2560x1440 on native 1920x1080 screen? lol

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I have the Dell S2409W with native 1080 and I was just goofing around since I had been running some custom resolutions to use 1920x810 to try 21:9 in some games. well I decided to try setting 2560x1440 expecting it to just fail the test but it passed. now it did not look perfectly alright at 2560x1440 on the desktop as the text got too blurry but I thought I would fire up Crysis 3 and I cant believe it worked. I went back and forth between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 and the difference was there. frame rate dropped and image was less jaggy on some edges not that it was really jaggy in the first place. I even took a screen shot and sure enough it was 2560x1440. lol how is that possible? for one the max res of my screen is 1920x1080 plus the monitor and cable are not dual link which I thought was required for 2560x1440.
 
Last edited:

Deders

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2012
2,401
1
91
How did you configure this?

I have seen some programs, graphics benchmarks like Catzilla and the latest 3Dmark's that will render internally at a standard resolution and then upscaled so results can be compared across multiple machines despite their max resolution.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
So the scaler is taking raw 1440P and scaling it to 1080P? I know Dell usually has nice scaling hardware in its monitors but that's 'above and beyond' engineering.

I guess that monitor will be usable even when the cheapest off the shelf media player defaults output at 1440P. Assuming the rest of the hardware can last the ~10 years for that to happen.
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
it feels so odd being able to run and test games at 2560x1440. this was at stock clocks and I am only posting just to show the 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 in the settings. Metro 2033 looks a bit blurry and jaggy at 1920x1080 after seeing 2560x1440.

EDIT: added 3200x1800

3200x1800



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


2560x1440



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


1920x1080



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:

hawtdawg

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2005
1,223
7
81
so your monitor does supersampling? can you run it even higher than 1440p?
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
so your monitor does supersampling? can you run it even higher than 1440p?
lol yes I just tried 3200x1800 and it passed the test and it plays games fine with it too. 3840x2160 would just go black on desktop when I tested it though so not even a chance of trying out games on that res.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
It's being downscaled by the monitor most likely, this might help jaggies but it's going to blur the crap out of the entire screen as sampling to another resolution that's not an exactly multiple or fraction of your current resolution.

You could avoid that by scaling exactly twice your resolution on both height and width to what is essentially UHD (4k) and that would downsample "cleanly", this is essentially what 2xSSAA is doing, better to actually use 2xSSAA.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
its not blurring at all from what I can see. 2560x1440 is better looking in games than 1920x1080 without a doubt.
 

Granseth

Senior member
May 6, 2009
258
0
71
its not blurring at all from what I can see. 2560x1440 is better looking in games than 1920x1080 without a doubt.

I'm working at a training center that uses low resolution projectors, and have been doing the same with some success. I've been scaling from 1920x1080 to 1280x800, and sometimes I get sharper pictures on the projector, and it never gets blurry
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
am I risking damaging anything by running 2560x1440 or 3200x1800 on my screen? and I still don't fully understand how my monitor can display those resolutions in games just fine with just single link dvi.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
You should try contacting Dell about it, seems like the scaler in your monitor has a very nice ability to downsample, although the single link dvi does raise some questions.
 

Slomo4shO

Senior member
Nov 17, 2008
586
0
71
2560x1440 scaled down to 1920x1080 pixels is still just 1920x1080 pixels on your screen. Upping the resolution allows for greater viewing area but provides no tangible increase in picture clarity since the screen is physically limited to 1920x1080 pixels...
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I wonder about the performance hit difference between SSAA and downsampling. I've never actually tried it, is the performance roughly the same?
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
I wonder about the performance hit difference between SSAA and downsampling. I've never actually tried it, is the performance roughly the same?

You're pushing the downscaling work from your GPU onto the monitor's scaler board, so I could forsee a small improvement.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
2560x1440 scaled down to 1920x1080 pixels is still just 1920x1080 pixels on your screen. Upping the resolution allows for greater viewing area but provides no tangible increase in picture clarity since the screen is physically limited to 1920x1080 pixels...
its 2560x1440 thats being shown. its more crisp and less aliasing and you can see the benchmarks above and also the screenshots are full 2560x1440. and 2560x1440 would have the same viewing area since its alos 16:9 so I am not sure what you mean by that.
 

Slomo4shO

Senior member
Nov 17, 2008
586
0
71
its 2560x1440 thats being shown. its more crisp and less aliasing and you can see the benchmarks above and also the screenshots are full 2560x1440. and 2560x1440 would have the same viewing area since its alos 16:9 so I am not sure what you mean by that.

Have you ever seen a dead pixel on a monitor? Your monitor has a total of 2,073,600 pixels... Upping the resolution is not going to magically increase the number of physical pixels on the display. Whatever resolution you are setting the display to is being rescaled to fit the 2,073,600 pixels.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Have you ever seen a dead pixel on a monitor? Your monitor has a total of 2,073,600 pixels... Upping the resolution is not going to magically increase the number of physical pixels on the display. Whatever resolution you are setting the display to is being rescaled to fit the 2,073,600 pixels.

Yet the internal resolution rendered prior to the display can be above the display resolution. That's what downsampling and supersampling do.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Have you ever seen a dead pixel on a monitor? Your monitor has a total of 2,073,600 pixels... Upping the resolution is not going to magically increase the number of physical pixels on the display. Whatever resolution you are setting the display to is being rescaled to fit the 2,073,600 pixels.
well then what do you call it when I am sitting here on the desktop in 2560x1440 with tiny icons and way more real estate? my 1920x1080 wallpaper has black borders around it so yes I am getting 2560x1400 on the screen.

again in games there is less aliasing and they look more crisp and if I take a screenshot its 2560x1440 so what do you call that? also if there were not more pixels being shown then how do you explain the benchmarks.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
also if there were not more pixels being shown then how do you explain the benchmarks.

More pixels being rendered, not shown, per se.

Btw, is "GPU scaling" enabled? That could explain most of this. Especially still being able to use SL DVI-D.

Or possibly, the monitor has a DVI-I port, and your GPU has a DVI-I port, and you are using a DVI-I cable (as opposed to a SL DVI-D cable). IOW, you are outputting a high-res analog signal, which is being sampled and scaled by your monitor, and then being displayed at native res.
 
Last edited:

Slomo4shO

Senior member
Nov 17, 2008
586
0
71
well then what do you call it when I am sitting here on the desktop in 2560x1440 with tiny icons and way more real estate? my 1920x1080 wallpaper has black borders around it so yes I am getting 2560x1400 on the screen.

again in games there is less aliasing and they look more crisp and if I take a screenshot its 2560x1440 so what do you call that? also if there were not more pixels being shown then how do you explain the benchmarks.

Go back to 1080P, open up a browser and hold Control and scroll the mouse wheel up and down... That is basically what you are doing :whiste:

Yet the internal resolution rendered prior to the display can be above the display resolution. That's what downsampling and supersampling do.

I understand what downsampling and supersampling does. However, the rendered picture that is displayed is still always 1080P whether you are rendering the image at 720P and using supersampling to smooth out pixelated edged or at 1440P and are using downsampling to blend overlapping pixels.

Furthermore, downsampling occurs at the GPU, his monitor has nothing to do with these outcomes.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Go back to 1080P, open up a browser and hold Control and scroll the mouse wheel up and down... That is basically what you are doing :whiste:



I understand what downsampling and supersampling does. However, the rendered picture that is displayed is still always 1080P whether you are rendering the image at 720P and using supersampling to smooth out pixelated edged or at 1440P and are using downsampling to blend overlapping pixels.

Furthermore, downsampling occurs at the GPU, his monitor has nothing to do with these outcomes.

Right, but the image can be sharpened by these methods which I believe was the idea.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Go back to 1080P, open up a browser and hold Control and scroll the mouse wheel up and down... That is basically what you are doing :whiste:



I understand what downsampling and supersampling does. However, the rendered picture that is displayed is still always 1080P whether you are rendering the image at 720P and using supersampling to smooth out pixelated edged or at 1440P and are using downsampling to blend overlapping pixels.

Furthermore, downsampling occurs at the GPU, his monitor has nothing to do with these outcomes.
then AGAIN tell me when it comes to games why I am getting crisper visuals and less aliasing and all the performance of 2560x1440? if i don't really have those pixels there then the image should look the same, not show up as 2560x1440 in a screenshot and not impact performance.
 

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
Yes, the monitor doesn't magic more pixels into existence instead it's performing a super sampling process through its scaler hardware. Interesting point from VirtualLarry about the potential for toyota to have a DVI-I connection going between his monitor and gpu.

The screenshot size is easily explained as that's the resolution the GPU is rendering. Still no magic pixels, just good scaling hardware in a lot of those non-budget Dell monitors.