• 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.

Dropping 1600x1200 for testing

S

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,706
I have a suggestion for Video card reviews.

Drop the 1600x1200 resolution for testing, nowadays only 19"+ CRTs and a few LCDs natively support it.

I also suggest a per resolution gameplay testing.

Test the cards at the most popular resolutions today, 1280x1024, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, and make the only difference between cards be eye-candy. That way the reader will know which card gives him the best gameplay at the resolution he plays at. And will also know if the card will handle a larger monitor.
 
I agree. I have never ran 1600x1200 in my life nor have i even seen one to my knowledge.
 
I love seeing 1600x1200 in reviews personally. dont forget that not all of us have LCDs, or even widescreen monitors. Some of us have 21' CRTs. Pretty much any 17' and above CRT will do 1600x1200.
 
I used play at 1600x1200 and even 2048x1536 when I had a 20" and 22" CRTs but I got a 19" LCD so I'm stuck at 1280x1024.
 
jimmer411 said:
I love seeing 1600x1200 in reviews personally. dont forget that not all of us have LCDs, or even widescreen monitors. Some of us have 21' CRTs. Pretty much any 17' and above CRT will do 1600x1200.
Click to expand...

I think you mean 19" and above, since most 17" CRTs top at 1280x1024

I know not all of us have LCDs but people with CRTs are now a minority. Take a look at newegg, there are dozens of LCDs models which support the resolutions I listed and only 6 CRT models that handle 1600x1200.
 
Why not leave it?

1600x1200 is a higher res than 1680x1050, so if it's performing well at 1600x1200, it definitely will at the widescreen res.
 
1600x1200 is the native resolution for nearly all 20" non-widescreen LCDs. Lots of people use this resolution. After 1280x1024 it is probably the most common resolution I see.

The other problem with your suggestions is that the resolutions are not high enough. I like to game at 2560x1600. Only going up to 1920x1200 means the review is worthless to me and all my 30" LCD brothers.
 
^Agreed

I still use 1600x1200 @ 100hz for everything I do. My 8800GTX can easily handle 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 in most games, but I don't like the lower refresh rates (flicker is annoying...)

I'm trying to force myself to wait until this CRT dies to upgrade to an LCD. After all, this model (p1130) cost $800 new a few years ago and it still looks great.. I got it for $100
 
brom42 said:
1600x1200 is the native resolution for nearly all 20" non-widescreen LCDs. Lots of people use this resolution. After 1280x1024 it is probably the most common resolution I see.

The other problem with your suggestions is that the resolutions are not high enough. I like to game at 2560x1600. Only going up to 1920x1200 means the review is worthless to me and all my 30" LCD brothers.
Click to expand...

I agree 20" monitors use 1600x1200 but I don't think its a popular size, 19" are orders of magnitude more popular and most use 1280x1024. IIRC there was a poll in the forum asking for the monitor size readers used and the difference between 20" and 24" was not high.


Higher res would be limited to top of the line cards and SLI
 
I play a bunch of games at 1600x1200. I also don't see why you would want it dropped?
 
I'm sure 1600x1200 is much more popular than 1920x1200. It is supported by all 19-21" crts and many 20-21" tfts. I had a 21" crt for a long time and did everything with it at 1600x1200. 1600x1200 is also the highest supported resolution in a bunch of older games. 1920x1200 on the other hand is only supported natively by 24" lcds and 24" crts. I have a widescreen display myself, but wouldn't want to see 1600x1200 being dropped. It's a very nice and commonly used resolution. 1280x1024 on the other hand is a stupid resolution (dumb 5:4 aspect ratio, like 4:3 isn't square enough..) so drop that if something needs to be dropped.
 
I run my desktop and all my games at 1600x1200 if at all possible since that's the native res of the 20.1'' LCD I'm using.
 
Stoly said:
I have a suggestion for Video card reviews.

Drop the 1600x1200 resolution for testing, nowadays only 19"+ CRTs and a few LCDs natively support it.
Click to expand...

Why?
-and for the record, I have never used a 17" CRT that couldn't run 1600x1200, not to mention 1792x1344, or whatever it is.
 
I don't know for sure about dropping resolutions. But it would be really nice to see more reviews with wide screen resolutions. I would see the exact resolution that gets dropped, if the reviewer felt space/time limited, varying from card to card depending of what they'll be functional at. For top-end cards don't waste space with lower resolutions. For bottom-end cards you don't really need to worry about 3D 1080p.
 
I use 1680x1050, so I find 1600x1200 useful since a lot of games don't support widescreen resolutions (lazy developers, widescreen is the future!).
 
I'm also running 1600x1200. And why not run a test at this resolution? Personally, I'd much rather run 1600x1200 than 1680x1050. I simply don't think that at this medium-sized resolution, it's worth it to take away from screen real estate for the sake of widescreen. At 1920x1200, that's fine, but a 1050 pixel height is 150 pixels too short.
 
SuperKeijo said:
I'm sure 1600x1200 is much more popular than 1920x1200. It is supported by all 19-21" crts and many 20-21" tfts. I had a 21" crt for a long time and did everything with it at 1600x1200. 1600x1200 is also the highest supported resolution in a bunch of older games. 1920x1200 on the other hand is only supported natively by 24" lcds and 24" crts. I have a widescreen display myself, but wouldn't want to see 1600x1200 being dropped. It's a very nice and commonly used resolution. 1280x1024 on the other hand is a stupid resolution (dumb 5:4 aspect ratio, like 4:3 isn't square enough..) so drop that if something needs to be dropped.
Click to expand...

That's probably going to change in the near future. More gamers are hooking HDTVs for large screen gaming so 1920x1080 will quickly become a new standard for games. I listed 1920x1200 because its the resolution used for pc monitors and its higher than HDTV.
 
Abit667 said:
Why not leave it?

1600x1200 is a higher res than 1680x1050, so if it's performing well at 1600x1200, it definitely will at the widescreen res.
Click to expand...

Yep... 1600x1200 is higher than 1680x1050, and you can get an approximate result with simple math based off the 1600x1200 numbers, or just take them as "1680x1050 will be a bit better", which works fine as well :).
 
Long live CRTs? Word!

1939_GE_HM171.JPG


:p
 
I don't think dropping 16x12 is a very good suggestion, but I would like to see some real widescreen numbers so I don't have to just guesstimate from the other numbers.

1680x1050 1920x1200 are 20", 22", 23", 24", 26", and 27" LCD's.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Yep... 1600x1200 is higher than 1680x1050, and you can get an approximate result with simple math based off the 1600x1200 numbers, or just take them as "1680x1050 will be a bit better", which works fine as well :).
Click to expand...
I'm curious, has this ever been shown to be true? I mean sure it makes sense, the different in the number of pixels is <10&#37;. But are there any considerations going to wide screen that could impact it? A link to any imperical testing would rock.

P.S. Of course that closeness cuts both ways. *shrug* Same with 1440x900 vs. 1280x1024 that is even closer with less that 1% difference in the number of pixels with the wide screen having more.
 
Dwight said:
I'm curious, has this ever been shown to be true? I mean sure it makes sense, the different in the number of pixels is <10%. But are there any considerations going to wide screen that could impact it? A link to any imperical testing would rock.

P.S. Of course that closeness cuts both ways. *shrug* Same with 1440x900 vs. 1280x1024 that is even closer with less that 1% difference in the number of pixels with the wide screen having more.
Click to expand...

There has been in the past... years ago, it did matter a small amount (~5% extra), nowadays drivers don't have those issues.
 
Cyrilix said:
I'm also running 1600x1200. And why not run a test at this resolution? Personally, I'd much rather run 1600x1200 than 1680x1050. I simply don't think that at this medium-sized resolution, it's worth it to take away from screen real estate for the sake of widescreen. At 1920x1200, that's fine, but a 1050 pixel height is 150 pixels too short.
Click to expand...
For my desktop work I prefer the widescreen aspect ratio. Yeah it a little shorter but in my experience that tends to work out better than columns coming up too narrow. *shrug* But it'll depend on what exactly you use it for I suppose.

I highly prefer wide for games too. But that might be related to the fact that in the last several years I've watched a LOT more movies than broadcast (haven't had cable/satelite in over 10 years, have had only letterbox TVs for about 8 years).
 
Even though regular aspect rations may give you more pixels, widescreen displays will always LOOK bigger due to our human eyesight.
 
I'd rather see 1680x1050 than 1024x768... I don't think [H] does 1024x768, but it's basically pointless now since it's always bottlenecked.
 
personally speaking, seeing how many screens support 1680x1050 at dirt cheap prices, and how few support 1600x1200 (at compaitively high prices), i would happily see 1600x1200 benchmarking dropped in favour of 1680x1050.
 
You didn't even include a true widescreen resolution. I use 1920x1080 (16:9) and find it is wonderful in games and for my desktop.

Very few (almost none) of the screen ratios you mentioned are used in performance testing. 3DMark06 defaults to 1280x720 (or the smallest available size) for testing 16:9 ratio screens. And it usually defaults to 1280x1024 for displays that will support it. We need some way to cross compare screen resolutions since it is quickly becoming impossible to publish video card reviews and specify ALL screen sizes in the test results. At the moment, the only way I can compare my performance against other screen resolutions is to divide the published results by the product of WxH (a pixel value). And that is not going to be very accurate.
 
Angelus897 said:
^ Most widescreen LCDs are 16:10
Click to expand...
Yeah, 16:9 is mostly used in LCD TVs (1366x768).

I had a Dell 21" CRT before getting my 2407, and I gamed at 1600x1200 for about 2 years so I appreciated benchmarks including this res. I'm sure there are still plenty of gamers playing at 1600x1200, and will be for some time yet.
 
Stoly said:
I have a suggestion for Video card reviews.

Drop the 1600x1200 resolution for testing, nowadays only 19"+ CRTs and a few LCDs natively support it.

I also suggest a per resolution gameplay testing.

Test the cards at the most popular resolutions today, 1280x1024, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, and make the only difference between cards be eye-candy. That way the reader will know which card gives him the best gameplay at the resolution he plays at. And will also know if the card will handle a larger monitor.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, a LOT of people like me base vid card purchase on resolutions their monitors work at...and mine (as well as thousands of Dell 2001FP owners monitors) operate at 16x12 natively.

In otherwords, stop whining about it. It makes you sound like you're jealous or whining because YOU can't or don't use 16x12 on a high resolution monitor, even though 16x12 is not considered very high on the res scale of today anyway.
 
Stoly said:
1680x1050 and 1920x1200
Click to expand...
Too bad not all games support WS modes. But virtually all games DO support 4:3 1600x1200 and 5:4 1280x1024.

The Steam hardware survey has some interesting stats on gamers' hardware:
Code: 
Primary Display Resolution (1165187 Users)
800 x 600 32,563 2.79 %  
1024 x 768 483,863 41.53 %  
1152 x 864 77,255 6.63 %  
1280 x 1024 462,111 39.66 %  
1440 x 900 36,775 3.16 %  
1600 x 1200 21,472 1.84 %  
1680 x 1050 26,851 2.30 %  
1920 x 1200 11,917 1.02 %  
Other 12,380 1.06 %

You can't really dump 1600x1200 when more users have that capability than 1920x1200. I've had 1600x1200 capable CRTs or native resolution LCDs since 1995.

---
I remember having a big console TV when I was a kid, with a turntable in the same giant cabinet. :p Stupid 1970s.
 
pxc said:
The Steam hardware survey has some interesting stats on gamers' hardware:
Code: 
Primary Display Resolution (1165187 Users)
800 x 600 32,563 2.79 %  
1024 x 768 483,863 41.53 %  
1152 x 864 77,255 6.63 %  
1280 x 1024 462,111 39.66 %  
1440 x 900 36,775 3.16 %  
1600 x 1200 21,472 1.84 %  
1680 x 1050 26,851 2.30 %  
1920 x 1200 11,917 1.02 %  
Other 12,380 1.06 %

You can't really dump 1600x1200 when more users have that capability than 1920x1200. I've had 1600x1200 capable CRTs or native resolution LCDs since 1995.
Click to expand...
That chart is showing more people playing using 1680x1050 than 1600x1200! As in now (or whenever it was done at). Oh sure in the mid-90's it was far more relavent to have reviews covering 1600x1200. Even a few year back. But I'd like to be the first to welcome you to the bright and shining world of tomorrow. ;)
I remember having a big console TV when I was a kid, with a turntable in the same giant cabinet. :p Stupid 1970s.
Click to expand...
I think you mean glorious 1970s! TV as it should be, rack mounted. :cool: EDIT: And no, I'm not talking about the cheerleader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top