Dropping 1600x1200 for testing

I used a 20" LCD for awhile that ran natively in 1600x1200. Performance in that resolution should be very similar to 1680x1050 which is also gaining popularity due to the price of larger widescreen LCD's falling.
 
Dwight said:
I think you mean glorious 1970s! TV as it should be, rack mounted. :cool: EDIT: And no, I'm not talking about the cheerleader.
Click to expand...
:D That easy access was for a purpose. I remember going to Thrifty's in the 70s to test TV tubes and they would even stock common ones too!
 
My Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 454 (19") can do 1920x1440 @ 75 Hz, but I prefer to run it at 1600x1200 @ 85 Hz when working with images. I also like to run it at 1280x960 @ 85 Hz when reading webpages, mostly because I like crisp text and most webpages look like thimbles at 1600x1200.

Of course, it's nice to know you can drop down to 1024x768 if you meet a game your video card can't handle. I love the flexibility of analog displays :D
 
Yeah CRT's still own cause of the high refresh and flexibility of resolutions. Id hate to HAVE to game at native LCD res. That would mean new hardware any time a new game comes out.

1280x1024 and 1600x1200 are more popular than you guys think. Most true gamers love CRT's.
 
deepinya said:
Yeah CRT's still own cause of the high refresh and flexibility of resolutions. Id hate to HAVE to game at native LCD res. That would mean new hardware any time a new game comes out.

1280x1024 and 1600x1200 are more popular than you guys think. Most true gamers love CRT's.
Click to expand...

Ever since I experienced low response rate LCDs (2ms, 5ms) I never wanted to look back. Gaming with my 19inch dell that was like a 25ms response almost made me quit gaming though. I've had 3 other LCD displays since that dell and I love it. Prior to LCDs, I had my mom's old 20" Sony Trinitron 20se from 1996 to 2003. That thing was amazing for when it came out, which I believe was 1993. It could do 1600x1200 at 60hz or 1280x1024 at 75hz :D

Being tied to a resolution kinda sucks. But I don't think I'll ever go back to the CRT.
 
In Windows Vista, you can adjust your LCD to more than just the native resolution. I know that when I run XP, my gf7 only lets me choose 1680x1050 or 1680x900 for widscreen, but in Vista I can run way more resolutions like 1280x800. Granted they don't look as good, but if you really need a performance boost you can't complain.
 
I too stuck with CRT's for a long time. Finally when I could get an LCD with a decent response time that was as large as my 22" CRT was I made the switch and I have never looked back.
 
I vote for the switch to 1680x1050! B/c I have a 22" Widescreen LCD that runs at that natively :p

Seriously though, 16x12 was more relevant 5 years ago; there is a huge shift towards widescreen going forwards.

I do think 1680x1050 and 1920 × 1080 should become staples of reviews; 1920x1080 is 1080p which is where LCD tech is headed. Right now you can buy 42" 1080p LCDs in the $1000-$1200 range; its a good res for gaming and watching movies. I think you will see a heavy shift into that res this coming Black Friday, as 1080p goes mainstream.

Note that while higher quality resolutions are currently being disucssed, no one seems ot ahve plans to mass produce stuff beyond 1080p so it looks liek we are going to sotp there for awhile; should be a good res to buy into.

CRTs are yesterdays news; I ahve a 19' capable of 16x12 but I wont go near with my 2ms 22" widescreen lcd available.
 
Funny thread, I just got a 21" CRT last night so I could run my new 8800GTS at 1600x1200@85Hz :)

I like to play in a dark room, and LCD's are just too damn bright in whites, horrible black level, and I was still annoyed by the ghosting and input lag on the Dell 2407 I bought and returned.

The funny bit is I actually do software QA for LCD TV's for a living - I just hate them for gaming.
 
Lomic said:
Funny thread, I just got a 21" CRT last night so I could run my new 8800GTS at 1600x1200@85Hz :)

I like to play in a dark room, and LCD's are just too damn bright in whites, horrible black level, and I was still annoyed by the ghosting and input lag on the Dell 2407 I bought and returned.

The funny bit is I actually do software QA for LCD TV's for a living - I just hate them for gaming.
Click to expand...

Eh, I've been using LCDs for gaming for more than a year now, and haven't had any problems that you have. I game on Dell LCDs as well.
 
The [H] has always been about, well lately, reviewing what people are doing. Of the readership here at the [H], including guests...what resolutions are you seeing? I believe the HD 1920x1080 res is correct since that is the "typical" max most people will see or dream about...but what about the others?
 
As already said, most games support widescreen such as 1680x1050, but ALL games support 4:3 1600x1200, and speaking about performance they're very close. And many respectable FPS players play with a CRT, 60Hz is from the 80's in fact. You can say it does not flicker or lag, but it is not smooth which is even worse.

Most common resolution is of course 1280x1024, but the thing is that new GPU's are totally capped at that res, but should still be included. I personally use 1920x1080 whenever possible, but 1920x1200 is more popular. 2560x1600 must be extremely rare still, at least for gaming since games just don't run reasonably at that res, if you can launch them at all.

So I'd say 1600x1200 resembles performance and users needs better than most of the other resolutions. It can even stress the GPU without being too big.
 
You actually use a CRT at 60 Hz? <shuddder> That used to give me headaches (no kidding really did) and made me buy an LCD years ago.

Part of that stupid MS Windows thing at 60 Hz is prob why I am so jaded; up the 1680x1050s!
 
Dwight said:
Long live CRTs? Word!

1939_GE_HM171.JPG


:p
Click to expand...

you know that ish blew minds back in the day
 
pxc said:
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.
Click to expand...

you can dump it when you realise that 1600x1200 should be compared to 1680x1050, and not 1920x1200 as you suggest.

the fact that we have been able to buy screens capable of 1600x1200 for well over a decade and they still have only 1.84% market share, whereas 1680x1050 has been out for little more than two years and yet has 2.3% of the market should tell you something.

anyone want to bet against me that by May 2008 that ratio will be closer to 1% for 1600x1200 and 6% for 1680x1050?
 
R3MF said:
the fact that we have been able to buy screens capable of 1600x1200 for well over a decade and they still have only 1.84% market share, whereas 1680x1050 has been out for little more than two years and yet has 2.3% of the market should tell you something.
Click to expand...

If you want to use those numbers I guess you could say only 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are important.

The number of screens capable of running 1600x1200 well is probably much higher(all 19"+ CRTs), but people playing the type of games in the survey often lower the resolution for performance.

My 19" 950p was perfect at 1600x1200 and that is what I used as my main desktop resolution since about ~2000, after it died, I replaced it with 21" 202P4 and I still run at 1600x1200. Though I will drop to lower res to play games if I need performance. There is no "Native" res for CRT.

1600x1200 pushes a bit more pixels, so I would rather see it used since if the game runs 16x12 it will have no problem with 16x10.

Though the next monitor I want is a 30"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top