2005fpw resolutions ?

[BigFNDeal]

I have an XP1700 @ 2.04, 1GB PC2700 in DC and a 6600gt oc'd. I also have a 2005fpw. I was under the imression, mistakenly, that 1152x864 was a widescreen resolution, but a little math and calculator proved me wrong (864/1152=0.75, meaning its a 4:3 res). I know my system can't game at 1680x1050, so what do I do? As far as I can tell, that is the only 16:10 res I have available to me.

I will be building a dual 7800gt system early in 2006, but until then I mean, with current hardware.

 

[Treyshadow]

1280x720

That may be your sweet spot. However widescreen gaming tends to be more horsepower intensive than 4:3. Many games like BF2, actually use the higher resolution and just crop the pic. So the computer is doing 1280x1024 and cropping it into 1280x720.

 

[Darknyt]

1280x720

That may be your sweet spot. However widescreen gaming tends to be more horsepower intensive than 4:3. Many games like BF2, actually use the higher resolution and just crop the pic. So the computer is doing 1280x1024 and cropping it into 1280x720.

1280/720=1.77~ =16/9

1280/800=1.6=16/10

1680/1050=1.6=16/10

1440/900=1.6=16/10

 

[BigFNDeal]

The problem is, none of those resolutions are available to me under the Settings of my Display Properties. It has 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024, 1600x900 & 1680x1050. Those are the only choices listed. Any ideas?

 

[BigFNDeal]

OK, I figured it out for my main login - I set a custom resolution in the nVidia control panel for 1280x800@75Hz. That works well.

I will tackle my gaming login, Friday night.

 

[saltiness]

I don't understand why you're adjusting your desktop resolution when it has nothing to do with game resolutions.

 

[feigned]

I don't understand why you're adjusting your desktop resolution when it has nothing to do with game resolutions.

Ignorance.

As far as that goes, let's do some comparison.

I too have a 1700+, but only at 1833MHz (that's 11x166).
I only have 512MB of ram in dual channel.
I have a 9700 Non-Pro.
I too have a 2005fpw.

I can play lots of games at 1680x1050 and not miss a beat. Some games tear my box in half and there's really nothing I can do about it. Some games I ran with an 8500 64MB retail at full res with no eye candy.

Surely the OP can run many recent games at native resolution and have a better experience than I. Surely...

 

[BigFNDeal]

Ignorance.

IWhy in the hell would you set ur desktop to a res other than what u play games at? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Steel Chicken]

IWhy in the hell would you set ur desktop to a res other than what u play games at? Makes no sense to me.

because desktop 2d <> games 3d?!?!

der?

 

[sarbz]

IWhy in the hell would you set ur desktop to a res other than what u play games at? Makes no sense to me.

Because even shitty gfx cards can run hi-res 2d desktops, but only high end cards can do the same with 3d.

If you're limited to playing games at 800x600 because your gfx card sucks, but your display's native res is 1680x1080......why should you sacrifice IQ when you're NOT gaming and run your desktop at the same res?

that's why

 

[J4M3S0N79]

Typically my Desktop res is @ native resolution for the panel (i also have 2005fpw). For 3d, I care more about the aspect ratio than the resolution because you get the fat effect when running standard resolutions. To the OP, there really is no cure-all solution for games...some (like source and UT2k4) will have 16:10 resolutions, some will have 16:9 and others will have only standard resolutions available. It doesn't matter what screen you have. This will change soon enough though!

 

[Darknyt]

Typically my Desktop res is @ native resolution for the panel (i also have 2005fpw). For 3d, I care more about the aspect ratio than the resolution because you get the fat effect when running standard resolutions. To the OP, there really is no cure-all solution for games...some (like source and UT2k4) will have 16:10 resolutions, some will have 16:9 and others will have only standard resolutions available. It doesn't matter what screen you have. This will change soon enough though!

This is true as far as native OOTB widescreen support, though there are simple hacks for a lot of games that will nudge them in the right direction.

 

[J4M3S0N79]

This is true as far as native OOTB widescreen support, though there are simple hacks for a lot of games that will nudge them in the right direction.

Agreed....I remember when it was cool to get something working right on your own...now I have become a bit older and more impatient and I wholly expect these types of things to work OOTB. I mean, for any new game...it should support widescreen...they are becoming very common. But yeah....hax work fine if you are not lazy like me.

 

[feigned]

IWhy in the hell would you set ur desktop to a res other than what u play games at? Makes no sense to me.

That's the thing...I try my damnest to run games at the native res. I'll only notch the resolution down in the game if there are performance issues.

No matter how good the scaler is on an LCD, at some point there is a noticable loss of detail and clarity from the image being "blown up." Think of it as zooming in on a .jpg file. Ever notice the artifacting you see doing that? Same thing. The monitor can only compensate for so much.

That and I can guarantee you that running at 1280x800 is making your desktop look like ass. Native resolution will always be sharper and clearer than any extrapolated resolution.

Agreed....I remember when it was cool to get something working right on your own...now I have become a bit older and more impatient and I wholly expect these types of things to work OOTB. I mean, for any new game...it should support widescreen...they are becoming very common. But yeah....hax work fine if you are not lazy like me.

Yup.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/ Great site for laziness.

 

[BigFNDeal]

How is 1280x800 an extrapolated resolution?? It is the same factor as 1680x1050.

1680/1050=1.6
1280/800=1.6

They are both 16:10 resolutions on a 16:10 monitor!

 

[J4M3S0N79]

How is 1280x800 an extrapolated resolution?? It is the same factor as 1680x1050.

1680/1050=1.6
1280/800=1.6

They are both 16:10 resolutions on a 16:10 monitor!

This is because when the res is changed (even though it's the same proportions) it is not a clean ratio of pixels.

So I.E. 840*525 would be a good resolution, because each image pixel would take up exactly 4 (2 horiz x 2 vert)pixels on the LCD panel (native resolution). With 1280*800 each image pixel needs 1.31 LCD (width) pixels which is hard for the LCD to display. So it has to do some crazy algorithms to turn 1280*800 into 1680*1050. The result is that some lines may not appear as clean...this is espically appraent if using CAD or MAYA or PS or Visio etc. For games, it's all fluid, but some text may appear sloppy. That is why it is STRONGLY recommended with 2d, that you use the native resolution, or some exact multiple thereof.

Also..to feigned, I use the wsgf often....but still..it should not be up to the user to research the problem, and hax files developers didn't want changed in the first place.....gawd...i sound like a lameass....my tweaking days are over for sure. If you need me..i'll be playing ps2.

 

[BigFNDeal]

1st let me say thank you for an intelligent response, not the bs I was getting earlier from a select two people (ie fained and Steel Chicken)..

Now, I do understand what your saying about the pixel size and that may cause me to change to the 1680x1050 resultion, but I have to think more about it and do a little more research.

As for your point with game producers, I agree that it should be there, but right now its not, and if I can get to work with a quick change of the ini or cfg file, why not optimize it. I tweak everything from my OS to games to hardware, so y not another tweak.

There is no right or wrong side to any of this, its all individual preference and taste. I can do whatever I want with my hardware and software, as can all of you.

 

[digitalrainman]

why are you trying to run at anything other than native in the first place, your computer should run it perfectly fine with a 6600gt. Also anything other than that on the 2005fpw will look fuzzy, just as any other lcd that runs other than native.

 

[feigned]

1st let me say thank you for an intelligent response, not the bs I was getting earlier from a select two people (ie fained and Steel Chicken)..

I gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation for what you are doing is a bad idea. Just because you don't understand the verbiage isn't my problem.

Now, I do understand what your saying about the pixel size and that may cause me to change to the 1680x1050 resultion, but I have to think more about it and do a little more research.

There is no research to be done. Your machine can handle most games with the card you have. It's a no-brainer, really. Unless you run into serious issues then set it to 1680x1050 and love every second of it.

As for your point with game producers, I agree that it should be there, but right now its not, and if I can get to work with a quick change of the ini or cfg file, why not optimize it. I tweak everything from my OS to games to hardware, so y not another tweak.

Agreed but it's not the games themselves, it's the engines that the games are built on. If they don't support widescreen then you're shit out of luck.

There is no right or wrong side to any of this, its all individual preference and taste. I can do whatever I want with my hardware and software, as can all of you.

That's a fact. Just trying to improve your overall experience man, no hate involved.

 

[BigFNDeal]

why are you trying to run at anything other than native in the first place, your computer should run it perfectly fine with a 6600gt. Also anything other than that on the 2005fpw will look fuzzy, just as any other lcd that runs other than native.

I ran the Doom3 fps test (timedemo demo1) at both 1280x800 and 1680x1050. I get around 45fps at 1280x800 and only 32fps at 1680x1050. That is why I don't want to play at that res.