• 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.

Why higher res gaming?

W

wesblake

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
444
Ok, I thought I would try to solve this for myself once and for all. I've always wondered, wtf would you game at higher resolutions? (1280 or whatever it is, 1600, etc). I understand that you see more on screen (more area) but then your aiming at baddies that are half the size too arn't you? I decided to clear this up for myself because I got a hint reading a vid card review that perhaps it's because it means less jaggies? Is this true? So tell me yee gods of gaming, what are the benefits besides smaller targets and slower frame rates?
(I've always gamed at 1024x768, but i can change too)
 
the higher the res the clearer the picture...

to put it simpler, it looks better.

simpler still, and presented without any fact, its just better..
 
If you have a huge-ass monitor (say 21 or up) 1024 won't cut it, its almost eqivalent to gaming at 800 or even 640 on small screens. And your right, if you have too high a res on a small screen things become too small and hard to see.
 
the targets are the same size, they just are better defined and can be seen more clearly. a guy that used to take up half the screen still takes up half the screen, just looks better because he is now more pixels.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
the targets are the same size, they just are better defined and can be seen more clearly. a guy that used to take up half the screen still takes up half the screen, just looks better because he is now more pixels.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't work like the desktop? Where you can see more of say a document and everything is smaller? I assumed it did the same in a game, call me crazy, but I've been gaming in 1024 for at least 6 years and never tried anything higher.

So if what you say is true, I suppose it would look like there was less jaggies. Guess I'll give a higher res a shot when I get home! (Too bad my card is getting to where I can't do that in newer games though. :( )
Thanks all.
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
the targets are the same size, they just are better defined and can be seen more clearly. a guy that used to take up half the screen still takes up half the screen, just looks better because he is now more pixels.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this answer at all...I can't check right now because I am at work but I will when I get home...by your statement if you are looking at something in a game that is a set distance away, either be it a person, item, structure at 640x480 and it is lets say 4" physicaly on your screen and then change your resolution to 1280x1024, get into the same position and look at the same item it is not going to still be 4" on the screen but more like 1" as you have 4 times the number of pixels being displayed..I know that is a drastic example but a valid one none the less....the higher the resolution the more info is shown on the screen...you say there are just more pixels and yes there are more but they are NOT in the same screen space. I will try and take some screen shots from home and show you what I mean if somebody can tell me where to upload for hosting
 
Originally posted by gigglebyte
I don't agree with this answer at all...I can't check right now because I am at work but I will when I get home...by your statement if you are looking at something in a game that is a set distance away, either be it a person, item, structure at 640x480 and it is lets say 4" physicaly on your screen and then change your resolution to 1280x1024, get into the same position and look at the same item it is not going to still be 4" on the screen but more like 1" as you have 4 times the number of pixels being displayed..I know that is a drastic example but a valid one none the less....the higher the resolution the more info is shown on the screen...you say there are just more pixels and yes there are more but they are NOT in the same screen space. I will try and take some screen shots from home and show you what I mean if somebody can tell me where to upload for hosting
Click to expand...
You are quite simply wrong. The difference between desktop and games is that the desktop's icons and text are a set number of pixel, so increasing resolution makes that 48x48 icon look smaller. Games don't do that.

The only time this is correct in games is menus. Menus are a static number of pixels, much like icons and menus on the desktop, and as such will get smaller as resolution increases. For example, in FFXI, when I run 1280x960 on my pc my menus are MUCH smaller than the 640x480 size of the ps2 version. However, the characters in the game are still the same size.
 
no, upping the res in games does not make the targets smaller, it just makes them occupy more pixels and they end up occupying the same screen space. if an enemy was 10 pixels tall at 800x600 then he would be 20 pixels tall at 1600x1200, hence he would take up the same screen space, but because he was 20 pixels tall more details could be shown.
 
notice I didn't say you were flat out wrong ;) but I am one of them there visual type people and can't visualize it right now...I will be the first to admit if I am wrong and should know in a few hours one way or the other :D
 
Originally posted by Merlin45
no, upping the res in games does not make the targets smaller, it just makes them occupy more pixels and they end up occupying the same screen space. if an enemy was 10 pixels tall at 800x600 then he would be 20 pixels tall at 1600x1200, hence he would take up the same screen space, but because he was 20 pixels tall more details could be shown.
Click to expand...

And here's your proof. What I did was take screenshots a different resolutions, and I increased the actual size of the smaller image to match that of the larger image. This is exactly what happens on your monitor, since the image on the monitor is always the same size. Open both pictures from one of the games, line up the windows so they are on top of each other, then Alt-Tab between the images to see the obvious differences.

Battlefield Vietnam:
640x480
1280x960

FarCry:
800x600
1280x960

The effect is much easier to see in BFV. Notice the leaves on the trees and the rotor blades.
 
Whats the point of increasing the resolution for better quality? I can just have it on 1024x768 with AA and AF and its gonna look better then 1600x1200 with no AA or AF.

for me increasing resolution costs me more frames then turning AA and AF on.
 
Originally posted by JanCzechGuy
Whats the point of increasing the resolution for better quality? I can just have it on 1024x768 with AA and AF and its gonna look better then 1600x1200 with no AA or AF.

for me increasing resolution costs me more frames then turning AA and AF on.
Click to expand...

It's all personal preference. Or if you're like me and have an LCD, it's preferable to run in the native resolution, then add AA if possible. I try to run in either 1280x960(with no stretching) or 1280x1024, and then I'll add some AA if I can. Running native resolution on most LCDs with no AA looks much better than running a non native rez with AA.

And I have the opposite opinion from you, I'd much rather run 1600x1200 with no AA/AF than 1024x768 with AA/AF. But I'm a resolution whore :) Hell, when you get up to 1600x1200, there's very little need for AA.
 
I would rather have 1600x1200 with no aa and some af than 1280x1024 with aa and af. I too am something of a res whore
 
Okay, this looks like a newbie thread so a newbie answer:

Higher resolution reduces jaggies much more effectively than anti-aliasing while retaining a sharp image. All 3D objects on the screen will be the same size. You will not see "more" but rather, all the textures will be crisper and everything will show more detail.

Why the desktop appears to "shrink" for you is because it's in 2D. Those icons are designed with a limited number of pixels so for instance in an 800x600 screen (=480,000 total pixels), an icon that is 40x40 in size will take up 1600 pixels. That like 0.033% of your total desktop space. If your desktop is instead 1600x1200 in resolution, that makes it 1,920,000 pixels total. Windows does not stretch 2D sprites. The icon stays at 40x40. Now it only takes up 0.000833333333% of your desktop space which is quite a difference and so it looks small to you.

The same thing will happen in games. 2D sprites like text and windows, the interface, and even the targeting reticule will become smaller and sharper in gameplay, but all the 3D objects will remain the same size.
 
ok, take UT2K3, put it on partial screen @ 8x6 then go fullscreen, notice the clarity difference between the two, fullscreen is fuzzy and shitty, windowed is nice and clear (but hella small)

try to get games to run close to your native monitor res for best look
 
ok...so...here's another question that I think I already know the answer to.

Running at a higher res is better than enabling AA and a lower res...got that...

how about AF? I assume it's improvements don't change with res since it's extending the detail of the texture through the z path?? (3d dimension or something like that...best example I can think of is a brick wall or a road going away from you...the texture has more detail farther out with AF than without)
 
The higher the resolution, the less AA you need as well, I think. Or thats what it looks like to me.
 
i do it simply because i can and want to produce the greatest value out of my 300 dollar video card. it'll only last me a year or two so i'm gonna beat the shit out of it and it'd better produce.

that's my reasoning for my 85hz 1600x1200 at 6xAA and 16xAF.* :)


*of course if it's not playable then i scale it back butcha catch my drift
 
When I first set up a game I go for nroke as well. I jack everything up as high as possible. If I have any problems, I then start to cut back on things. I will drop the resolution, etc...
 
Personally, I find that 1280X960 with 4x aa and 16x af looks better than 1600X1200 with no aa/af. I still see lots of jaggies even at 1600X1200 res and need 4x aa still, but depending on the game, my comp can't handle that. I'm a graphics whore though.
 
ok...I will now bow my head to the appropriate video gods...I didn't get a chance until just now to run it and the sizes are the same...for some reason I seem to remember a few years back that when I cranked the res up things did get smaller and this was a FPS and not a 2D game too...oh well :D I was wrong (god if my ex wife could hear that)
 
also another interesting thing is that believe it or not the drivers nowdays are more optimized to run at higher resolutions. I did a test in frames with my 9800 pro on utk3 and actually got 4 fps more at 1280x960 than at 1024x768. Another easy test to do and see this is simply run 3dmark2001 or 2003 watch the frames and run it at 1024x768 then goto say 1280x960 and you will get just as good frames.
 
And i also run on lower resolution so i can keep my Refresh rate on 120Hz with 1024x768 because i really notice 85Hz when i increase my res. My eyes start hurting after longer period of time looking at monitor with low ref. rate somehow.
 
Refresh rate is an important point. With Vsync on, I like to run my 19" monitor at 120Hz (to better sustain a minimum of 60fps), and it can't do that beyond 1024x768. I also prefer 4xAA 1024x768 to plain 1600x1200 in most games. But with a bigger monitor, 1024 res is not enough.
 
Someone apologized for being totally wrong and acting like what they think they know is indeed fact .... :eek: Wonders do exist! Kudos, many when they get on there high horse have to get knocked off instead of getting off gracefully.

AA is broken in a lot of games. AA is the hardest for cards to do too. Sometimes some aniso is needed to clean up some of the sideffects of AA! Long live 1600*1200! Add in a little aniso as it has worked well since the 8500 days and voila.... Then I'll add AA.
 
Originally posted by texuspete00
Someone apologized for being totally wrong and acting like what they think they know is indeed fact .... :eek: Wonders do exist! Kudos, many when they get on there high horse have to get knocked off instead of getting off gracefully.

AA is broken in a lot of games. AA is the hardest for cards to do too. Sometimes some aniso is needed to clean up some of the sideffects of AA! Long live 1600*1200! Add in a little aniso as it has worked well since the 8500 days and voila.... Then I'll add AA.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it that way. Maybe I didn't read it right, but I saw no one a high horse. Also, no one said he was completely wrong, just mostly mistaken.


Originally posted by gigglebyte
ok...I will now bow my head to the appropriate video gods...I didn't get a chance until just now to run it and the sizes are the same...for some reason I seem to remember a few years back that when I cranked the res up things did get smaller and this was a FPS and not a 2D game too...oh well :D I was wrong (god if my ex wife could hear that)
Click to expand...

There are some games like real time strategy games that when you up the resolution, things get smaller and you get to see more of the map, but first person games, things get more detailed when you up the resolution...to a certain point. I play SOF2 mostly and I run at 1280x1024 w/8xAA and 16AF, and it looks sharp as hell. I can pick out the bad guys from a long way since it is more detailed and clear.
 
Originally posted by Met-AL
There are some games like real time strategy games that when you up the resolution, things get smaller and you get to see more of the map, but first person games, things get more detailed when you up the resolution...to a certain point.
Click to expand...

Yeah I only really notice this in certain rts games. War craft 3 doesn't do this. Upping the res to 1600X1200 keeps everything the same size. But other rts games like Rise of Nations shrink stuff when you go higher res, thus enabling you to see more of the map.
 
Well Im a ramp it up and, scale it back till, I get decent frame rates. Hell it works and, you get the most out. Plus it is simple.
 
I went home last night at messed around with my settings for UT2004. I am now running everything maxed in the game, 1600x1200 w/ 2xAA and 4xAF. My FPS hovers right around 50-60 on all ONS maps. The smaller ones give me even more. I used a little AA and AF just to slightly clean up the few very tiny jaggies I could see if I got close enough.
 
No high res don´t reduce jaggies nearly as well as antialiasing. Not Radeon antialiasing anyway.

I got a 21" monitor and I always get much less jaggies in 1280x960 with 4x aa then 1600x1200 with 2x aa or no aa of course.

antialiasing generally also often come with a lesser performance hit since it´s only applied on the edges and not the whole scene.

All you miss by running 1280x960 vs 1600x1200 is some miner clarity which isn´t very visible and the less jaggies pays off for it making the whole impression better for the games you can´t run at 1600x1200 with 4x aa ;)
 
Originally posted by obyj34
If you have a huge-ass monitor (say 21 or up) 1024 won't cut it, its almost eqivalent to gaming at 800 or even 640 on small screens. And your right, if you have too high a res on a small screen things become too small and hard to see.
Click to expand...


same problem here. i play 1280x1024 on all games. i love my NEC multi 2111sb :)
 
I don't like 1280x1024 (5:4 aspect ratio) on 4:3 CRT monitors. More games should have the option of 1280x960.
 
I play CS, and I don't know if this goes for other games, but my crosshair becomes so much more accurate at high rez so i play 16x12 for the aiming advantage. I would assume this goes for other FPS titles as well. I get so many more headshots with 16x12 crosshair accuracy.
 
Here is another question to toss in. I play Medal Of Honor Spearhead. Would someone runing at 1280x1024 have an advantage over someone using 1024x768?
 
Thanks all. Apparently this is a hot topic. Well, guess I need a new card either way. This means I'd like to start playing at 1280x? but I want to buy far cry and I had to play the demo at 800x600 to get a decent fps. :(
Anyone know the list of cards that can play the new stuff like Far Cry and HL2 at 1280x? smoothly?
 
Originally posted by wesblake
Thanks all. Apparently this is a hot topic. Well, guess I need a new card either way. This means I'd like to start playing at 1280x? but I want to buy far cry and I had to play the demo at 800x600 to get a decent fps. :(
Anyone know the list of cards that can play the new stuff like Far Cry and HL2 at 1280x? smoothly?
Click to expand...

You'd be better to wait until the new gear hits the market and watch some reviews. You're only a few weeks away to start with.

And if you can't spring the green for a card for your machine (sorry, had to rhyme that one...flame away...), a 9800pro/xt or 5900ultra/5950ultra should do the trick for you, I wouldn't go for anything less than that now though.

I have a 9600xt and I can play FarCry (demo - I've heard the full game plays much better) at 1024x768 with 2xaa/16xaf and it runs ok. It does get a little choppy in some parts, and that is cleared up if I drop the settings to 2xaa/8xaf or no aa/8xaf. I can run at 1280x1024 with no aa/4xaf and it's ok...just doesn't look as good as 1024 aa/af. And probably the only reason I can play at those settings is because my card is overclocked so far.
 
Originally posted by JBark
It's all personal preference. Or if you're like me and have an LCD, it's preferable to run in the native resolution, then add AA if possible. I try to run in either 1280x960(with no stretching) or 1280x1024, and then I'll add some AA if I can. Running native resolution on most LCDs with no AA looks much better than running a non native rez with AA.

And I have the opposite opinion from you, I'd much rather run 1600x1200 with no AA/AF than 1024x768 with AA/AF. But I'm a resolution whore :) Hell, when you get up to 1600x1200, there's very little need for AA.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have an LCD monitor and running at the higher native resolution produces a great image. Also, the higher your resolution, the lower the need to get rid of screen 'jaggies'.
 
Originally posted by PrkChpXprss
I agree. I have an LCD monitor and running at the higher native resolution produces a great image. Also, the higher your resolution, the lower the need to get rid of screen 'jaggies'.
Click to expand...


ok...you lost me on that one..an LCD has 1 native resolution hence the "Native" part...my NEC 1712 has a native of 1024x768 but going any higher or lower will kill the quality since it would have to span the pixels which are set at 1024x768
 
I think he means the higher native res as in higher than 1024, etc. He probably has a 1280x1024 lcd, most 17" lcd monitors are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top