Bought new Monitor and game is laggy as crap!

[aukake]

Just bought a new 23'' LED Monitor...upgrade from the old one i had since 99. my game skips a lot and i get horrible frame rate. tried playing at 1920x1080, but that was horrible. trying 1600x900 now, but still crappy. Have 6gb of ram and gpu is a gtx 650, running wow on 32 bit also to try and help. any pointers would be awesome.

[Arac]

wow runs in my experience particularly on cpu and gfx-rams, maybe they are crap?

but usually the monitor doesn't have a really big impact on performance, so sounds a bit odd.

[IRunSoFarAway]

What's it plugged in with and what's it plugged into?

[MatadorMedia]

Download / upgrade the drivers?

[aukake]

AMD athlon II X2 2.70ghz lol. but i mean the other monitor i had was playing just fine. the monitor is ooooollllldddd..came with my computer that i got in 1999. was a dell. like 17'' crapness. i was probably playing at a smaller resolution. cause now i have this 23'' 1ms 80mil:1 LED 1080 blah blah monitor

[Ellixen]

AMD athlon II X2 2.70ghz lol. but i mean the other monitor i had was playing just fine. the monitor is ooooollllldddd..came with my computer that i got in 1999. was a dell. like 17'' crapness. i was probably playing at a smaller resolution. cause now i have this 23'' 1ms 80mil:1 LED 1080 blah blah monitor

there's your problem, the 1080p is too much for your graphics card, you have to bring down the resolution to have it run smoothly

[aukake]

I have a hdmi dvi converter so cable has a hdmi end and other end is dvi. since i dont care to use speakers built in from monitor,
drivers for gpu just updated the other day

- - - Updated - - -

there's your problem, the 1080p is too much for your graphics card, you have to bring down the resolution to have it run smoothly

im currently on 1600x900 should i go even lower?

[Ellixen]

I have a hdmi dvi converter so cable has a hdmi end and other end is dvi. since i dont care to use speakers built in from monitor,
drivers for gpu just updated the other day

- - - Updated - - -


im currently on 1600x900 should i go even lower?

what was the original resolution for your old monitor, match it to that and see if it solves the problem, if it does then consider upgrading your graphics card.

[aukake]

oh i dont even remember. just had it whatever my gpu configured it too

[Ellixen]

ah i see, then i suggest bring down the graphics to say... 1024x768 which was pretty much the big thing back in '99 and see if it still lags.

[Strand NE]

The card you have now should be able to handle that resolution (1920x1080) fine.

[IRunSoFarAway]

I have a hdmi dvi converter so cable has a hdmi end and other end is dvi. since i dont care to use speakers built in from monitor,
drivers for gpu just updated the other day

- - - Updated - - -

im currently on 1600x900 should i go even lower?

Have you tried just plugging it in with what it originally came with?

[aukake]

It came with that hdmi dvi converter. should i try just a dvi cable or just a hdmi?

[IRunSoFarAway]

It came with that hdmi dvi converter. should i try just a dvi cable or just a hdmi?

Well, you can obviously try anything you want, but try just the dvi cable first, no converters.

[schwarzkopf]

It came with that hdmi dvi converter. should i try just a dvi cable or just a hdmi?

There is literally only ONE thing that a monitor could do to dramatically reduce your frame rate. That is screen resolution.

A different cable 'may' alter the quality of the display, but won't change your frame rate.

In addition, if you have gone from a 1999 CRT screen to a 2014 LED screen - you may find there is a huge perceptual difference in frame rate as the 1999 CRT screen has almost definitely got a slower refresh rate, giving the illusion of continuity. Run some tests - see what the frame rate actually is..

[chazus]

Yeah... 1024x768 is literally 1/3 the power needed of 1920x1080.

[schwarzkopf]

Yeah... 1024x768 is literally 1/3 the power needed of 1920x1080.

Yes - 1024 x 786 = 804864 pixels .. 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels.

The maths don't take into account the more modern graphics cards are far better on a per pixel rate as well.

[Remilia]

In addition, if you have gone from a 1999 CRT screen to a 2014 LED screen - you may find there is a huge perceptual difference in frame rate as the 1999 CRT screen has almost definitely got a slower refresh rate, giving the illusion of continuity. Run some tests - see what the frame rate actually is..

Uhh... from what I remember, CRT's refresh rate in the NA was 60Hz, and EU 50Hz because of the AC/DC power or whatever the factor was. This affected some games that were running off certain aspects that were very related to refresh rate.
The perceptual difference is caused by the fact that CRTs draw a new image per frame as opposed to a hold method.

[schwarzkopf]

Uhh... from what I remember, CRT's refresh rate in the NA was 60Hz, and EU 50Hz because of the AC/DC power or whatever the factor was. This affected some games that were running off certain aspects that were very related to refresh rate.
The perceptual difference is caused by the fact that CRTs draw a new image per frame as opposed to a hold method.

Actually - was referring to the phosphor refresh, which was incredibly slow - but the end result is pretty much the same.

Ok - some numbers.

GTX 560 ti (my card) is rated at 55% faster (roughly) than the GTX 650.
My card is currently doing 2560x1600 at 60-120fps (depending on where in WoW I am).

To me that means that 1920x1080 should be very doable by your GPU, the question remains now - what about the rest of your computer?

[teddytous]

Specific graphic setting scale almost exponentially in hardware requirements as resolution increases, I'm betting something that really wasn't a big deal at 1024 is just killing you.

Try lowering shadow or AA settings, the higher resolution will be more appealing (imo) then these graphic downgrades.

Most likely won't make enough difference, as your CPU is gonna be your culprit, but who knows.