• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1280x1024 vs. 1280x960?

J

jamestime88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,209
i have always run my computer at 1280x1024 resolution. but i was thinkin about the resolutions and the ratio didnt seem right. 1280x1024=5:4 ratio. but all monitors are 4:3. (800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200, 1792x1344 all are 4:3)

this means that the resolution ive always used has been wrong. its supposed to be 1280x960.

have i really always been wrong? why do they even have the stupid 1280x1024 setting? im pretty sure that ive seen games using 1280x1024.... whats the deal?
 
I think the reasoning is that 1280x1024 was designed for LCDs, and it really caught on so it became a kind of standard resolution on CRTs.

Pretty dumb, and unfortunately a lot of the backgrounds/walls I want are 1280x1024, and the 5:4 ratio looks weird when I try to stretch it for 1280x960, or 16x12.
 
I dunno but I just went to my monitor's manufacturer's website and saw that the "optimal" resolution was 1280x1024 at 80hz refresh rate. That option was not even there under display properties, I had to create my own, how ghetto.

Alex
 
1280x1024 is the mainstay resolution for 19" screens. Be it LCD or CRT (and we were using that res on CRT's long before the thought of LCD's crossed our minds), it is far more proliferated in software and hardware than 1280x960... It also means more desktop space and more pixels for games (though less performance, if it comes down to that).
 
But can you guys actually go to display properties and select 1280x1024, then change the refresh rate to 80? Everywhere I only see 75 and 85, not 80...
 
Your joking if you wish for 80Hz. Just like there are standard resolutions, there are standard refresh rates. However, if you use a tool such as Powerstrip, you can probably select 80Hz or some other useless refreshrate that isn't listed- the reality is, the higher the refresh rate, the less flicker you see, or the less the flicker you do see bothers you. I see flicker clear as day at 60Hz and 75Hz- but I can work at 75Hz, whereas 60Hz is torture.

--Note: refreshrates are not at all a problem on LCD's, 60Hz is more than enough; you will never see flicker on an LCD because it is not a CRT.
 
You can use RefreshForce to force a refresh rate on a monitor. Unfortunately, if the monitor does not support it, it will switch to the next highest resolution.

In my case, my P90f says optimal resolution is 1600x1200 @ 87hz. Well, since 87hz is not available in Display properties, I forced it using Refreshforce.

The monitor did not switch to 87hz @ 1600x1200. It switched to the next highest resolution, 1900x something.

So, using nVidia Display properties, I had to create my own custom resolution to get the monitor to display at 1600x1200 @ 87hz.
 
1280x1024 was the standard res for some workstation CRTs years ago... as far as I know those CRTs actually had more of a square aspect ratio. These days, it is virtually certain that any CRT you buy will not display 1280x1024 appropriately unless you mess with the geometry.

1280x1024 LCDs actually have 1280x1024 pixels, and are the correct aspect ratio... which kinda sucks as pretty much every other standard mode is a different ratio and will have to be stretched or displayed with black bars.

If you do graphic design on a modern CRT at 1280x1024, your work will appear slightly distorted for everyone running a "correct" ratio for their display.

yakz^2
 
Originally posted by yakz part deux
1280x1024 was the standard res for some workstation CRTs years ago... as far as I know those CRTs actually had more of a square aspect ratio. These days, it is virtually certain that any CRT you buy will not display 1280x1024 appropriately unless you mess with the geometry.

1280x1024 LCDs actually have 1280x1024 pixels, and are the correct aspect ratio... which kinda sucks as pretty much every other standard mode is a different ratio and will have to be stretched or displayed with black bars.

If you do graphic design on a modern CRT at 1280x1024, your work will appear slightly distorted for everyone running a "correct" ratio for their display.

yakz^2
Click to expand...

Probably. Might want to check the actual ratio on any 19" CRT you buy, as to how well it conforms to the 4:3 ratio of 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, or the 5:4 ratio of 1280x1024.
 
My LCD is native to 1280x1024, and some games (notably battlefield 1942) do not support this res. But I've run these games at 1280x960 and everything looks fine.
 
is there anyway to run 1280x960 games with a border around them in 1280x1024, so that the pixels are not distorted?
 
damn.. because i remember my old widescreen laptop had an option to display games either stretched or centered. Oh well..
 
I run 1280x960 on my home computer. It's a 17". Been with me for 5 years, still going strong... at 85hz.

I do, however, want to move up to an LCD... but that means moving to 12x10 *shrug*...
 
I have thought about this before but never worked out the ratios. Anyway, I was using my 17" CRT for a month or so (had to put the LCD away because I had the room painted) and finally came back to the LCD yesterday. I really noticed that the LCD is more of a square shape then the CRT because the picture looked a lot thinner. You may have a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top