View Full Version : Super high-resolution gaming

10-23-05, 07:13 PM
Just out of curiosity, if I were going to play next-gen games (F.E.A.R and Q4, etc) on resolutions like 1920x1200 on sli 7800's, obviosuly I can't have everything on max so what looks better - 1600x1200 with like 2AA/8XAF and other misc. settings or 1920x1200 without AA/AF. I also hear that if you don't play games on their native resolution on lcd's that they don't look too good, so I don't know.

10-23-05, 07:18 PM
As a general rule, aliasing becomes less noticeable when you have higher resolutions on smaller displays (i.e. 1600x1200 on a 17" display). And yes, you'll usually want to stick with your display's default resolution. I'd just try both settings you suggested and just go with what you like best.

10-23-05, 07:43 PM
From my experiance you still need at least 2AA/4AF no matter what resolution you run. Just that little bit makes a big differance (to me) in visual quality. Then its kinda dependant on the game. I can run D3/Q4 in 1680*1050 with 2AA/4AF no problem. But FEAR and HL2 I needed to back down to 1280*1024. Neither game was unplayable at 1680*1050 (no major slowdowns or pauses) but they just weren't "smooth".

Anywho, thats my 2 bits. Oh, and here is what I run:

P4 2.4C at 2.8
865 chipset
2GB (512 *4) Corsair VS
SB Live
6800GT (AGP) @ 390/1050
Dell 2005FPW

10-23-05, 08:32 PM
I game at 1280x1024 with 4xAA/16xAF.

10-23-05, 08:47 PM
[pErMan']I game at 1280x1024 with 4xAA/16xAF.
Yeah, that's what I use most of the time too when I can.

10-23-05, 09:04 PM
I'm playing through fear right now with everything all the way up and AA on 2x and AF on 4x at 1680x1050. It's smooth as hell, thing is though... at that resolution I don't think you need more than 2xAA

10-23-05, 10:52 PM
For my experience at high res you'll need at least 2AA, if only to achieve greater definition on textures. Although these days the highest I go is 1280*1024 due to my LCD.

10-24-05, 12:38 PM
The resolution scaling depends on the monitor. I noticed my 17' LCD looks awful at anything other than the native resolution, but my LCDTV looks perfect at just about anything (though 1380x768 is native).

"so what looks better - 1600x1200 with like 2AA/8XAF and other misc. settings or 1920x1200 without AA/AF" <-- Well, true you get better performance and keep the 1:1 pixel mapping, but that 4:3 aspect ratio looks awful to me :p

10-24-05, 12:55 PM
You should always leave AF on if you can... at least 8x. To me any game looks like crap without it. I know it doesnt have anything to do with resolution, but any resolution with or without AA will always look better with 8x AF.

10-24-05, 03:30 PM
Got a small 17" CRT (16" viewable) that does 1600x1200.... therefore i do not need AA ( HDR in farcry looks great and i even get reasonable fps with my setup ).... always 8xAF.... used to have an LCD, but the CRT is much better image quality for games ( old LCD only supported 16.7 million colours... or 24bits.... CRT displays all 32bits of glorious detail.... very noticable in movies ).... just my 2 cents....

10-24-05, 03:46 PM
You should always leave AF on if you can... at least 8x. To me any game looks like crap without it. I know it doesnt have anything to do with resolution, but any resolution with or without AA will always look better with 8x AF.

+1. AF is definitly a must-have. Jaggies can be annoying but if I had to choose between 8AF with no AA, or no AF with 2AA, then I would always pick the 8AF option. Even low quality textures can look so much better at a good distance/angle with enough AF.

10-24-05, 05:51 PM
Its not the screen resolution that usually bothers me, but its the texture and mapping resolution, and then amount of poly's used.

10-24-05, 06:08 PM
Depends on the game being played AF is useless in RTS games. AA is better i tend to use 2x AA for all my games saves messing around with options.

10-25-05, 08:23 AM
my personal experience is that high rez is worth it. I play at 2560x1600. I get framerates in excess of 100fps. Current games running in HRez:

FarCry 64
Riddick 64
UT 2004 64

All games run at 2560x1600, but require some tweaks through their respective config files.

I also have the nvidia demos running at that rez, but had to make changes in their respective ARGS text file. This includes Luna, Dusk, Dawn, Vulcan, etc.

The verdict: all things considered, the best eye candy for the buck at 2560x1600 on SLI 7800GTX EVGA KO is:

2x AA, 8x Anistrophic, (and full render'all on the game settings, such as reflections, HDR, shadows etc)

Most games still report over 100fps with these settings. Infact, the built in CS video stress test reports 197.4 fps. Painkiller reports 189fps on benchmark c5L1, and 153 on benchmark c5L2. Doom 3 reports 122fps on timedemo demo1 usecache.

I played with the settings and going from 2x to 4x or 8x on the AA is not really noticeable except a 15 to 30% reduction in fram rate. Going from 8x Anistrophic to 16x did almost nothing, but reduced frame rate 10 to 15%.

At 2560x1600 there is littlle reason to use anything higher than 2xAA and 8xAT, however, there was a distinct difference between no AA and 2xAA.

Hope this helps.

Vagrant Zero
10-25-05, 12:01 PM
Don't those apples have crap response times? 25ms?

10-25-05, 12:23 PM
Venturi, first thanks for the info (great help) and second, you say you play FEAR at fps over 100? What settings do you use for it (and I'm assuming you turn v-sync off, correct)? Also I don't know if you or anyone else knows, but I've heard that in the Dell 2405FPW that the tearing that occurs with v-sync off is not as noticable - any insight?

10-25-05, 09:15 PM
I've been playing on my Sharp 45" LCD at its native resolution of 1920x1080 on a 6800 ultra. Fear is playable with a couple options turned off but not as smooth as I wanted it. WoW is perfectly playable with 4xAA though

10-26-05, 12:48 AM
I would like to play fear at 1680x1050 how do I do this if its not selectable in the options settings of the game??

10-26-05, 07:17 PM
The tearing depends on many things beyond just v-synch. SLI gives some new tearing features in games when the screen is shared or split by the cards. I would suggest using AFR and this will minimize the tearing.

2nd, for reasons I have yet to figure out, many of the issues from FEAR seem to come from poor optimizations from the game and especially from the sound configuration. Running on the lowest sound mode within the game seems to have fixed many issues. 3nd, the profile from the driver is in-appropriate, you need AFR and set the global driver to be multi-gpu.
4th, I don't use v-synch, but I really have not seen much tearing.

If you have anough ram, FEAR seems to tun best out of a RAM drive than from the Hard drive.

Also, if you don't want a RAM drive - at least disable the use of the page file forcing as much of the usage into the ram.

In addition, it is pointless in high rez to use anything beyond 2x AA. FEAR will thrash your system with anything greater than 2x AA. Fear soft shadows, suck, so avoid them until a better patch comes out.

The game is cool, but it really needs some polish, the graphics are good, but not worth the beating they give a computer. other engines render just as good or better graphics without beating up your frame rate.

Hope this helps