Native resolution equals lag

[Amunnakht]

Im new to this forum so I dont know if Im posting in the right place. Why is that if I play my games in my HDTV's native res. (1920x1080) with all detail settings in a game to minmal I lag... e;g "The Witcher 2". But if I set to a lower res like 1024x768 or even 1280x720 with all in-game settings MAXED including AA, ubersampling I dont lag a bit. I know my card(chip) more like it, is not the God of Video cards, but Ive been able to play EVERY game game that has came out to date, SKyrim, Mass Effect 3 , Crysis 2, NFS:The Run just to name a few, and can run them at medium to high(some ultra), but again NOT with higher resolution

So I guess to wrap this up, is resolution that much demanding on a card than say 4x SSAA, 16AF, high shadows, SSAO?

AMD Radeon 6490M/1.3gb
i5-2410m@2.3ghz
4gb RAM
Windows 7 Home premium

[Legendary_Agent]

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

Im new to this forum so I dont know if Im posting in the right place. Why is that if I play my games in my HDTV's native res. (1920x1080) with all detail settings in a game to minmal I lag... e;g "The Witcher 2". But if I set to a lower res like 1024x768 or even 1280x720 with all in-game settings MAXED including AA, ubersampling I dont lag a bit. I know my card(chip) more like it, is not the God of Video cards, but Ive been able to play EVERY game game that has came out to date, SKyrim, Mass Effect 3 , Crysis 2, NFS:The Run just to name a few, and can run them at medium to high(some ultra), but again NOT with higher resolution

So I guess to wrap this up, is resolution that much demanding on a card than say 4x SSAA, 16AF, high shadows, SSAO?

AMD Radeon 6490M/1.3gb
i5-2410m@2.3ghz
4gb RAM
Windows 7 Home premium

Yes, resolution is incredibly demanding on any video card you can find that includes yours, there are a number of factors that will make your performance impact bigger than other cards but to summ it up, notebook graphics card are very weak in comparison to desktop graphics cards and your card is indeed very weak even for a notebook graphic card.

[Agent-A01]

Lol. That 6490m is way too weak to run witcher2. You would need to run all loe for native res. HD3850 is minimum required for tw2, and its a good bit faster than your 6490.

[Amunnakht]

Thx for the replies guys. But my question must have been misunderstood, like I said I know the capabilities of my chip. Im playing The Witcher 2 right "now" as of when I made this post (Thats the reason I sought out this forum which lead me to ask the question). Im playing with max settings except ubersampling (although I have had it on for awhile and didnt really notice to much difference in textures so I turned it off for additional Fps), so Im NOT struggling to play The Witcher 2 or any other game that has came out to date. BUT I AM struggling to play it in my HDTV native resolution(1920x1080) is what Im saying, for example Crysis 2 I can can turn everything up(maybe leave out the AA) and play at 1366x768 and plays as if Im on a console "flawless"


True notebooks are weaker than desktop I know

6490m powerful?...NO..mediocre just average?..maybe...weak?..cant be.

As said Ive played every top-tier game to hit the market in the last 3years on high settings including Black ops, BF3, COD:MW3, starcraft 2, Skyrim, mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 1&2, both Witcher, Crysis (whole series) Batman:AA. Its just when I go over 1366x768 my laptop's screen native resolution I lag( laptop connect to my HDTV via HDMI which my HDTV native is 1920x1080)

Originally Posted by Legendary_Agent

Yes, resolution is incredibly demanding on any video card you can find that includes yours.

I seems your right

[Bat_Zonko]

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

As said Ive played every top-tier game to hit the market in the last 3years on high settings including Black ops, BF3, COD:MW3, starcraft 2, Skyrim, mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 1&2, both Witcher, Crysis (whole series) Batman:AA. Its just when I go over 1366x768 my laptop's screen native resolution I lag( laptop connect to my HDTV via HDMI which my HDTV native is 1920x1080)

I seems your right

You might try GPU-Z and see what the bandwidth and fillrate is for your card. Rendering anything at a higher resolution will eat up both like it was pudding.

As a rough rule of thumb, just take a look the pixel information you have to render. At 1366x768 you have 1,049,088 and then at 1920x1080 you have 2,073,600. That is almost 2x the amount of pixels that need to be processed.

Add in any AA, AF, post-processing, etc and you can bring down a lot of cards to their knees at 1080

Bats

[automaticman]

Increasing resolution is probably the setting with the single largest effect on FPS, and going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 is a big jump. Consider that 1920x1080 has double the the amount of pixels that 1366x768 has.

Combine that with the fact that the 6490M was an entry level discrete mobile card (AMD 6 series cards ranged from the 6300 to the 6900 series, with 800M up usually the minimum for gaming 1080p - see http://www.anandtech.com/show/4475/a...-summer-2011/2) and the fact that Witcher is a very demanding game and you wind up with the results you are seeing.

[Amunnakht]

Thanks guys, all of you. I never understood resolution when it came to gaming and that make sense to me. Again I know the 6490m is NOT a beast by a long shot, but it has let me play alot of games I couldnt coming off a Nvidia 7300, and most current games I can play with med-high detail setting but when I raise resolution regardless if I put all low detail I lag. So going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 IS a big leap and it shows that why I had to ask cause Id rather have the 1080...oh well Ill stay 720 ....time to upgrade the desktop it seems at least $150 i could spare on a "card" but dont know what better Ati/Amd or Nvidia. My last nvidia alomst ran ran me back to consoles.

[automaticman]

For that price maybe a 6870 or a 560? Both can be found for around $150ish with rebates on newegg. Either one would be a massive improvement.

[Legendary_Agent]

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

Thanks guys, all of you. I never understood resolution when it came to gaming and that make sense to me. Again I know the 6490m is NOT a beast by a long shot, but it has let me play alot of games I couldnt coming off a Nvidia 7300, and most current games I can play with med-high detail setting but when I raise resolution regardless if I put all low detail I lag. So going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 IS a big leap and it shows that why I had to ask cause Id rather have the 1080...oh well Ill stay 720 ....time to upgrade the desktop it seems at least $150 i could spare on a "card" but dont know what better Ati/Amd or Nvidia. My last nvidia alomst ran ran me back to consoles.

Ok im not trying to make you feel bad but i hope you understand better now,
Your gfx card has 160shaders at 700-850mhz
A more current Average Gaming card has 800cores at 850mhz
Those specs above in general shows how fast your card can calculate the graphics thrown at it, which means pretty much everything in general.

Your gfx card has 512mb vram ddr3 at 800mhz
A more current average card has 1024mb vram at 1200mhz
This is more important when playing with higher quality textures and higher resolution, better texture filtering, postscreen effects and so on, your card lacks in this area aswell.

There are plenty of other specs but just those are enough for you to figure out why your card is indeed weak for today current games, remember im talking about your card vs an average card, the average card is no match to a top card at all...

EDIT: if it was by me, i would wait untill windows 8 comes out, im pretty sure the other cards with dx11.0 feature will drop in price alot by then, i for once have a hd 6770 in my desktop and i can play everything just fine with few small trade offs like not having AA enabled.

[Amunnakht]

Originally Posted by Legendary_Agent

Ok im not trying to make you feel bad but i hope you understand better now,
Your gfx card has 160shaders at 700-850mhz
A more current Average Gaming card has 800cores at 850mhz
Those specs above in general shows how fast your card can calculate the graphics thrown at it, which means pretty much everything in general.

Your gfx card has 512mb vram ddr3 at 800mhz
A more current average card has 1024mb vram at 1200mhz
This is more important when playing with higher quality textures and higher resolution, better texture filtering, postscreen effects and so on, your card lacks in this area aswell.

There are plenty of other specs but just those are enough for you to figure out why your card is indeed weak for today current games, remember im talking about your card vs an average card, the average card is no match to a top card at all...

EDIT: if it was by me, i would wait untill windows 8 comes out, im pretty sure the other cards with dx11.0 feature will drop in price alot by then, i for once have a hd 6770 in my desktop and i can play everything just fine with few small trade offs like not having AA enabled.

Thanks for the reply and the advice for future investments. As for the chip Im aware of the 512mb VRAM (dedicated) version, but I have the 1024 mb DDR5 version + 256mb VRAM from the intel HD 3000 resulting in 1280 mb dedicated VRAM, Shader model 5.0 and Dx11. Still not powerful, but as I say it let me play all games Ive tried on high setting(some no AA) just not high resolution above 1366x768.

I even seen on notebookcheck.net where they only show the 512mb version, but they must of disregarded updating the info on the chip, because theres two 512/or/1024 - ddr3/ddr5. Now I wont lie the one game that make my laptop fan scream to stop running it and bring my system to its knees and I dont know why but its "Mafia 2" not GTA 4 but Mafia 2

And no your not offending it me, cause I already know its not beast, I can go to youtube to get offended and watch videos called "[whatever] 1080p HD MAX SETTINGS" and I be like ..while they running 60+ fps. Watching the big boys playing with their powerful AMD or Nvidia cards ( i dont like Nvidia maybe cause the 7300 i had sucked, so I kind of stop liking them since then).

[Amunnakht]

Originally Posted by automaticman

For that price maybe a 6870 or a 560? Both can be found for around $150ish with rebates on newegg. Either one would be a massive improvement.

Thanks Ill check the site (never heard of), one guy told me Tiger direct, and Amazon last time I ordered from them took forever.

[Amunnakht]

one other thing could it possibly be my RAM or CPU? I have a i5-2410 2.3ghz sandy bridge whatever the hell she is. and 4gb of RAM.

[automaticman]

you are definitely GPU limited, what hardware is in your desktop right now?

[Amunnakht]

Originally Posted by automaticman

you are definitely GPU limited, what hardware is in your desktop right now?

Nvidia 7300LE
dell e521 dieminsion

[automaticman]

I dunno if the Athlon 64 in that rig is going to be able to keep up with any modern GPU, but at least it has a pci-e slot.

[Legendary_Agent]

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

Thanks for the reply and the advice for future investments. As for the chip Im aware of the 512mb VRAM (dedicated) version, but I have the 1024 mb DDR5 version + 256mb VRAM from the intel HD 3000 resulting in 1280 mb dedicated VRAM, Shader model 5.0 and Dx11. Still not powerful, but as I say it let me play all games Ive tried on high setting(some no AA) just not high resolution above 1366x768.

256vram from intel hd 3000? i believe intel hd graphics are not dedicated graphic cards so they do not have extra vram, they are located within your processor, the 256vram is used by your System Ram, any computer with windows vista and above "steals" ram from your system ram and uses it for your graphics card, personally i find this feature quite useless with an already decent card but with slow cards its so so, with my hd 6770 i have in total 2815mb ram, again this semms huge and yet its nothing special once you do the test ingame, a ddr2 ram is slower and different than a gddr5 with 256 bit system.

Shader model 5.0 and DX11 is just the instruction set technology supported and has little to do with performance, all that means is the card will allow you to process those features, be it slow, fast or completely unplayable, it will process them.

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

I even seen on notebookcheck.net where they only show the 512mb version, but they must of disregarded updating the info on the chip, because theres two 512/or/1024 - ddr3/ddr5. Now I wont lie the one game that make my laptop fan scream to stop running it and bring my system to its knees and I dont know why but its "Mafia 2" not GTA 4 but Mafia 2

Yes there are indeed two versions, im not sure which is yours thats why i posted the clock speed range and assumed it was the ddr3 as gddr5 is a bit more costly, even then the difference will be minimal, maybe around 10-20% better.

Originally Posted by Amunnakht

And no your not offending it me, cause I already know its not beast, I can go to youtube to get offended and watch videos called "[whatever] 1080p HD MAX SETTINGS" and I be like ..while they running 60+ fps. Watching the big boys playing with their powerful AMD or Nvidia cards ( i dont like Nvidia maybe cause the 7300 i had sucked, so I kind of stop liking them since then).

If you dont like nvidia then i can assure you ATI is a good choice, i too dislike nvidia products, ATI constantly attempts to improve its AA and AF filtering which is easelly noticed when compared side by side with an nvidia gfx card, nvidia in this current gen however offers more performance at stock settings, but when you overclock both the ATI will catch up and maybe even surpass it in most games.
So, go for ATI if you dont want an nvidia, they have improved their drivers alot since release and increased their performance in most cases.

[BaldManBDC]

Guys I think there is a critical piece of info missed here.

The guy is on a Notebook.

EDIT - My appologies, I clearly missed that part. I will pull my head in

[Lane]

I will try to resume notebook or not notebook....

If you dont experience lag at lower resolution ( 1280/720P ) is cause less work is asking to your card and system, instead of 1920x1080. ( more pixel to render )

So basically you will need to test when start a game, in some game, lower the quality ( all to low, no AA etc ) will be enough, in some case you will need decrease the resolution too.

[automaticman]

Originally Posted by BaldManBDC

Guys I think there is a critical piece of info missed here.

The guy is on a Notebook.

He mentioned that upgrading his desktop was a possibility, which currently has an Athlon64 socket and an Nvidia 7300 GPU

[Amunnakht]

Originally Posted by Lane

I will try to resume notebook or not notebook....

If you dont experience lag at lower resolution ( 1280/720P ) is cause less work is asking to your card and system, instead of 1920x1080. ( more pixel to render )

So basically you will need to test when start a game, in some game, lower the quality ( all to low, no AA etc ) will be enough, in some case you will need decrease the resolution too.

That what you just said is what Im having the problem with and got me scratching my head. Thats what I do, if I put the game resolution on 1920x1080 ALL detail settings on LOW I lag, but if I run in say 1366x768 or 1280x720 with ALL detail settings MAXED including @least 4xAA 16xAF I dont lag at all(or lets just say Ive never drop below 34fps on a bench).

Its mind boggling which leads me to ask the question about the impact of resolutions in games. My notebook's screen native is 1366x768 but I have it hooked up to my HDTV which native is 1920x1080. So I was thinking maybe the system was design to only perform at its native and not above. Again im on a notebook so I already know im at a limited state and not to expect the "cream of the crop" when it comes to gaming. Just to solve the problem Im going to go back to my desktop. Like I said I can spend a good $150-175 on a card, but then again I might just get me new computer all the way around(got my taxes) because I want a more up to date CPU as well @least a quad. And I wouldnt mind trying eyeinfinety

[Lane]

Use fraps or any software for check the fps and check both case ( lower res vs 1080P )... I m pretty sure you will end with extremely low minimum fps with the 1080P case..

The average can be not so much different ( maybe 35 vs 27fps ), but in a case the minimum fps will goes to 28-29fps, and in the second 15-17fps ).. ( just an example ) ...

benchmark in themselves ( as 3Dmark ) will not say anything if they dont use the full res... benchmark in game , but useless if it dont give you the min.


Maybe for be sure it come only from this, run an old game with high fps in 1080P ( higher of 50-60fps ) and check if the lag occurs there.

maybe try check too if by hasard the v-sync on the HDTV is really set well.

[Amunnakht]

Originally Posted by Lane

Use fraps or any software for check the fps and check both case ( lower res vs 1080P )... I m pretty sure you will end with extremely low minimum fps with the 1080P case..

The average can be not so much different ( maybe 35 vs 27fps ), but in a case the minimum fps will goes to 28-29fps, and in the second 15-17fps ).. ( just an example ) ...

benchmark in themselves ( as 3Dmark ) will not say anything if they dont use the full res... benchmark in game , but useless if it dont give you the min.


Maybe for be sure it come only from this, run an old game with high fps in 1080P ( higher of 50-60fps ) and check if the lag occurs there.

maybe try check too if by hasard the v-sync on the HDTV is really set well.

Yeah older games(2010-back) I have no problem with it, 1080p, maxed settings, lights down low, hot pockets. Its the newer ones where the "res" is more the problem than AA or any other setting, which Ive heard/read AA to be the killer of Fps not the res...and at 1080p AA is not totally needed ....Weird...oh well i'll stay 720, until I build desktop

[Amunnakht]

I saw a Ad on this forum for Intel Core i7-2600K processor, any good? because I want a Quad and i7 over 15

[Agent-A01]

yes its good. but worthless for 99% of games out there. just get a 3570k+ a decent mobo like asus P8Z77-V

[Amunnakht]

okay, I'll check them out