PDA

View Full Version : To game at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200??


Pages : [1] 2

Stevia
05-04-04, 05:51 PM
Ok here is what I make of all of this. Allot of people are spouting that ATI can do high res(1600x1200) better than NVIDIA, however my question is how many people actually game above 1280x1024. Honestly can anyone here tell me why they think games look better at 1600, personally I think 1080 with 8xAA/16xAF is the sweet spot, plus most high end CRT's run best at 1080.

I find that when 1600 is used it makes everything look squeezed in/blurry, very unnatural. Anyways I ponder what’s the point of purchasing the TOP DOG CARD when you aren’t going to run the games above 1080?

jAkUp
05-04-04, 05:54 PM
I still think 1600x1200 on my 19" looks better than other resolutions. I prefer it over aa and or af, just looks less washed out to me.

micron
05-04-04, 06:02 PM
Heh...I wish my monitor would do 1600x1200....

SH64
05-04-04, 06:07 PM
I'll go for 1280x1024 , 4xAA, 16xAF most o the games ..
if i played at 1600x1200 ... then i may not enable AA or 2xAA max + 8xAF will be enough for me .
however i'm sure the upcoming games will bring even the mighty X800XT & 6800U to thier knees , that might force us to get back to the old school 1024x768 days :P

Skynet
05-04-04, 06:09 PM
I find that when 1600 is used it makes everything look squeezed in/blurry, very unnatural. I don't find this at all, I think games look spectacular at that rez. 1600x1200 is getting into the league of film (not there yet, 35mm film is considered at least 2048x2048.)

I have attempted to play Farcry at 16x12 (got not so good frame rates) but WOW the game came alive and looked awesome. There is no logic in saying games will look blury at higher resolutions. The higher the rez you select, the games scales everything but uses more pixels so of course it looks better.

The issue you describe is the limitation of your monitor.

ClosetFanBoy
05-04-04, 06:10 PM
i think the masses probably play well below 1600x1200.

Skynet
05-04-04, 06:15 PM
I totally agree, but the masses play mostly on Intel Extreme graphics for the love of god. :lame:

Stevia
05-04-04, 06:15 PM
it's a 2 sided debate that has been going on HEAVY for the last 3 years. You have crowd A) that swears by the 1080 AA/AF and then crowd B) that will only play at the higest res

One more qustion i forgot to bring up. When you guys watch DVD movies what res to you use?? and WHY??

Skynet
05-04-04, 06:18 PM
I watch DVD's on my home theatre so I can't answer that. Do people really watch a whole DVD on the computer?

ClosetFanBoy
05-04-04, 06:19 PM
I totally agree, but the masses play mostly on Intel Extreme graphics for the love of god. :lame:

lol!! that was funny. plz tell thats not true! hell even my mom has a matrox board in her rig.

Skynet
05-04-04, 06:20 PM
No it really is true. The #1 "graphics accelerator" in use in an Intel "Extreme" graphics "Processor". You can blame Dell mostly for that.

Stevia
05-04-04, 06:21 PM
I do, Since I'm not going to buy a HD widescreen tv just to watch movies, my 19inch flat CRT does the job well.

Also DVD quality is crap, was never impressed by it, Low resolution, interlace etc......

Have you guys seen the WMHD---WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to think that the new BLUE-RAY format will still be using MPEG-2, how sad

ClosetFanBoy
05-04-04, 06:21 PM
omg dude dell is sooooo fired. :bash:

Smokey
05-04-04, 06:26 PM
I play 1280*1024 4xAA @100Hz, I find that at 1600*1200 @85Hz, that I do notice slight flicker. But I think 1280*1024 does look better on a 19" monitor, text can look weelly weelly small at 1600*1200 in games.

Stevia
05-04-04, 06:27 PM
smokey My monitor is always at 100hz any lower and I notice the flicker.

Cota
05-04-04, 07:05 PM
I never tought I would be gaming at 1600x1200.

I was more than happy playing at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 on my 17" monitor with my geforce 4 ti4600

But now that I have my 20" monitor I just can't stop playing at 1600x1200 with the FX5900

Still, I think 1600x1200 is kind of overkill, and only a few 19" monitors support it with high refresh rates.

Besides 1280x1024 is kind of becoming the standard on large LCDs and those are more popular than big CRTs.

GlowStick
05-04-04, 07:13 PM
Well, 1280x1024 is actually an ODD resolution and some games dont support it. However 1600x1200 is pritty much supported by all games, just you need a high end monitor to display it correctly and most people dont have that.

The only reason why there is such a big puch for 1280x1024 is because most 17'' LCD's have that res, and 17'' LCD's are quite popular today.

Cota
05-04-04, 07:25 PM
I have yet to see a game that doesn't support 1280x1024.

several 18" and 19" LCD also have 1280x1024 resolution

GlowStick
05-04-04, 07:32 PM
I have yet to see a game that doesn't support 1280x1024.

several 18" and 19" LCD also have 1280x1024 resolution
Quake
Colin Mc Rae rally games
Half-Life (non steam)
and a bunch of others.

GamerGuyX
05-04-04, 07:57 PM
THIS SUCKS!!! I decided to try a couple game with 1600x1200 and realized that my monitor only supports 68Hz at that mode! (pb) I guess it's back to 1280x1024 for me. :mad:

eesa
05-04-04, 07:58 PM
the only reason I value 1600 results even though I play at 1280 is because I see it as a sigh of how well the card the card will handle newer games that stress it more at 1280. 1280 results only show how well I can expect my games to run now.

Stevia
05-04-04, 08:01 PM
it's not a question for me what HZ my monitor does at 1600(85hz) but weahter it produces the best overall image. Most High-end 19-20inch CRT's optimal resolution+HZ is at 1080. Do this for an experiment. Run windows at 1600 85hz and then go to 1080 at 100hz. What a difference.

photophreak314
05-04-04, 08:46 PM
And for those of us who can only do 1280X1024 @ 60Hz... we just sit in the corner and cry for a new monitor. I can do 1024X768 @ 85Hz though!! And then I go to school, and everybody thinks I'm screwed in the head because I can see the flicker of the monitors at 800X600 @ 60hz (thank goodness for programming, I have my own program to change the resolution to higher, or the cool comp teacher actually has a resolution changer enabled in the taskbar)

Anyways, back on topic, I do 1024X768 because

a. my video card doesn't play very well with new games any higher than that (ti4600)

b. Lack of monitor support

c. I've had my monitor since 1999 (five years, that has got to be a record or something)

Oh well. My old MacG4 monitor could do 16X12, but that got replaced by the G5 and a LG L1811S 18", which can only do 12X10 @ 75hz. Bad for gaming, but Good for video.

GlowStick
05-04-04, 09:06 PM
And for those of us who can only do 1280X1024 @ 60Hz... we just sit in the corner and cry for a new monitor. I can do 1024X768 @ 85Hz though!! And then I go to school, and everybody thinks I'm screwed in the head because I can see the flicker of the monitors at 800X600 @ 60hz (thank goodness for programming, I have my own program to change the resolution to higher, or the cool comp teacher actually has a resolution changer enabled in the taskbar)

Anyways, back on topic, I do 1024X768 because

a. my video card doesn't play very well with new games any higher than that (ti4600)

b. Lack of monitor support

c. I've had my monitor since 1999 (five years, that has got to be a record or something)

Oh well. My old MacG4 monitor could do 16X12, but that got replaced by the G5 and a LG L1811S 18", which can only do 12X10 @ 75hz. Bad for gaming, but Good for video.
Why buy a $499 Video card and play it on a 50$ montior, it will look like crap anyways!

I hope that most people who are buying the expensive video cards have at least 500$ in a montior they are gonna use it on!

Riptide
05-04-04, 09:11 PM
For me, the choice is somewhat limited. My display has a native res of 16x12. Anything less and it interpolates, causing a slightly blurred image. Nothing serious, but it's always better to play in the native res if possible.

Some recent games, like Halo and Far Cry, refuse to cooperate in that regard. To slow. But these newer cards might just do the trick. :)