1920X1080 vs. 1600X1200

[Sireal]

I currently have a 204B with a native of 1600X1200 and am considering the Westy 37" that has a native of 1920X1080. I am wondering how these two resolutions compare when it comes to frames per second, will the Westy tax my system more or less than the 204B does at there respective native resolutions? Thanks

 

[EnderW]

will the Westy tax my system more or less than the 204B does at there respective native resolutions? Thanks

it's more pixels, so what do you think?

 

[aznx]

Simple math tells you the Westy will need more pixel pushing power. Aside from that, you have a 8800GTX, you will be ok...until Crysis comes out or something.

 

[Sireal]

Yeah that was a brainfart on my part. At first I was thinking there might be some difference in the way a video card handles 4:3 versus 16:9, muddying the basic math a bit.

 

[junfan]

it's more pixels, so what do you think?

Not necessarily, it's more pixels horizontally but less vertically.

320 wider
120 shorter
200 extra pixels total.

I doubt going up from 1600x1200 to 1920x1080 would make a HUGE difference, but you might see your FPS drop.

FYI, even though it's not in the manual, my Westy has 1600x900 as a choose-able resolution.

 

[Sireal]

Junfan may I ask how other sources look such as standard TV signals like Directv etc.? I have heard HD signals look good but some have said that non HD signals aren't that good. Is this what you notice?

 

[junfan]

Junfan may I ask how other sources look such as standard TV signals like Directv etc.? I have heard HD signals look good but some have said that non HD signals aren't that good. Is this what you notice?

I'm using the Westy as my main PC Monitor, I haven't tried any SD stuff yet, I plan on buying a DVI or HDMI cable for my cable box tomorrow, I'll let you know.

Considering the plethora of inputs on this thing I really don't intend to try anything on this display except DVI/HDMI.

 

[iroc409]

Not necessarily, it's more pixels horizontally but less vertically.

320 wider
120 shorter
200 extra pixels total.

1600 * 1200 = 1920000

1920 * 1080 = 2073600

for a difference of 153600 pixels, not 200.

 

[junfan]

1600 * 1200 = 1920000

1920 * 1080 = 2073600

for a difference of 153600 pixels, not 200.

I meant 200k, I was just making a very quick and crude comparison.

If you really want to break it down. Most non wide-screen monitors use resolutions going from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200, which is also which most benchmarks jump to. That's a 32% total increase in pixels.

The jump from 1600x1200 to 1920x1080 is an 8% total increase, which if the percentage of pixels increase equaled the performance drop would only be about 5 fps if you were getting 60fps @ 1600x1200 already.

I've only had my Westy about 3 weeks, my desktop resolution is 1920x1080, and for games I'm still experimenting, I've been using 1280x720@8xAA but I'm not all that happy with it for 2142, but I have yet to mess around with it further. I have the Test Drive Unlimited Beta installed (cool game), I was running 1280x720 with AA on, can't remember what level of AA, however putting it up to 1600x900 I think it looks better, without much if any FPS drop, but I'm running an 8800GTS.

 

[&ru]

for your gaming experience purposes, i don't think you will see a difference performance wise knowing you are using an 8800gtx. you'll probably only see the difference if you benchmark it, but as far as your eyes can tell, i don't believe so.