Has anyone ever seen and article or test that compared gaming success/kills/scores at 1920X1200 versus 1280X720? I do understand that playing at native resolution will give best image quality versus forcing a lower resolution will be blockier image quality wise cause of blended pixels. The reason I ask is because when I'm normally playing a first person shooter im not looking at how nice the grass or pavement is rendered. I'm trying to locate a threat and avoid being shot. Are threats easier to locate high detail and smaller size or low detail and bigger size on the same size monitor? What are your experiences and recommendations?
What resolution do you game at and why?
- Thread starter taso11
- Start date
Solution
I had asked my question in the recent quad sli surround article and someone said it was much easier to spot far away snipers at higher resolution. It makes sense that you would need the extra detail for that. Up close not so much.
OvrClkr
Splendid
- Jul 2, 2009
- 8,565
- 0
- 31,160
I see it this way, when playing at lower resolutions the objects become larger (basically like zooming in on something) and you loose the detail aspect when it comes to the visuals. At higher resolutions (ie: 1080p+) the detail is more crisp and the playing field is much larger.
I don't recommend playing at anything lower than 1680x 1050 unless of course the GPU that you are using is on the low end.
Quad SLI owners normally play at 1920x 1200/2560 x 1600 or higher (surround), there is no point in playing at anything less than that since the cards will end up being overkill.
I play at 1920x 1080, I find it to be the sweet spot for my configuration. Used to play @ 1680x 1050 but my GPU was a bit overkill so I had to upgrade in order to see what the GPU could actually achieve.
I don't recommend playing at anything lower than 1680x 1050 unless of course the GPU that you are using is on the low end.
Quad SLI owners normally play at 1920x 1200/2560 x 1600 or higher (surround), there is no point in playing at anything less than that since the cards will end up being overkill.
I play at 1920x 1080, I find it to be the sweet spot for my configuration. Used to play @ 1680x 1050 but my GPU was a bit overkill so I had to upgrade in order to see what the GPU could actually achieve.
I just recently got this all setup. I have 3 23" monitors, native 1920x1200, 3 gtx 260 in triple sli and i7 930 @ 4.2ghz. I used to run a Triplehead2go digital. (I haven't tested to see which has higher framerates but the new nvidia surround seems smoother) In racing games the surround is great. In first person shooters it can be a little too much to keep track of lol. OvrClkr, ive noticed that too that at higher resolutions you feel zoomed out, there's much more area shown on your monitor and everything is smaller and sometimes harder to make out quickly. So I guess a resolution somewhere in between may work better. I need to mess with it more. I thought about messing with field of view at higher resolutions but that would probably distort aspect ratios and make things look fat lol
OvrClkr
Splendid
- Jul 2, 2009
- 8,565
- 0
- 31,160
You need to get used to the new resolution, same thing happened to me back in the day when I was playing quake at 1280x 768 and then upgraded to 1680x 1050. A few days of non-stop gaming should do the trick =)
correct but you also have to take into consideration that a larger playing field is better than a smaller one just for the fact that at lower resolutions you might have the enemy on the left hand side of the screen "hiding" with no way of knowing he is there while on a larger res he will be visible to the eye and in plain site ready to be shot 😉 ... get the idea?
correct but you also have to take into consideration that a larger playing field is better than a smaller one just for the fact that at lower resolutions you might have the enemy on the left hand side of the screen "hiding" with no way of knowing he is there while on a larger res he will be visible to the eye and in plain site ready to be shot 😉 ... get the idea?
OllieUK
Distinguished
- Oct 23, 2009
- 119
- 0
- 18,690
"Are threats easier to locate high detail and smaller size or low detail and bigger size on the same size monitor?"
Well for resolution I would say that as long as you have a sustainable frame rate then higher is better
As for detail then different games = different situations. For example if you turn off shadows in 2142 then it gets easier to pick out enemies as there are no shadows to hide in. Quake Live gets even more extreme at the lower settings, as the opponents really jump out at you whereas at the high settings with moody textures and lighting they are more difficult to spot against the background.
When I used to play the odd 2142 clan match then I'd use a setup which made it easy to spot the enemies and get >100fps, now as a casual gamer I play games so that they looks as nice as possible at 1920x1080 whilst keeping > 40fps for 90% of the time
Well for resolution I would say that as long as you have a sustainable frame rate then higher is better
As for detail then different games = different situations. For example if you turn off shadows in 2142 then it gets easier to pick out enemies as there are no shadows to hide in. Quake Live gets even more extreme at the lower settings, as the opponents really jump out at you whereas at the high settings with moody textures and lighting they are more difficult to spot against the background.
When I used to play the odd 2142 clan match then I'd use a setup which made it easy to spot the enemies and get >100fps, now as a casual gamer I play games so that they looks as nice as possible at 1920x1080 whilst keeping > 40fps for 90% of the time
Thank you for those tips but it's not what I was looking for. It can be debated if they are unfair advantages or just ergonomics lol. I have been guilty of turning up the brightness in Doom 3 and Alien vs Predator 2 lol. But I do want to experience the game as it was designed so I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I'm the type that bought the game to enjoy the experience, not zip through it via guides and cheats. And I'm not saying that's what you intended but just saying what my intentions are.
jerreece
Splendid
- Sep 7, 2006
- 3,960
- 0
- 23,160
LOL I'm assuming 30' was a typo. You meant 30" I'm guessing. Even so, I play @ 1920x1080 on a 21.5" monitor. You can get a 21.5" monitor with 1080p for like $130 to $150 these days if you watch some of the online sales.
My last monitor was 1440x900... massive jump in picture quality.
brett1042002
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2009
- 565
- 0
- 19,010
wortwortwort
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2010
- 291
- 0
- 18,810
mindless728
Splendid
- Jul 15, 2008
- 4,074
- 0
- 22,960
AnUnusedUsername
Distinguished
- Sep 14, 2010
- 235
- 0
- 18,710
If I can, I play games at 1920x1200 on my 17'' laptop screen, at that resolution with such a "small" screen, I don't even need to worry about GPU-hogging AA, since it really cant make the image any sharper. Of course, my laptop is ~5 years old, so oblivion and anything more demanding than that have to run at low settings anyway.
As far as for gaming, a higher resolution will not ever make anything (excepting text) smaller. It will only make it clearer by displaying the same image with more pixels. A bigger screen size makes things bigger, of course. What size of monitor to use is a matter of personal opinion, but you should run the highest resolution your monitor and system can handle for what is technically best for gaming, since anything in the distance will be a tad clearer, since it's displayed with more pixels.
Of course, whether that increased clarity really makes a significant difference or not is debatable, but if you were trying to snipe with zero zoom someone a mile away, a higher resolution would make it easier. For most purposes though, anything with a vertical resolution of 900+ is good.
As for widescreen 16:9, 16:10, or standard aspect ratio, it depends on the game. Some shooters are more vertical than others, and non-fps games may play better at a square or rectangular aspect ratio. For example ut has a lot more vertical importance than call of duty, and would thus benefit more from the added vertical area of 16:10. Of course, whether the trade off of less horizontal space for more vertical space is worth it is probably again a matter of opinion. I like 16:10, but I know some people that really like the 1600x1200 "square" resolution for gaming, and a lot of people like 16:9 as well. It depends on what game you want to optimize for, and whether you want to favor vertical or horizontal view area more.
As far as for gaming, a higher resolution will not ever make anything (excepting text) smaller. It will only make it clearer by displaying the same image with more pixels. A bigger screen size makes things bigger, of course. What size of monitor to use is a matter of personal opinion, but you should run the highest resolution your monitor and system can handle for what is technically best for gaming, since anything in the distance will be a tad clearer, since it's displayed with more pixels.
Of course, whether that increased clarity really makes a significant difference or not is debatable, but if you were trying to snipe with zero zoom someone a mile away, a higher resolution would make it easier. For most purposes though, anything with a vertical resolution of 900+ is good.
As for widescreen 16:9, 16:10, or standard aspect ratio, it depends on the game. Some shooters are more vertical than others, and non-fps games may play better at a square or rectangular aspect ratio. For example ut has a lot more vertical importance than call of duty, and would thus benefit more from the added vertical area of 16:10. Of course, whether the trade off of less horizontal space for more vertical space is worth it is probably again a matter of opinion. I like 16:10, but I know some people that really like the 1600x1200 "square" resolution for gaming, and a lot of people like 16:9 as well. It depends on what game you want to optimize for, and whether you want to favor vertical or horizontal view area more.
sgtmattbaker
Distinguished
- Aug 21, 2009
- 97
- 0
- 18,630
Play at 1280x1024 since 2006. My 8800GT will run everything on high on my 19 inch 1280x1024 (except for Crysis, which did medium/high) so its fine for me now. If I got a 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 I would have to drastically upgrade my graphics card.
I just started playing Mass Effect 2 yesterday and it looks amazing and has had very limited hangups so I think it's still doing ok. I don't know if having a bigger monitor with a better resolution would really make any of my games more enjoyable, at least when considering the cost of such an upgrade.
If money wasn't an object I'd have a 25.5" 1920x1200 and everything necessary to make games run on that, but if I had the money to upgrade to those specs when I have something perfectly capable now it would feel like a waste.
I just started playing Mass Effect 2 yesterday and it looks amazing and has had very limited hangups so I think it's still doing ok. I don't know if having a bigger monitor with a better resolution would really make any of my games more enjoyable, at least when considering the cost of such an upgrade.
If money wasn't an object I'd have a 25.5" 1920x1200 and everything necessary to make games run on that, but if I had the money to upgrade to those specs when I have something perfectly capable now it would feel like a waste.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question Read and Edit Files Simultaneously on Multiple Devices from a HARD DRIVE
- Started by waghela
- Replies: 3
-
Question Can I offload frivolous VRAM tasks for System Memory?
- Started by TheyStoppedit
- Replies: 14
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram