Widescreen Gaming Forum

After implementing the brilliant hack detailed here - http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=17635&start=0 - I am now, at last , able to do 5040x1050 and get a real feel for the performance difference from 5760x1200.

Here's a preview: It's huge. I will update this post as I test new games, but I wanted to go ahead and post an important one:

Dirt2 (results copied directly from DiRT2_Benchmark)

5760x1200 2xAA DX9 (you have to edit hardware_settings_config to get this, and it's well worth it since DX11 adds nothing and sucks performance in this game) Preset "High":

average min_fps="27.544434" av_fps="40.070484"

5040x1050 2xAA Everything else same:

average min_fps="45.572693" av_fps="58.110287

Notice that minimum FPS. That is just so huge in a driving game - or anything else, for that matter. Much better experience.

Note: This is with Crossfired 5870's. See my sig for the rest.

I'd like to see what you get in DIRT2 in DX10. All the testing i did with Far Cry 2 showed big performance gains using DX10.

Small point - DiRT 2 doesn't hav a DX10 mode, its DX9 or DX11 only. :)

Small point - DiRT 2 doesn't hav a DX10 mode, its DX9 or DX11 only. :)

That's correct. Here's something to illustrate what I mean re: the performance hit that DX11 represents:


As you can see, the 5970 drops from 113 to 72 fps. And, according to this article http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699998/Dirt-2-DirectX-9-vs-DirectX-11-graphics-compared-Update-New-comparisons/Practice/ (and my own observations), it's virtually impossible to see the difference between DX9 and DX11 while actually playing.

1650x1080 wasnt supported?

As you can see, the 5970 drops from 113 to 72 fps. And, according to this article http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699998/Dirt-2-DirectX-9-vs-DirectX-11-graphics-compared-Update-New-comparisons/Practice/ (and my own observations), it's virtually impossible to see the difference between DX9 and DX11 while actually playing.

AFAIK the DX9 mode of DiRT2 does the post processing a 1/4 the display resoultion, resulting in a more blurred image in saome cases; under DX11 the pos processing is done at full resultion, using high qualify FP16 formats, via ComputeShader. There are cases where this i more noticable in use; I still think the lighting in the night stadium races look great in DX11.

[quote]As you can see, the 5970 drops from 113 to 72 fps. And, according to this article http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699998/Dirt-2-DirectX-9-vs-DirectX-11-graphics-compared-Update-New-comparisons/Practice/ (and my own observations), it's virtually impossible to see the difference between DX9 and DX11 while actually playing.

AFAIK the DX9 mode of DiRT2 does the post processing a 1/4 the display resoultion, resulting in a more blurred image in saome cases; under DX11 the pos processing is done at full resultion, using high qualify FP16 formats, via ComputeShader. There are cases where this i more noticable in use; I still think the lighting in the night stadium races look great in DX11.
Yep, you're correct again. DX9 looks blurrier - which I happen to think looks different, but not necessarily worse. Still, the DX11 mode is clearly doing more and that's why it's slower.

Dave - you are a damn fount of wisdom, you know that? I may decide to actually listen to you :wink:

I expected a larger difference between the minimums...
Makes me a feel a bit better about going for 16:10 monitors and gaming at 5760x1200, instead of 16:9 displays and 5760x1080..
Hey abou tbenchies for those two? or x1080, anyway

Small point - DiRT 2 doesn't hav a DX10 mode, its DX9 or DX11 only. :)

That's kind of a shame. Only option is a small (at least to some people) improvement for a big fps hit. While a DX10 mode would have offered a (possibly) small improvement, while giving a sizable fps improvement.

I expected a larger difference between the minimums...
Makes me a feel a bit better about going for 16:10 monitors and gaming at 5760x1200, instead of 16:9 displays and 5760x1080..
Hey about benchies for those two? or x1080, anyway

The slightly wider aspect of 3x16:9 might actually give you a lower performance.

I expected a larger difference between the minimums...

Believe me, the difference between 27 and 45 min fps is night and day in terms of actual gameplay. The former isn't even playable - the latter imperceptible.