Hello there,I am just wondering what screen resolution is better. 2560x1600x32 or 1680x1050x32.This is very important to me as i am buing a new computer next year. My previous plan got delayed.Any help appreciated!CheersAlexander Michael

What is "better" is subjective. You're talking about two resolutions that are at different ends of the display spectrum though so your question is a little puzzling. 1680x1050 is a resolution commonly featured in 22" monitors, which can be purchased for a mere $150 (or so). 2560x1600 is a resolution featured only in 30" monitors which cost upwards of $1000. Most people would say a larger monitor with a higher resolution is better, but there are other factors to take into account such as desk space, viewing distance, graphics card capability, cost, etc.

verry sorry for the puzzling informationI will have a very large desk and the following specs are herePC Specs: Intel i7 920 @ 4.0Ghz / Gigabyte EX58-Extreme Mobo / 12GB DDR3 triple-channel RAM / 2x Velociraptor HDs in RAID-0 on a dedicated Adaptec controller / nVidia GTX285 GPU 1GB DDR3 / Samsung 22" LCD monitor @1680x1050x32 / Coolermaster V8 CPU Cooler / Thermaltake ToughPower QFan 750W PSU / Thermaltake Spedo full tower case / Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

Looks good, but that PC could definitely push 2560x1600 resolution for FSX if you want to go with a 30", or 3360x1050 for dual 22" screens.

verry sorry for the puzzling informationI will have a very large desk and the following specs are herePC Specs: Intel i7 920 @ 4.0Ghz / Gigabyte EX58-Extreme Mobo / 12GB DDR3 triple-channel RAM / 2x Velociraptor HDs in RAID-0 on a dedicated Adaptec controller / nVidia GTX285 GPU 1GB DDR3 / Samsung 22" LCD monitor @1680x1050x32 / Coolermaster V8 CPU Cooler / Thermaltake ToughPower QFan 750W PSU / Thermaltake Spedo full tower case / Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

The larger the monitor the lower your frames will be. However you need to decided what to sacrifice.. I have a similar system to yours (with 6gb ram though) except I am running mine on 24 inch monitor (1900*1200). I still can not fully put my sliders up and get acceptable frames. However, having a big monitor for me was worth the sacrifice of say having less road traffic. So I have less cars on the road, my cloud distance draw is not as high and I have light bloom turned off. But FSX still looks damn good on a large crisp 24 inch monitor. I am happy. BTW go with TRUE instead of V8. Its a better cooler.

The larger the monitor the lower your frames will be. However you need to decided what to sacrifice.. I have a similar system to yours (with 6gb ram though) except I am running mine on 24 inch monitor (1900*1200). I still can not fully put my sliders up and get acceptable frames. However, having a big monitor for me was worth the sacrifice of say having less road traffic. So I have less cars on the road, my cloud distance draw is not as high and I have light bloom turned off. But FSX still looks damn good on a large crisp 24 inch monitor. I am happy. BTW go with TRUE instead of V8. Its a better cooler.

How much frames do you get? And what is the frame rate difference?

The larger the monitor the lower your frames will be. However you need to decided what to sacrifice.. I have a similar system to yours (with 6gb ram though) except I am running mine on 24 inch monitor (1900*1200). I still can not fully put my sliders up and get acceptable frames. However, having a big monitor for me was worth the sacrifice of say having less road traffic. So I have less cars on the road, my cloud distance draw is not as high and I have light bloom turned off. But FSX still looks damn good on a large crisp 24 inch monitor. I am happy.

Monitor size in and of itself has ZERO bearing on FPS. More precisely, resolution can have an impact if your GPU is severely lacking, or more specifically, your video RAM.

BTW go with TRUE instead of V8. Its a better cooler.

I'll agree with this. The Prolimatech Megahalems and Thermolab Baram would be my coolers of choice ATM, though.

The larger the monitor the lower your frames will be. However you need to decided what to sacrifice.. I have a similar system to yours (with 6gb ram though) except I am running mine on 24 inch monitor (1900*1200). I still can not fully put my sliders up and get acceptable frames. However, having a big monitor for me was worth the sacrifice of say having less road traffic. So I have less cars on the road, my cloud distance draw is not as high and I have light bloom turned off. But FSX still looks damn good on a large crisp 24 inch monitor. I am happy. BTW go with TRUE instead of V8. Its a better cooler.

frankla,I found this thread and your response searching for monitor suggestions. I was wondering which monitor you have and how do you like it. I need to make a monitor choice for my new build. I have heard that running 1900x1200 on a 24 inch monitor will not give you the best picture. Also, what is the response time.Thanks in advance for any advice.Chuck B.

Why not get a 1080P Desktop monitor or a 1080P TV, that way you can have the best of frames and quality at any size? I always thought this is a better option then stressing your system by trying to play a game at 2500x1600. Also to the person saying that resolution does not affect FPS unless a card is lacking... That is the most BS I've ever head. If you play an intensive 3D game and put it at very high consecutive resolutions the FPS will go down gradually. Look at any graphics performance tests even with 1GB and 2GB cards. The card has to draw more pixels and it hurts the performance. Maybe when we start seeing 2GHz GPUs and 4GB video cards will have no effect on FPS at all, but right now running at a very high resolution and AA can hurt performance severely in many of today's 3D games.Here are some charts to show how resolution hurts performance, no matter the brand, speed, amount of VRAM, etc.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon...850,2433-6.html And remember just because something is at a higher resolution doesn't mean it will be clearer. High resolutions such as 2500x1600 are for professional artists, editors, video editors, etc. and if you buy a "good deal" monitor @ that resolution what you will get is most likely bad quality, hard to read text, and a dent in your wallet and happiness If you want clarity go with a 1080p monitor or 1080p TV. Just go on newegg and search "1080p monitor" many will show up or you can also search "1080p TV".http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...13163934AAlJFdnhttp://forums.techarena.in/monitor-video-c...htm#post4469715http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...mp;oq=&aqi=http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1326818

I think the question of proper monitor resolution depends largely on how close your eyes are to the screen. Broadly, the closer your eyes, the higher the resolution needed to allow the pixels to blend into a smooth pic. Especially true as screens get larger- but I suspect most users of larger monitors probably move the monitor further away- in which case higher res may not be all that significant.In my own situation, I have three monitors displaying three different but closely integrated views. This produces a "single" wide scene the equivalent width of a very large, 43" (diag) monitor. To make use of my full 180

verry sorry for the puzzling informationI will have a very large desk and the following specs are herePC Specs: Intel i7 920 @ 4.0Ghz / Gigabyte EX58-Extreme Mobo / 12GB DDR3 triple-channel RAM / 2x Velociraptor HDs in RAID-0 on a dedicated Adaptec controller / nVidia GTX285 GPU 1GB DDR3 / Samsung 22" LCD monitor @1680x1050x32 / Coolermaster V8 CPU Cooler / Thermaltake ToughPower QFan 750W PSU / Thermaltake Spedo full tower case / Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

"2x Velociraptor HDs in RAID-0 on a dedicated Adaptec controller"I was just wondering, which Adaptec controller did you choose?Thanks.Alex,I would select the highest possible setting. Then check the results. Adjust as necessary for wide screen resolutions.