Does size really matter? (video card requirements for large displays)

[Pako]

I have heard it several times over, "Oh...you are going to need a monster graphics card to push a TV that big. Anything over 32" you better have (insert arbitrary value) of Ram and may even have to go SLI or Crossfire.

Ok, so.... The graphic's card is just providing pixel output for the display. If you have a HD set that runs at a native resolution of 1920x1080, that is a total of 2,073,600 pixels that it must render and provide information on. If the resolution stays the same, the size of TV that you have is irrelevant correct?

Each TV has to process it's own data. Assuming that the resolution is the same, as the size of the TV increases, the measured size of the pixel must also increase, but the count of the pixel remains constant.

So I just don't see it. I don't see how the size of the monitor will have any more or less strain on the video card. If any one supports this claim, I would love to hear your thoughts as to why you think a larger TV needs more processing power at the video card level.

 

[axletramp]

You're correct in that it's the resolution not the screen size which dictates the power of the video card needed. 1920x1080 on a 22" screen takes the same power as if it were displayed on a 60" screen. However, often a larger screen will also support much higher resolutions which will requiring a more powerful card should you wish to run it at it's maximum res.

I take it you're talking about watching TV on this rather than a computer display? If so you wouldn't necessarily need a better video card as the transmission won't display higher than 1920x1080 anyway.

 

[Grayfox]

A typical video card will use less than 12MB of video ram to render 1920x1080x32 pixel data.

So even a Intel HD2000 will play movies fine.

To be accurate the ram you will need to render a screen size is Height X color channels.

Eg 1920x1080=2,073,600. On a 32bit color their are 4 color channels Red, Green, Blue and Alpha
So 2,073,600x4=8,294,400.

Since each pixel takes 1 byte of data.
So for a Full HD screen you will need 8,294,400bytes of video memory or 7.91MiB.

 

[Pako]

Exactly. Well so far we are of like minded philosophies as it relates to video cards and TV size.

I have my Dell 27" monitor running at 2560x1440 resolution, two of my Samsung 27" running at 1920x1080 and my 60" Pioneer plasma also running at 1920x1080. All three monitors, including the 1920x1080 will get the exact same frame rates (within a few points) of each other regardless of the 27" or the 60" size of the display. The Dell, however, takes a pretty major performance hit when running at the higher 2560x1440 resolution, and by all rights it should.

For the record, I am talking about real time rendering of video games. Video playback is not a concern ever, at least when you are running a dedicated graphics solution, and any more, even onboard video on the CPU is more than adequate to handle any video playback demands as long as the proper I/O is recognized and available.

 

[Grayfox]

Well your setup will need 38Mib to render all screens.

And if you use them to game(and if the game can support ultra wide setups) I would recommend a 2GiB card to handle the texture data.

 

[TB]

I agree with the general consensus - the video card couldn't care less what type or size display it's sending the signal to as 1920x1080 is 1920x1080. The only thing to note, and this certainly isn't the video card's issue, is that a 22" display running at 1080p will almost certainly look crisper than a 50" 1080p due to pixel size.

 

[Pako]

I agree with the general consensus - the video card couldn't care less what type or size display it's sending the signal to as 1920x1080 is 1920x1080. The only thing to note, and this certainly isn't the video card's issue, is that a 22" display running at 1080p will almost certainly look crisper than a 50" 1080p due to pixel size.

True. And that's where viewing distance needs to be observed.

 

[axletramp]