I've held off a screen size upgrade out of concerns over losing performance w/ my current set up. My wife needs a new display, so I'm thinking of sending this one to her and purchasing another at either 1920x1080 or 19 so now's the time to decide if I should go to 24" at 1920x1080 or 1920 x 1200. W/ a new top end machine (it will hopefully be Ivy Bridge based in Q2 2012, w/ a new Keplar based GPU), what kind of perf impact from moving up? 5%? 10%? I'm doing a poll on this one!Thanks in advance,Noel

I've held off a screen size upgrade out of concerns over losing performance w/ my current set up. My wife needs a new display, so I'm thinking of sending this one to her and purchasing another at either 1920x1080 or 19 so now's the time to decide if I should go to 24" at 1920x1080 or 1920 x 1200. W/ a new top end machine (it will hopefully be Ivy Bridge based in Q2 2012, w/ a new Keplar based GPU), what kind of perf impact from moving up? 5%? 10%? I'm doing a poll on this one!Thanks in advance,Noel

Noel- Multiply resolution width times height for each monitor - which gives total pixel count for each. Then calc the ratio between the two total pixel counts. That will be the percentage effect on frame rate.Using the resolutions in your poll, it looks like there would be a 16% impact in additional pixels that have to be computed by the CPU, and then displayed by the GPU. So I would guess that FPS would drop by an AVERAGE of 16%- although there are probably other system factors to take into account.But frame rate does not mean a great deal- it is SMOOTHNESS that really counts.AR

Noel- Multiply resolution width times height for each monitor - which gives total pixel count for each. Then calc the ratio between the two total pixel counts. That will be the percentage effect on frame rate.Using the resolutions in your poll, it looks like there would be a 16% impact in additional pixels that have to be computed by the CPU, and then displayed by the GPU. So I would guess that FPS would drop by an AVERAGE of 16%- although there are probably other system factors to take into account.But frame rate does not mean a great deal- it is SMOOTHNESS that really counts.AR

OK, so you are saying every pixel requires computation by the CPU. That seems significant, unless the maximum processing burden is easily managed by the hardware. Smoothness eventually becomes a big issue, but you still need adequate frame rate else you run in to plain old slow repaints which is as nasty as stuttering video. As well, when you're struggling along w/ minimal frame rate, even in the 15-18 range, you're definitely in a stressed state, where stutter-free becomes a relative term. Thanks for your insights, it will help me decide whether to go w/ another 1680 x 1050 or jump up. I must say, I'm pretty ok w/ the of this screen right now. But I am intrigued by more pixels and smaller pixel pitch for best IQ.

I see no difference at all at 1920x1080 vs 1440x768 for example.

OK, so you are saying every pixel requires computation by the CPU. That seems significant, unless the maximum processing burden is easily managed by the hardware. Smoothness eventually becomes a big issue, but you still need adequate frame rate else you run in to plain old slow repaints which is as nasty as stuttering video. As well, when you're struggling along w/ minimal frame rate, even in the 15-18 range, you're definitely in a stressed state, where stutter-free becomes a relative term. Thanks for your insights, it will help me decide whether to go w/ another 1680 x 1050 or jump up. I must say, I'm pretty ok w/ the of this screen right now. But I am intrigued by more pixels and smaller pixel pitch for best IQ.

I agree- more pixels is a good thing! The question is: what's the best way?I prefer multiple views on multi monitors to produce the widest possible Perspective AND Field of View.Here is a pic of triple 17" monitors @ 1024 x 768 yielding a 45" wide perspective & a 146º FS9 FOV.( the eqivalent of 3072 x 768 res)And running very smoothly on an ancient AMD 1.8 GHz 'puter! (The secret is to integrate 3 views into what your brain sees as one image, by adjusting the angle of the outer views by the exact width of the bezels which separate the views.)AR

I agree- more pixels is a good thing! The question is: what's the best way?I prefer multiple views on multi monitors to produce the widest possible Perspective AND Field of View.Here is a pic of triple 17" monitors @ 1024 x 768 yielding a 45" wide perspective & a 146º FS9 FOV.( the eqivalent of 3072 x 768 res)And running very smoothly on an ancient AMD 1.8 GHz 'puter! (The secret is to integrate 3 views into what your brain sees as one image, by adjusting the angle of the outer views by the exact width of the bezels which separate the views.)AR

Some interesting points, though the setting that I'm in wouldn't work for that configuration due to space considerations. My chief concern, something since the dawn of computing for me, has always been image sharpness/clarity. I don't use the ENB mod because it can soften image sharpness. I would always choose sharp over, for example, stereo 3D if that were the comparison. I think the only reason I would go w/ larger is to get more pixels in a smaller surface area, and I think that can be accomplished w/ a screen w/ smaller pixel pitch. Dell has a new UltraSharp screen that appears to fit that bill, it's 1920 x 1080 but only 21.5", and sports 0.2475mm pixel pitch. Haven't seen anything like that elsewhere. It's pretty cheap too for an IPS. It uses LED. Do you know of any downsides to LED?I have been intrigued by multiple screens but as I say the work area (hehe, play area!) is limited as it must accommodate my digital audio workstation. I certainly couldn't get a 3 view thing going that was symmetrical enough to be useful.

Noel- Multiply resolution width times height for each monitor - which gives total pixel count for each. Then calc the ratio between the two total pixel counts. That will be the percentage effect on frame rate.

This was semi-true for basic 2d graphics software maybe 15 years ago but it's completely false now, especially with regards to FSX.Also, "computed by the CPU, and then displayed by the GPU" is very inaccurate (it's a Graphics Processing Unit, not a Graphics Display Unit).After the basic overhead calculations have been performed by FSX, increasing the resolution and even expanding the field of view doesn't really affect the performance that much unless you're really pushing the hardware to begin with. Calculations for the flight dynamics, playing sounds, performing wind calculations, and so on, is not going to be any different. Creating additional Views however, will cause most of the overhead to have to be calculated yet again, which will definitely affect performance severely (even if the new window is tiny).Regarding the numbers in the original question, there is no easy answer to that since there are so many variables.Personally I see pretty much no difference in FPS between 1920x1024 (single screen) and 5760x1024 (3 screens, surround mode) because almost all of the additional work is performed by the graphics cards, which are usually not exactly the bottleneck when using FSX. I'd say go for the 1920 x 1200.

Also, "computed by the CPU, and then displayed by the GPU" is very inaccurate (it's a Graphics Processing Unit, not a Graphics Display Unit).

• I meant to say, 'rendered for display by the GPU . . .' which is perhaps more accurate

After the basic overhead calculations have been performed by FSX, increasing the resolution and even expanding the field of view doesn't really affect the performance that much unless you're really pushing the hardware to begin with.

• This I think is an issue. Currently for me, my hardware IS being pushed quite hard not only in its hardware configuration but by what I ask it to do thru my FSX configuration. So this really is why I am posing these questions. I plan to move to Ivy Bridge w/ highest end and tightest timed memory w/ SSD etc, and am asking w/ this testbed, will I still be pushing the system, or is this now approaching the irrelevancy you are perhaps suggesting is involved in moving up to 1920 x1080 or 1920 x1200.

I'd say go for the 1920 x 1200.

• I'm still leaning a little towards the new Dell 21.5" UltraSharp at 1920 x 1080 w/ 0.2475mm pixel pitch do to what should be theoretically best IQ by my calculations (in this ~ size of screen that is). Do you know of any issues against LED backit screens?

Read the bullets above if you will. Thanks much for your comments ;o)

I'd say go for the 1920 x 1200.

I did, thanks ;o) I'll let you know how it performs relative to the 1680x1050 I am on now.Cheers,Noel

This has certainly been an informational and helpful thread for me as well.Currently I run two monitors, my main is a Samsung 22" widescreen lcd, and my secondary is a Samsung 19" 4:3 lcd. I run FSX in full screen, and use the second monitor for putting atc, gps, radio stack , and kneeboard on.I am about to pull the trigger on a new Samsung 24" widescreen led backlit monitor. I will use it as my main, and my 22" as my secondary, so my main display will be going from 1680x1050 to the 1920x1080 resolution, and my secondary will be going from 1080x1024 to the 1680x1050.My wife will benefit also, as she will get the 19" - she currently has a 17" lcd.With my GTX 460, I currently get very smooth flight and very decent framerates on my system, I may lose a little in the framerate department but don't expect it to be severe. But I am also planning on moving up to say a GTX 560ti card in the near future as well, which would probaby help any loss I may get with my current setup.

Hi,So today I purchased my 23" Dell U2312HM. I must say that this monitor is just perfect!So this is now my main display with resolution 1920X1080.The previous Samsung 20" gone to be 2nd monitor with resolution 1680X1050.I cheked FSX with NGX when main monitor displaying VC of NGX and the secondary displaying radio panel and overhead.A very small impact on performance is being seen, maybe a few frames.

I just pulled the trigger on the 24" Samsung previously mentioned, from NewEgg.I should have it by Friday , will be interesting to see how my new setup will perform.Although it may end up being an excuse, to move up from my GTX 460 to a GTX 560.:)

I just pulled the trigger on the 24" Samsung previously mentioned, from NewEgg.I should have it by Friday , will be interesting to see how my new setup will perform.Although it may end up being an excuse, to move up from my GTX 460 to a GTX 560.:)

That's a sidegrade Don. A 560 is an overclocked 460. It's like a I7 930 vs 920 or a 2600K vs 2700K.Get at least a 560Ti if you want a real upgrade.

Ah, thanks for that bit of info Dario - my 460 is already overclocked from the factory - EVGA 460 SSC.I guess my mind was thinking a 500 series card might be a nice little step up. I am hoping my 460 will continue to perform well for me with the new monitor and I can hold off a while longer, maybe get a 580 when they come down in price some.Thanks again,

I thought I would report back now that my new 24" led Samsung monitor arrived and I have it set up.I went from a 22" 1680x1050, to this 24" 1920x1080. Plus, I moved the 22" over to use as my secondary monitor, where previously I had a 19" 4:3 lcd.If I am getting any performance hit in FSX, it is hardly noticeable. I may have lost a couple fps, really hard to tell - but it is still very smooth for me, and framerates at least appear to be pretty close to what I had.So any concerns I had about my system maybe getting bogged with the new monitor are gone - guess I lost my excuse to upgrade my GTX 460 card to a 500 series card , at least for now...