I always see people replied this way but is there any prove that you need more than 512MB VRAM when going over 20" LCD.
Back to those days, yeah, VRAM matters for bit depth and resolution. But since nowadays most GPU has at least 128MB or more, why it matters to have more than 512MB when going over 20"?

GPU job is to render image and send them to the monitor. Its the monitor responsibility to display it. GPU wont hold back the data unless you enable VSYNC. If your LCD unable to keep up with the GPU output, how can it be related to the GPU?

If I recalled properly, the 4850 series from ATi is designed to work at 1650x1050 resolution. So there should not be any problem . 1GB fares better in 1920x1080 or games with lots of textures eg, Crysis.

You can either the the HD 4850 GS or 9800GTX +..The performance diff very slightly..

It just like processor process data to hard drive. it need access RAM right?

By the way are we a little bit....    ?

what about the normal HD4850 and the Golden Sample..?

I dont think its off topic if its related to the monitor.

BTW, your assumption is wrong. First of all, GPU has ram too. Instead the hdd works like the monitor too. Receiving data from the CPU and the same can be said for the LCD receiving data from GPU. VRAM should come into question when it comes to resolution used and not the size of LCD being used.

normal HD4850 is not recommended for. mine is a Gigabyte version with 512MB & it's freaking hot. can reach 80++ celcius when gaming. try the Gainward GS version with better cooling.

sorry to interrupt. but u can change the fan speed with a lil code editting right? i did mine long time ago so a bit blur2 now. my temp on load is around 70 and idle around 55 - 60. but my fan is a bit noisy lah. btw, my gc is gecube

Haha, here also talk Gainward ar.

Shet! I thought I was in the Gainward thread! Went OT with them 

Anyways, since I'm using a 4850GS, the typical 16:10 22" resolution is the best for me right instead of the 1920x1080 22"?

Anyone has a comparison side by side for a 1680x1050 22" versus 1920x1080 22"? Wanna compare how much smaller the words are.

22inch full hd 16:9 monitor got a very small pixels compared with normal 22 inch 16:10 monitor to achieve a higher resolution and better image quality.

for example:

BenQ E2200HD Pixel Pitch: 0.248

Samsung 2233bw pixel pitch: 0.282

Dont bother buying the Full HD if you dont have any Video to play with it.

I'm more interested in the 16:9 ratio instead for videos . Don't quite like the black lines I experience when watching my 16:9 series on a 16:10 without cutting the edges off.

dont really understand with you guys which all the fuss for the 16:9 screen.

i know it's popular but then only if u are watching high quality video. Even if u played a dual layer original DVD,it wont be clear .

unless u have blue ray player and playing blue ray disc with full reso with the 16:9 full HD lcd.