Ed Zachary.Yup, you got a great deal for $102...but I wouldn't exactly call the 4850 a low end card.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ed Zachary.Yup, you got a great deal for $102...but I wouldn't exactly call the 4850 a low end card.
Can't argue with a man's subjective opinion but you've obviously got lower standards than most. 4xAA won't help with the lower texture resolution and lower detail that you seem to be happy with. Not to mention playing at a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 display.
So you're running it stretched, blurry and low-res and think it looks great. Boggles the mind
With some games it doesn't matter. If you're playing Quake 3 for example.
When playing BF2; the higher, the better. At 1600x1200 you can see a lot of targets when sniping you won't see with 1024x768. It just a pair of pixels of their head around the corner and *BOEM headshot*
I don't think so. I got a Blu Ray and a Plasma. For video playback, high resolution is important. For gaming though high resolution isn't
as important...at least to me it's not, as a game looks just as good at lower resolution IMO.
Doesn't look stretched or blurry...and it does look great. I attribute this to running 4xAA though. Plus in a game like Warhead, your
constantly moving and blowing stuff up any way.
You can't argue the stretched and blurry. These are facts not a matter of opinion. Running a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 display is stretched - no two ways about it. All that's happening here is that you don't seem to notice the difference between what you see and how it looks when properly setup.
I don't think so. I got a Blu Ray and a Plasma. For video playback, high resolution is important. For gaming though high resolution isn't
as important...at least to me it's not, as a game looks just as good at lower resolution IMO.
Doesn't look stretched or blurry...and it does look great. I attribute this to running 4xAA though. Plus in a game like Warhead, your
constantly moving and blowing stuff up any way.
Tomorrow:
DWade posts on a car-related forum that the Reliant Robin is the best vehicle ever, because 4 wheeled cars are overrated and by using a 3 wheeled one, he beats the system by getting just as good an experience while spending less money on tires.
Stop taking drugs.
I could not possibly disagree more Video playback normally looks fine at lower resolution (480p and such) as long as it has good post processing. Games will usually look like crap because the generated textures look worse at low res (opposed to actual real life images which aren't as fussy).
But your opinion is your opinion, I'm not going to argue that you dont like it, all I can say is I dont like it
I have a 22" screen, I tried playing at a 16:9 ratio on my 16:10 monitor and that was annoying enough for me, let alone a 4:3 ratio. IMO 4:3 on 16:10 monitor is about as beautiful as hairy arse (ie, very ugly). So clearly your standards are different to what most people like.
There isn't a notable difference that takes away from the game experience. Some of you guys are
taking this personal it seems, it's a subjective opinion so take it as you will.
That's strange, movie playback looks terrible to me at lower resolutions. 3d gaming however looks perfectly fine at lower resolutions to me because you can turn up the
AA. No need to argue here, just a difference in opinion.
Stop trolling and follow your own advice.
I'm not saying that they're the best games or anything, but 2 examples of why you always need aa, and that it doesn't matter how high the res are Alone in the Dark, and Matrix Path of Neo. Playing them at 1920x1200 still has way too many jaggies. I think 1280x960 with 4x RGSS would look a lot better than 1920x1200. For one thing, your internal res will be higher.Well you posted saying high res gaming is over rated, this is [H], I guarantee you most people here do game at high-ish resolution Also I'd suggest most people have tested lower res and didn't like it, or have played with a 4:3 res on a 16:10 monitor and didn't like it.
I personally think playing at 4:3 hugely detracts from the gameplay, which is my opinion, and I'm guessing most peoples' opinion
You post on a forum, expect discussion, and you just happened to pick a topic where almost everyone on an "enthusiast" forum will disagree with you.
If I sat in front of my 40" tv and played at 1024x768, it would be nes graphics.
.....
Stop trolling and follow your own advice.
After switching resolutions from 1024 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 800 4xaa / 1920 x 1200 No AA.
There isn't a notable difference that takes away from the game experience. Some of you guys are
taking this personal it seems, it's a subjective opinion so take it as you will. The only
difference really is the field of view as mentioned, but I think that can be changed through
a console command.
Maybe you should think about getting a better monitor then.