That does it then. I need to upgrade the card. A shame though, as I just bought it. Well, prices are always coming down so in a few months maybe.

The step-by-step from Silverhammer and advice from others helped a lot. I've still capped it at 45 (on old monitor I capped it at 55) but the panning and movement seems smoother now. That's what's really important to me.

Re: the 60mhz refresh rate, I couldn't believe it when I was standing in the store looking at all these monitors and noticing they all had lower refresh rates than my 8 year old monitor. Oh well.

45 is still miles better than what I had to experience on my integrated graphics card.

LCDs have inherent motion blur which is why it seems smoother. The 550 is a solid card and you'll spend WAAAAAY more upgrading that card than by merely browsing your local craigslist for a real monitor...

OP can you link me your monitor on newegg or something that lists its full specs etc.?

Thoth, here you go:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/AOC+-+21.5%22+Widescreen+LED+HD+Monitor+-+Black/1970054.p?id=1218303649178&skuId=1970054&st=AOC&cp=1&lp=2

EDIT: BTW I'm probably going to return that monitor and stick with this old 17 inch one. Once you've had frame rates in the 50s, 60s and higher it's so hard to go back. It's like swimming in a pool of mud versus swimming in pristine crystal water; fast, smooth, clear, if such can be translated into movement terms. Not to mention Skyrim is still young. There are going to be so many mods coming down the pike which might impact performance here and there that starting with a base of 40 or lower is suicide. At least with higher frame rates, if I go down hill as the months pass, I'm starting from a much higher hill.

Try using 1680x1050 resolution and see how that performs and looks -- for a 21.5" monitor it is really a better resolution for the monitor and the performance should be better and most monitors scale better nowadays than they used to so it should still look good.

I have an AOC brand for my slave rig but I don't game on it. Def a budget brand you can see it has 5 m/s response time you want something more like 1 or 2 for gaming. I have no gaming experience on it so I don't want to totally bash it since I have a buddy who uses a Hannspree and that is another budget brand monitor and it works amazing. I would if you can return it for something with a 2 m/s response and a 60 refresh if you can. I use and Asus before that Samsung when it comes to monitors your def get what you pay for. LCD will be cheaper that LED and I prefer them. Try checking for a good reviewed 1080 native monitor on newegg with 2 or lower m/s and 4 or 5 stars.

Okay I'll definitely try this. Thank you.



Thank you also Thoth. But do you really think the monitor response time can make a difference in frame rate? If so, that absolutely blows my mind. Of all the components on a PC setup, if you'd asked me which one matters LEAST for performance gaming in terms of "you get what you pay for," I would say the keyboard is first and the monitor is second. I learn more about computing on these forums than anyplace else.

Thank you guys again.

No problem duder and keep in mind that is just my opinion based on my preferences and what I use my rig for. Not by a huge margin but it is a sign that said monitor is most likely more designed for gaming/graphics.....more so when it comes to bargain brands. So a Samsung with 5 m/s imo is still a better buy than a 2 m/s random brand. I am very picky with monitors and I use mine for blu ray films as well. I have plenty of friends that still run old CRT monitors for gaming so a monitor is not the most important part of a gaming config. Just in the future I would stick to good rated monitors as there are so many to choose from its very easy to get a crappy one brand be damned. Also that AOC will server a purpose either way even if it ends up being your secondary monitor so don't toss it.

I love my 32" 1080p LCD. Been PC gaming on it for 5 years. 1080p requires more resources, but its usually worth it. IDK why skyrim has such trouble with lower fps. I can play BF3 maxed out and it will dip to 35fps every so often and unless I have Afterburner showing my FPS I don't even notice it. Skyrim though, when my game glitches out and frames get capped at 32ish its like a damn slideshow almost (then I alt tab out and back in and frames go back to 60 ...)

I played oblivion at 20-40 fps for a long time(same screen), never had any issues. Skyrim definatly is not as smooth at those framrates. DERP *creation engine svcks cough cough*

Just an old engine being stretched to its limits (Skyrim) in contrast to a brand new Frostbite 2(BF3) same deal for me BF3 looks a million times better at less GPU strain and can go well beyond Skyrim in vanilla states(on Ultra I should add). I use a 24 inch for 1920 x 1080 but was using a 1650 x 1080 on my 21 inch so like JDF said you may actually get bettter performance on that scale. I mean its not like you are stretching the native reso pixels like an upgrade reso would do. Def worth a shot.

Well if you overclocked your 2500k CPU to over 4Ghz you will notice a good increase in FPS. These CPUs are the easiest to overclock... ever.

Also, the VRAM on your 550Ti is more than enough. I only have 1GB on my 560Ti with the HD mods and it runs fine (40-60 FPS) and I run at 1080p, too.

If you went back to a crappy 17" monitor I would be very disappointed!!

1680x1050 is a 16:10 aspect ratio, whereas 1920x1080 is a 16:9 aspect ratio. You would cause all kinds of horrible stretching.