.

Re:Power/performance envelope (1, Interesting)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001916)

About a year and a half ago, I upgraded my system to a cheapo off a w00t!-off for ~$300. It came with a decent dual-core processor, DVD-RW, 750GB HDD, onboard sound, onboard video, 6GB RAM, and a free upgrade to Win7 from the pre-installed Vista. It also came with a a 270w power supply. Being a budget gamer and someone always open to another computer challenge, looked immediately into making a low-wattage system that could play games like L4D2 and the aging but still-insanely-resource-hungry Everquest.

After some quick research, I found that my processor was already a "low-wattage" option. I figured the onboard sounds was livable and started researching the existence of power-sipping video cards. I found the GeForce GT 220 which maxes out at 58w at full load. (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-radeon-hd-6870-geforce-gtx-570,2834-7.html) Tom's equates it to about a GeForce 7900 GT or X1900 XTX.

I went with the GT 220 (I think it cost me $65), kicked the RAM up to 8GB, installed Windows 7 and have never had an issue. The computer's on 24/7. I play DCUO, EQ, L4D2, BF2. None of them are played at maximum settings, but all are set just below the max settings or at a lower-than-monitor-max resolution. I play DCUO, for example, at 1366x768 or something.

So I'm gaming happily at less-than 300w and under $400. That's just me, though.

Re:Power/performance envelope (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002694)

How the fuck did you get that system to even power up with only 35W? RAM itself can use up most of that, unless you're using ancient PC100 RAM, and only 64MB of it.

Holy crap.

Re:Power/performance envelope (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002924)

Must be coppermine.

More benchmarks (1)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 3 years ago | (#35001744)

Additional benchmarks in another review over at HotHardware: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-560-Ti-Debut-MSI/ [hothardware.com]

Re:More benchmarks (1)

Archeleus (1840908) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002530)

Going by this, this card ain't worth getting. My 480 GTX performs close enough at 1080p and it will keep going on for half a year more or so. Of course I don't mind reducing AA to 2x, you don't realise notice the changes when getting shot in the ass by Koreans.

I may get it after Deus Ex Human Revolution is out though.

MID RANGE!? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002228)

>You may want to pay closer attention to power consumption and noise levels when selecting a new card."

Hells no!! If the card doesn't make the room lights dim when I start up Crysis, and the back of the computer doesn't feel like a blowdryer (and sound like one), it's not fast enough!!!!111oneoneoneone *pant pant pant*

Re:MID RANGE!? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002514)

Hells yeah! They make 100 ft HDMI cables for a reason!

Whaaaat? (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35002960)

1920x1080 is "common"? Not a single monitor in my house can display above 1440x900 (except my TV, and that doesn't hardly count). I wish 1920x1080 was that common.

Compare to GTX 470? (1)

MikeV (7307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35003936)

GTX 470 is slower, but has 448 cores, and a 302-bit memory interface. Does more speed of the GTX 560 Ti make up for less cores and slower memory interface? I'm interested in experimenting with OpenCLI and getting three of these in SLI for some GPU raytrace rendering - something the 470 lends itself to pretty well. 560 seems like a few steps forward and a few steps backwards - hard to say if it's worth getting over the 470, unless I have grossly missed something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?