[Kenshin Ryoudo]

Even today the same terminology applies to technology you get what you pay for? a very true fact indeed for example if you want wear a good pair of shoes for a while you've pay more for it. The same thing applies to computer monitors if you want a display will last you for a while and you to get your true moneys worth you will spend more. Well just 2 weeks ago i pushed my
KDS XF-70 Xtreme Xflat monitor past its maximum resolution which is 1280X1024
how i did was i dual booted from windows 7 back to plain xp and opened up nvidia control panel and went to add custom resolution and raised it passed its maximum resolution to 1600X1024 which is alot sharper than 1280X1024 be in mind that i spent 380 dollars for this monitor at that time which was good for a standard monitor of that calibur back then a really good brand.

After that i started to play crisis at max settings and stayed at a constant 60 frames.:thumb:

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

if its a CRT, you shouldn't push it past the max rated res, you risk damaging the brightness/contrast.

 

[DinJerr]

If you love your monitor so much, please do not abuse it like so. If I remember my old CRT correctly, even using it at its max resolution will produce a buzzing sound after extended use. Please reconsider your actions.

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

If you love your monitor so much, please do not abuse it like so. If I remember my old CRT correctly, even using it at its max resolution will produce a buzzing sound after extended use. Please reconsider your actions.

yep its a CRT thanx for the info guys

does it also depend on the brand? Some monitors are built differently than others not going against you words squall.

 

[ElijahTW]

My Dell Monitor... manufactured in 1999... its rated res is 1024x768 and I've been running it at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 for years and it's never hurt anything.

 

[Ahielia]

After that i started to play crisis at max settings and stayed at a constant 60 frames.:thumb:

You got a powerful enough computer to run Crysis at 1600x1024, with max settings...
And still use a CRT with "max" 1280x1024?
Why?

 

[-StrikE-]

am i the only one here that thinks 1600X1024 is not a good aspect ratio resolution

 

[Ahielia]

am i the only one here that thinks 1600X1024 is not a good aspect ratio resolution

You're not. It will be stretched.
Isn't 1600x1200 the appropriate resolution?

 

[ElijahTW]

yes it is.

 

[KrossX]

You can always adjust the screen to the proper ratio.

But, what's the refresh rate for that resolution? =_="
Since the bigger the resolution, the uglier that gets.

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

You got a powerful enough computer to run Crysis at 1600x1024, with max settings...
And still use a CRT with "max" 1280x1024?
Why?

well its because my monitor isnt an ordinary monitor that came in a bundle package like other retailer this monitor was special ordered because these type of CRT are built to last so that's why i push a higher resolution because it could take it. Now if this was some off brand CRT then yeah id be scared but then again Ive been doing this for years.

Also crysis can be pushed past default game max res which is 1280X1024. I know crysis is pretty on 1280X1024 res but by pushing it higher it will require more ram and more cpu power which is what i understood. How i done it was right clicking on the crysis exe and going to properties and edited the target line with this code "C:\Windows.old\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis\Bin32\Crysis.exe" +r_fullscreen=1 +r_width=1600 +r_height=1024 by doin that i also pushed a higher res than the games default max res.
also when i done it the game still ran smoothly except on some accasions the game would lag a little that is due to my ram holding me back but at the same time the game looked so real it was like being in movie the game looked really nice.

 

[Spyhop]

well its because my monitor isnt an ordinary monitor that came in a bundle package like other retailer this monitor was special ordered because these type of CRT are built to last

I also used to have a kick ass CRT back in the day. My LCD is so much nicer.

so that's why i push a higher resolution because it could take it. Now if this was some off brand CRT then yeah id be scared but then again Ive been doing this for years.

Exceeding specified limits on ANY CRT will shorten it's lifespan considerably. I have a Trinitron in the office that's a boat anchor now because the refresh rate was pushed beyond it's limit for an extended period of time.

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

You can always adjust the screen to the proper ratio.

But, what's the refresh rate for that resolution? =_="
Since the bigger the resolution, the uglier that gets.

My refresh rate stayed at default 60hertz i just uped the resolution thats all Even tho my video card can push higher refresh rates ill still refrain from pushing it past its default rate.

 

[YugiFann]

what graphic card do you have? (if this counts)

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

what graphic card do you have? (if this counts)

my current video hardware is an BFG Geforce 9800GTX+ 500MB GDDR3 OC

 

[Princess Garnet]

There's no way that GPU ran Crysis at maximum at just under 1680x1050 at a constant 60FPS. Look at benchmarks for that card at that resolution and you'll see.

My Dell Monitor... manufactured in 1999... its rated res is 1024x768 and I've been running it at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 for years and it's never hurt anything.

Are you certain it's not really a monitor that can do 1600x1200 and is just recommended to be run at 1024x768? There's a difference. I don't think it would have "been fine" all this time otherwise. I had a Dell 19" CRT for a very short period (it was terrible due a defect that it should had been recalled for) that did 1600x1200 but was recommended for 1024x768.

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

There's no way that GPU ran Crysis at maximum at just under 1680x1050 at a constant 60FPS. Look at benchmarks for that card at that resolution and you'll see.Are you certain it's not really a monitor that can do 1600x1200 and is just recommended to be run at 1024x768? There's a difference. I don't think it would have "been fine" all this time otherwise. I had a Dell 19" CRT for a very short period (it was terrible due a defect that it should had been recalled for) that did 1600x1200 but was recommended for 1024x768.

while playing crysis there was drops in frames do to my ram holding me back
but it mostly didnt go no lower than 55 frames in crysis. I will be upgrading my ram very soon keep in mind that im running 2 gigs of ram at the moment.
and i do take that back zedeck it didn't stay at a constant 60 frames but it stayed 60 most of the time.

 

[Princess Garnet]

If it stays there over ~90%-95% of the time, I'd consider it constant enough to be constant in terms of frame rate. If it isn't jumping all over the place, and stays at one value, and drops 5 frames here or there, I'd say that's considered constant.

I don't think I even get a constant 60FPS in Crysis at maximum at 1280x960, and my GPU isn't that much weaker than yours. I'm sure others here with GPUs equal or stronger than yours will vouch than they can't get a constant 60FPS in Crysis at maximum at 1680x1050 (the closest comparable standard resolution). 60FPS at times is nowhere near the same thing as a constant 60FPS.

Your RAM is what's holding you back? I don't think you know what you're talking about. 2GB is enough for Crysis. Yes, more (4GB) does drastically cut loading times, and more even still (8GB) increases the minimum frame rate (compared to 4GB) by a "whopping" 50%, but I doubt that's the issue here, because I doubt your GPU is even putting out that kind of frame rate.

Edit:

XFX 9800GTX+ Review » Page 6 - Testing: Crysis - Overclockers Club

ATI Radeon HD 4850 Versus NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ - Crysis - Legit Reviews

Right off the bat looking at the first chart, at a lower resolution (1024x768) and lower settings (High, not Very Hight), it still doesn't get 60FPS. I could find more, but these say enough. Your card isn't getting a constant 60FPS, unless, of course, your 9800GTX+ is over two times stronger than everyone elses...

 

[Kenshin Ryoudo]

If it stays there over ~90%-95% of the time, I'd consider it constant enough to be constant in terms of frame rate. If it isn't jumping all over the place, and stays at one value, and drops 5 frames here or there, I'd say that's considered constant.

I don't think I even get a constant 60FPS in Crysis at maximum at 1280x960, and my GPU isn't that much weaker than yours. I'm sure others here with GPUs equal or stronger than yours will vouch than they can't get a constant 60FPS in Crysis at maximum at 1680x1050 (the closest comparable standard resolution). 60FPS at times is nowhere near the same thing as a constant 60FPS.

Your RAM is what's holding you back? I don't think you know what you're talking about. 2GB is enough for Crysis. Yes, more (4GB) does drastically cut loading times, and more even still (8GB) increases the minimum frame rate (compared to 4GB) by a "whopping" 50%, but I doubt that's the issue here, because I doubt your GPU is even putting out that kind of frame rate.

Edit:

XFX 9800GTX+ Review » Page 6 - Testing: Crysis - Overclockers Club

ATI Radeon HD 4850 Versus NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ - Crysis - Legit Reviews

Right off the bat looking at the first chart, at a lower resolution (1024x768) and lower settings (High, not Very Hight), it still doesn't get 60FPS. I could find more, but these say enough. Your card isn't getting a constant 60FPS, unless, of course, your 9800GTX+ is over two times stronger than everyone elses...

you may be right as far as the benchmarking review goes but you have also take into account what invidia driver they where using at that time versus the newer nforce driver which is 190.62 as well as the recent version of direct X call me crazy or a as you call it whatever but anywho having the recent drivers of your hardware is also crucial and it also impact performance as well.

 

[Silenus]

You are talking without backup.

And I don't believe that you get that performance with that video card.