Is 1080p the best way to view movies and games?
This is probably a dumb question, but is 1080p the best way to view movies and games? I remember briefly researching when it was beginning to hit mainstream what 1080p was all about and vaguely recall that anything above 1080p (or something like that) humans won't have a realistic view because 1080p is when our eyes are at their max potential. Either I'm making this up (I probably Googled this when I was in middle school) or I am misunderstanding the article I've read.
Anyway, the reason I'm asking is because I have decided to go for the HD 6950 since it seems to outperform 560Ti in nearly all aspects (generally, it is more powerful than the 560Ti in everything except games that favor Nvidia graphics cards). This is regardless of whether the HD 6950 is 1GB or 2GB and whether or not it is unlockable. I have 2 questions:
1) Should I get the 1GB or 2GB version of HD 6950? One might say that $25 more to get the 2GB is probably a good deal, but there are benchmarks that show that the 1GB version actually outperforms the 2GB by 1-5 FPS in nearly every game (this is more of a price issue; however, 2GB seems to be more future proof?) http://www.behardware.com/articles/818-5/report-geforce-gtx-560-ti-vs-radeon-hd-6950-1-gb.html. Reason I'm asking my original post question is because I want to know if sticking with the best resolution for gaming (in terms of performing better on games, not whether the game provides a more pleasurable experience) will go above 1080p. If this is the case--meaning the 1080p standard which seems to be best for gaming at the moment will be out-classed in the near future--then the 2GB is clearly better because it is more "future-proof." If 1080p is here to stay because it is best for our eyes, then the 1GB seems to be better both performance wise (pretty insignificant) and value-wise (~$25).
2. How do I approach finding an HD 5950 that is unlockable? I don't really understand the HOW it works, but I know what it does. I only plan on getting an XFX card, since it offers lifetime warranty. Actually, never mind. Newegg's reviews on the card shows that it is unlockable. Anything related to this topic, such as whether I can someone make it unlockable? Or suggestions on a card that lets me unlock with a decent warranty (or anything of better value with similar specs)?
Thanks.
6 Comments • Newest first
Maybe I'll get the XFX HD6950 (2 fans, so it's cooler and quieter if I try to overclock it) and try to reach 900 MHz. I read somewhere that XFX's lifetime warranty also covers overclocking if you're not pushing the card too hard. I see excellent reviews on http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102954 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161372, but they have short warranties, making me wonder if they are strong cards only for the duration of their warranty and will then have their hardware life be shortened (when warranty is over). Ever since my 8800 GT had artifacts after only 2 years (I did not overclock or do anything with the card, it was EVGA but I didn't know I had to register for lifetime warranty so there was only a 1 year warranty), I'm skeptical about buying any video card that does not have lifetime warranty.
The reference clock frequencies of both the 2 GB and 1 GB versions is 800 MHz. Again, there is no difference in performance between the two HD 6950 variants; an average framerate difference of 1 or even 2 is negligible when one realizes that the real-time in-game FPS fluctuates. tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-ti-448-core-benchmark,3082-4.html
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150552
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150549
As of now, [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102954]this[/url] is the only card that grants a chance of unlocking to full shaders. The Newegg user reviewers are even nice enough to share the procedure.
Video cards are fairly easy to overclock and an HD 6950 at 900 MHz will roughly match the performance of a reference clocked (880 MHz) HD 6970. Doing so requires the use of the MSI Afterburner tool because AMD Catalyst Control Center does limit the max overclock to 840 MHz.
Hmm, I think I'm going to get the XFX HD 6950 2GB. I noticed that the XFX HD 6950 has much lower core clock frequencies (800 or 830 vs as high as 880 mhz). How much of a performance difference is this? And I found a thread where someone did something to unlock his XFX 6950 2GB http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33973478. Of course, this thread was made in Jan. 2011, when it wasn't nearly impossible to find an unlockable card. However, his method looks pretty complicated (or maybe its how users tend to unlock their cards...), but it seems like that method is still applicable? As long as manufacturers didn't laser out (fill in the blank... I read somewhere that a card is still unlockable if they didn't laser out ____).
Even if XFX's cards are pretty much unlockable, I am most likely sticking with it because of its lifetime warranty.
[quote=BobR]It could end up being a "more is not necessarily better" situation, although I hadn't heard that specifically about video cards before.[/quote]
The current popular example of that is the AMD Radeon HD 6950. At a resolution of 1920x1080 or lower, the 2 GB and 1 GB versions perform exactly the same.
You might also be confusing it with "color depth".
24 bit color depth is the highest the human eye can see. Anything more is wasted because the eye can't determine the difference between colors that are any more subtly shaded than that.
The purpose of the RAM built-onto a video card is generally to hold graphic data like textures which will be used by the Graphics Processor (GPU) when it's rendering the frames. If the texture data is held in the computer's RAM, it will take a little longer to fetch it from the computer into the video processors where it can be used. By loading it onto the video card RAM, it makes the process a little faster because the date is more directly available to the GPU when it needs to render the scenes.
The reason more video RAM is desirable is that as games become more sophisticated and use higher detail in their texturing and video effects, there's more of this data that can be "pre-loaded" onto the video card, IF the video RAM is available.
I don't know why having more RAM available would lead to slower FPS test speeds unless it's that the video circuitry on the card is hitting a "performance wall" in its ability to address and retrieve the data. It could end up being a "more is not necessarily better" situation, although I hadn't heard that specifically about video cards before.
[quote=Flightmare]I think you are confusing this with the frame rate. Everyone wants the highest frame rate for their games as possible, but the human eye does not see any difference beyond a certain FPS. You will see a difference in amount of pixels though. There are screens that go far beyond 1080p.[/quote]
I know that about FPS, but maybe I'm mixing up 1080p with how wide the screen should be. I don't think I understand whether there's a correlation with a resolution and aspect ratio and what our eyes are most comfortable at viewing. Maybe I should simplify my question to: Is the HD 6950 2GB still more future-proof than 1GB if I don't plan on using more than one monitor and the monitor is not big (both of which would hinder my performance in games because they require my eyes to move too much anything that is too big? For example, 22"-23" monitors at 1080p seems to be the best for gaming because they are large enough for a gamer to take in the details but small enough so that yours eyes don't move such a great distance from one target to the next). So there can be greater resolutions than 1080p that could fit into 22-23"?