1600x1200 vs 1024x768

C

Chickenleader

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
93
What are the advantages to running higher resolutions in games? Ive noticed that at 1024x768 with 4x AA BF2 looks almost as good as 1600x1200 2x AA. However the performance hit is huge 1600x1200 around 30 to 60 fps where as 1024x768 is steady 80 to 90. Besides looking more pixelated am I missing anything by running a lower resolution?
 
Geek cred? I'm stuck at 1024x768 because I refuse to upgrade my monitor so I really wouldn't know.
 
Ruffy said:
Better view / more to see on screen at once.
Click to expand...

Not entirely correct, you won't actually see more but everything will be sharper and more detailed.
 
well, a higher resolution naturally anti-aliases, but the biggest thing that i like about high resolution is the ability to see things clearer from a distance. a person at 1024x768 a long ways a way will just be a few pixels, where on 1600x1200 he will more resemble a human form because there are more pixels to work with. it just makes the picture sharper, and more realistic. 1024x768 with heavy AA will look blurry compared to 1600x1200 to a semi-trained eye. getting rid of aliasing doesn't equal overall good picture.
 
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.

any questions?


Oh, and at higher resolutions, the need for antialiasing diminishes because of the fact that there are more dots to decrease the appearence of jaggies. AA fills in the gaps of jaggies in smaller resolution.

Isaaca
 
^nvm, you just edited/changed your whole post. But you were talking about widescreen resolutions, which the name itself means it adds to the sides of the picture to increase your fov (unless it is strectched). We aren't talking about widescreens.
 
Isaacav2 said:
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.

any questions?


Oh, and at higher resolutions, the need for antialiasing diminishes because of the fact that there are more dots to decrease the appearence of jaggies. AA fills in the gaps of jaggies in smaller resolution.

Isaaca
Click to expand...

No.

In a 3d game the objects will be the same size on your monitor. They will however be clearer. Smaller objects will be more distinct. The FOV remains the same.

The 2nd part was correct though...

-dB
 
Isaacav2 said:
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a higher resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.
Click to expand...
You will not see any more scenery at 315816x236862 than you would see at 640x480. The only things that get smaller at high resolutions are things with a set width and length in pixels (like text and usually HUD's). Video games do not work this way. If you were able have a larger field of vision at 1600x1200 than 640x480 then one of those scenes is distorted. If that was how it worked then I could just increase the resolution until I could see behind myself. We all know thats not the case.
 
What kind of monitor do you have? On mine, the difference between 1024x768 and 1600x1200 is enormous ... I couldn't bear the thought of playing at anything but 1600x1200!
 
Isaacav2 said:
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.
Click to expand...
This is very rarely true for games. Changing resolution in games does NOT effect FoV (typically). Changing to a wide screen resolution, yes, but that is regarding aspect ratio.


Compare the diagram. Objects, in relation to the screen size, do NOT change. As you scale up in resolution, the only thing that changes is more pixels being utilized to draw the SAME image. Remember, to the graphics card, everything exists as a 3 dimensional world, before what belongs in the FoV is rasterized (drawn into pixels). In most all cases this FoV will NOT change unless you are changing the aspect ratio.

Don't compare the size of the screen diagrams. Compared the ratio. (It's not identical, but you should get the idea).

This isn't to say you are entirely incorrect, however... there is one very important thing to note when increasing resolution. HUDs. In most cases the HUD will apear to shrink as you increase in resolution. When talking screen resolution, it is important to speak in ratios, not deffinite numbers. 640x480 outputs 307,200pixels, while 1024x768 outputs 786, 432 pixels. One is not necessarily a larger image than the other. It just uses more pixels to draw THE SAME IMAGE. The only change is, duh, the resolution. Resolution means quality. Not scale.

Again, this doesn't always apply to the HUD, which is typically a very specific number of pixels, and will not change as you scale in resolution. So the HUD will apear to shrink as you increase the resolution. Regarding pixels, it is exactly the same size. Regarding the ratio of pixels, yes. If it doens't occupy as large a portion of the screen ratio, that means more pixels that can be used to rasterize the 3D world. Scaling a 1600x1200 image into a 20" monitor will have a smaller HUD, than a 1024x768 image scaled into the same monitor screen. Same number of pixels for the HUD, output in a different number of INCHES. The image itself is still the same size in inches, (20"), but since the HUD is a larger ratio of the screen pixels at 1024x768, it is visually larger.

Once again, increasing resolution does not typically change the FoV. Only when you adjust the aspect ration of the resolution will the FoV be adjusted. In most every other instance, you are ONLY increasing (GASP!) the resolution, or number of pixels used to draw THE SAME IMAGE. In short, you improve image quality. Only other difference is how obstrusive a HUD is. You will not see a tree that was not drawn at a lower resolution, or your you will not see people that would otherwise be 'offscreen'.
 
Isaacav2 said:
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.

any questions?


Oh, and at higher resolutions, the need for antialiasing diminishes because of the fact that there are more dots to decrease the appearence of jaggies. AA fills in the gaps of jaggies in smaller resolution.

Isaaca
Click to expand...

Where do people come up with this stuff? Everything you just said is completely untrue. Resolution doesnt affect the "size" of things on screen.
 
rayg said:
Where do people come up with this stuff? Everything you just said is completely untrue. Resolution doesnt affect the "size" of things on screen.
Click to expand...
FPS wise... rts wise it's a different story.
 
Pvt. Potter said:
FPS wise... rts wise it's a different story.
Click to expand...

Only if the RTS in question is 2D and not 3D.

ie: higher resolution in Red Alert 2 allows you to see more on screen, but a higher resolution in a modern 3D RTS doesn't affect how much you see.
 
TheGamerZ said:
Only if the RTS in question is 2D and not 3D.

ie: higher resolution in Red Alert 2 allows you to see more on screen, but a higher resolution in a modern 3D RTS doesn't affect how much you see.
Click to expand...

Wow I really can’t wait to get home from work I know in some games just having the HUD shrink down in size with the increase in resolution makes it feel like you can see more but I could swear up and down all day that a number of the games I play have had field of view increase with resolution. One example off the top of my head would be Dungeon Siege. Grated I haven’t played that game in quite some time so I may be mistaken.
 
Isaacav2 said:
Listen.
Objects are smaller in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200
Objects are bigger in a smaller resolution like 640x480
Same Monitor, different resolution
What is the balancing factor?
The field of vision. You gain more scenery in a bigger resolution like 1600x1200 but objects/people will be smaller. You loose scenery in a smaller resolution like 640x480 but you get bigger objects and people to aim at, but you loose vision of objects on the sides and up and down.

any questions?
Click to expand...

It amazes me how many people still think this. Even if it is like 2 people. My question is, how have you not known this to be false? Games<>windows desktop. The text comes out smaller and maybe some other 2d features like the menus but that's it. If there isn't so much of a 3d engine in place there may be some odd ducks here or there... the last part comes off though like indeed you've missed the boat.
 
I just quickly browsed through all the replies in this thread and I would like to state that I am going by experementation and not what I have been told by some friend or person on the internet. Open up HL2 and change the resolutions and examine how much more of the bridge with the train you can see in a higher resolution.

Higher resolution is more scenery and smaller objects. end of stroy
Lower resolution is less scenery and bigger objects so that the picture can fill the screen.

DO THE EXPERIMENT it only takes 2 min.
 
Isaacav2 said:
I just quickly browsed through all the replies in this thread and I would like to state that I am going by experementation and not what I have been told by some friend or person on the internet. Open up HL2 and change the resolutions and examine how much more of the bridge with the train you can see in a higher resolution.

Higher resolution is more scenery and smaller objects. end of stroy
Lower resolution is less scenery and bigger objects so that the picture can fill the screen.

DO THE EXPERIMENT it only takes 2 min.
Click to expand...

Please validate your FoV numbers first though. Story is not ended. HL2 may change those on a resoultion change. Any other FPS I have played the FoV stays consistent.
 
Aye. Boot up Splinter Cell: Choas Theory and you'll get a consistant FoV, regardless of the resolution (wide screen resolutions excluded)
 
Upon further investigation, although 640x480 looks like crap, it DOES NOT give you more scenery contrary to my previous beliefs. I did the same exact experement 2 months ago, and because I had widescreen in the mix, my conclusions were not all correct.

I promise this time its right. :p :D :eek: :)
 
Running higher resolutions gives you more screen real estate because it shrinks down the HUD like has been previously stated.

I mostly play MMO's and First Person Shooters, and the increased resolutions is a godsend. I can't imagine playing EQ2 or WoW with a resolution less than 1280 x 1024 (or 1280 x 960). The UI Components become way too unbearable at the lower resolutions and hide most of the screen.
 
Some games (like WOW) draw the HUD at the same size regardless of the resolution.

They scale the HUD to always take up the same amount of screen real-estate.
 
Isaacav2 said:
I just quickly browsed through all the replies in this thread and I would like to state that I am going by experementation and not what I have been told by some friend or person on the internet. Open up HL2 and change the resolutions and examine how much more of the bridge with the train you can see in a higher resolution.

Higher resolution is more scenery and smaller objects. end of stroy
Lower resolution is less scenery and bigger objects so that the picture can fill the screen.

DO THE EXPERIMENT it only takes 2 min.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say your wrong..or right :D

mostly because I recall some games it does give more real-estate (I swear farcry you can see more bushes to left and right at higher res) and some games it pretty much stays the same just crispier. *shrug* I think you and other people are right.

When I get home I'm going to test a couple of games. I don't think this is as clear cut 'YOU IDIOT' responses some people are giving you :rolleyes: I think they are just in the wrong as well. *everyone is right*

Edit: Although I could just be mixing in old games and old rts into the mix
 
PKFGimpy said:
Some games (like WOW) draw the HUD at the same size regardless of the resolution.

They scale the HUD to always take up the same amount of screen real-estate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. I forgot that in WoW they had that slider in the options for UI Scaling and I had to turn it all the way to the left.
 
Quake 3.

640*480= Menu look the same, abiet washed out (prolly my monitor)
1600*1200= Menu look the same, but much, MUCH cleaner and crisp. (more pixels, duh.)

in game...
640*480= Hud looks same, everything washed and blurry.
1600*1200= Hud looks same, 3D is crisp and clean.


In other words, new games scale the 2D objects to resolution. 3D doesnt matter, higher res just cleans shit up. You wont wont see anything more, FOV wise, at a higher res then a lower res.

This really isnt up for arguement, displays have always worked like this for over 20 years.
2D is the only way you 'get more realestate', and this is only because 2D objects are static and are limited by their res size. (perfect example, change your res and pull up a webpage. more realestate.)

Dynamic realtime rendering is not limited to res size.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Dynamic realtime rendering is not limited to res size.
Click to expand...

Reason why I'm hesitating to jump on board is because with 3D studio max, If I working in a 1024x768 resolution, I don't have as much real-estate to work with. But increase, the objects stay the same, but now have more space to work in and things are a bit smaller. Work at smaller resolutions, and less real-estate. *moving windows around* granted..that is part of the "HUD" in a way if you wanted to equate that to games. Which yes...I guess that just means smaller HUD..more real-estate...so...yea...I guess.
 
So by running a lower resolution my FOV is still the same. I never really thought about this till recently as I always assumed 1600x1200 was so much better but playing around with the settings things looked the same to me. The post about things in the distance being clearer on higher resolutions makes sense however. Im left scratching my head now wondering why everyone acts like running super high resolutions is such a big deal. Besides the obvious things being more sharp there really isnt any benifit. Have we all bought into the PR put out by nvidia and ati? Do we really need 1600x1200? Since dropping my BF2 to 1024x768 things just run so much more fluid which I think makes me a better player. And my computer is far from lacking I can run the high resolutions fine but in BF2 it just doesnt seem worth it to much of a performance hit. Thanks for all the replies the FOV was the biggest thing I wanted answered and it looks like its the same regardless.
 
I'll try and use a really simple example to illustrate this point. If i get anything wrong feel free to point it out, i'm no expert.

Example #1) Your screen is set to a resolution of 640x480. This resolution indicates that horizontal plane of the monitor is 640 pixels across, and the vertical plane in 480 pixels across. The computer is then told to draw a square in the middle of your screen that is 100 pixels wide on each side.


Example #2) Next, you change the resolution of your screen to 1280x1024. This resolution is at a 2:1 ratio to the previous resolution of 640x480. Indicating twice as many pixels across on both the vertical and horizontal planes.


Answer) If the computer were to draw the same 100 pixel wide square in the center of your screen at the 1280x1024, it would appear to be HALF the size that it was before. This is because it is being drawn with the same amount of pixels, but the resolution change caused the pixels to now be half the size they were before.

If you were to look at say... Half Life 2, and you observed that when the resolution was increased, you ended up with a wider field of view and smaller objects, this would be because the game was programmed to draw the objects on your screen with the same amount of pixels in ANY resolution.

If the opposite were true, and you observed that your field of view stayed the same, and the objects appeared to stay the same size, then the game was programmed to UPSCALE the rendered objects in direct relation to increases in resolution. Meaning, you increase the resolution to 1280x1024, the game would then draw that 100 pixel wide square with 200 pixels.

In reality, the size of objects on your screen is completely dependent on how the game handles resolution changes. Also, the reason most 2D games have a wider FOV at higher resolutions is because their engines always draw objects with a set amount of pixels.

Hope that makes sense.
 
Chickenleader said:
... Do we really need 1600x1200?....
Click to expand...


YES!

The difference between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 is HUGE for me on bf2. Everything is just so much clearer and more enjoyable (qualitative). This works for me at least. Oh and I know it will look clearer at 1920X1200 because its the native res of my monitor, but a friend of mine with a CRT fins the same thing. I just appreciate the greater acuity and ability to decipher things in the distance. Not to mention I'm running at a res greater than HD 1080i...and to take a lil potshot at you ;) you aren't even running at 780p levels of resolution. Just my opinion though.
 
essfor said:
YES!

The difference between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 is HUGE for me on bf2. Everything is just so much clearer and more enjoyable (qualitative). This works for me at least. Oh and I know it will look clearer at 1920X1200 because its the native res of my monitor, but a friend of mine with a CRT fins the same thing. I just appreciate the greater acuity and ability to decipher things in the distance. Not to mention I'm running at a res greater than HD 1080i...and to take a lil potshot at you ;) you aren't even running at 780p levels of resolution. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

1080i is 1920x1080. The only resolution that would be higher then that, you have listed, would be 1920x1200, but the difference would be negligible.
 
Draax, I agree with you, the difference is negligable.

However, the difference, as far as quality of visuals, is very palpable going from 1024 up to 1920. That could be because I have a 2405, but on my friend's pf790 there is a very big jump in terms of clarity. Just reiterating that YES we do need 1600x1200 and HIGHER!
 
essfor said:
Draax, I agree with you, the difference is negligable.

However, the difference, as far as quality of visuals, is very palpable going from 1024 up to 1920. That could be because I have a 2405, but on my friend's pf790 there is a very big jump in terms of clarity. Just reiterating that YES we do need 1600x1200 and HIGHER!
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that the difference from 1024 to 1920 is very great as well. For some reason I cant get WoW to get up to 1920x1080 :( even with the config file edit. My guess is at that res the text would be unreadable on my 46" DLP anyway. Ill just have to stay with 720p.
 
Youre freaking blind if you dont see a staggering difference between 1600x1200 vs 1024x768 even with AA+AF cranked up.

Playing in 1600 feels like you are 'IN TEH GAME' where 1024 feels like I'm playing bf2 on my oldschool supernintendo in 1993.....Theres a huge quality difference.

I can't even tolerate playing anything less than 1600x1200.

Plus with at rez's that high you dont need AA as much because everything is crisp already.
 
Isaacav2 said:
Upon further investigation, although 640x480 looks like crap, it DOES NOT give you more scenery contrary to my previous beliefs. I did the same exact experement 2 months ago, and because I had widescreen in the mix, my conclusions were not all correct.
:)
Click to expand...


Isaacav2 This is not proper forum behavior. You must NEVER admit you're wrong in an internet forum. On a go forward, make sure you turn the thread into a flame war of personal attacks. This is the proper way to admit a mistake

jk :D
 
Boomermage said:
Isaacav2 This is not proper forum behavior. You must NEVER admit you're wrong in an internet forum. On a go forward, make sure you turn the thread into a flame war of personal attacks. This is the proper way to admit a mistake

jk :D
Click to expand...

LoL, you must have written the book "Forum Communication for Geek Dummies". Too bad you can't ban him for his improper behavior. ;)
 
zerosignal said:
1280x1024. This resolution is at a 2:1 ratio to the previous resolution of 640x480.
Click to expand...

right except for this. 1280x960 is what you want, not x1024. 1280x1024 is 5:4, 640x480 (and 1280x960) are 4:3.




you were just so correct that i had to pick on you for something ;)

example: san andreas it doesn't matter what res you run, the people are the same size. guild wars, though, higher res lets you see more. thus in san andreas i run 1024x768, and in guild wars i run 1600x1200. (i have yet to try 1920x1440 in guild wars... be kinda wierd to see the second monitor shift the other direction o_O. i also don't think my 9700 could keep up with it that well... one way to find out) it depends on the kind of game it is as to how it adjusts. some things are more suited to certain forms of compensation than others.

i guess the thought is that if you can run the higher resolution, you have a larger monitor, and thus the objects would appear larger (close to the same size, if not the same) than on a smaller monitor. in FPS games, however, adjusting the size would give a distinct advantage to those with larger monitors and higher resolutions, which is not wanted (except by those with larger monitors and higher resolutions, of course)

anyways, i like high resolutions when i can run them, if only because it prevents my second display from shifting as much when i start a fullscreen game.
i'm invincible!
 
From my experience with BF2, it seems to me that running 1600x1200 at medium looks better than running 1280x1024 on high. While my monitor may have something to do with that because 1600x1200 is my LCD's native resolution (even though it runs other resolutions very well, I know it's not perfect), the added pixels help fix the jaggies and such since I don't run AA or AF. With my 6800GT, I usually get 65-75 FPS @ 1600x1200. It does help me see infantry on the ground from a helicopter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top