720p @ VERY HIGH vs 1080p LOW

[jeffmule]

Ok, first I must state, the difference between 720p and 1080p at the same settings is huge, but what if I can't do both?


For instance, I just played Half Life 2 on my iMac.

I set every graphics settings on the highest they could go, 8x AA, and 720p resolution.

I then switched to 1080p res, 2x AA, and every graphic setting on low.



After comparing there are trade offs...the textures on 720p are noticeably much better and sharper, resolution not as sharp, jaggies more apparent.

The 1080p's textures are way worse and blurry/less sharp, but the image is sharper and less jaggies.


:\



I am not so sure 1080p is 100% the obvious option...



I am building my first very high end pc next month. I can't wait to play all the eye candy games I have been missing out on all these years (crysis 1/2, shogun, metro, arma, batman AA)


With the much upgraded textures of modern games, I am sure 720p is even more optional. I think I would much rather have far superior/sharper textures with lower resolution....rather than higher resolution but far worse texture quality.


They are tradeoffs and I don't buy into 1080p on low being the obvious answer the 720p on very high. I prefer 720p with max graphics rather than 1080p with pathetic low graphics.

Anyone else feel the same?



Edit: I wish I could take screen captures to compare on OS X, but I don't know how. Could one of you please screen capture a eye candy game, and compare 720p maxed, vs 1080p on lowest settings please and post the pics? Thanks

 

[Anteaus]

A PC with decent hardware is going to destroy an imac in these cases. I've been running 1920X1200 for 6 years now. You'll want to use whatever the native resolution is for the monitor you buy. I think you're worrying about nothing, assuming when you say high end PC, your actually building a high end PC. Even a mid range PC will handle 1920X1080 with no problems, tho you'll have to reduce some of the eye candy in some cases.

I have a 2600k with 570 GTX and I can set high or max in most games with no FPS hit.

 

[jeffmule]

A PC with decent hardware is going to destroy an imac in these cases. I've been running 1920X1200 for 6 years now. You'll want to use whatever the native resolution is for the monitor you buy. I think you're worrying about nothing, assuming when you say high end PC, your actually building a high end PC. Even a mid range PC will handle 1920X1080 with no problems, tho you'll have to reduce some of the eye candy in some cases.

I have a 2600k with 570 GTX and I can set high or max in most games with no FPS hit.

I am buying a 580 and Sandy Bridge cpu. I'll have no problem, I am just discussing *what if* you can't have both.

I would rather play a game at 720p with life like textures, rather than 1080p far from life like textures, you know what I'm saying?

 

[greenhawk]

of the two? depends. If you are running a native resolution on the screen, you do not get anywhere as bad a image.

That all being said, a lot of those extra features I have trouble seeing, espically in a high speed fps game.

as to crysis 1 & 2, hardware to play #1 on high/very well was available a few years back. #2, did not have anywhere near the hardware increase. In fact at the time of it's release, people considered #1 better looking as #2 was adjusted for the "common market" (ie: consoles)

 

[Rambusted]

I run a core i5 with 8 gig ram and a hd 6870 on an LCD tv in 720p native. The cool thing about the lower res is my frame rate never dips regardless of in game settings. Put 4xaa on and you don't notice the jaggies. I also own a 1080p led screen that we use in another room and have no desire to switch em, I'd rather have smooth frame rates.

 

[TidusZ]

Running at your monitors native resolution is pretty important for it to look good. If you run at a lower resolution, using "centered timings" (black bars around screen) can make it look better. Depends on the monitor, but for my 30" running non-native resolutions looks bad. I run some games at 2560x1440 with black bars and that looks good.

 

[fralexandr]

it depends on the game/engine as well
some games don't look much worse at high vs low settings, whereas others look ridiculously bad
http://www.tweakguides.com/HL2_6.html

 

[M0RPH]

I have a laptop with 1080P screen and play most games at a lower res. I guess it depends on your display, but for mine the image quality loss from not running at native res is small. For games it's fine, and it allows me to play most games at medium settings rather than low.

 

[BFG10K]

I stick to native (2560x1600) and reduce game detail if necessary. Cryostasis is the only game I have that’s too slow even at low detail, so I run it at 1920x1200.

 

[wirednuts]

i normally reduce resolution before i reduce game detail. i dont need the game detail to be on ultra high, but usually the high settings are nice because you get the full experience. the resolution quality can be helped by turning on AA without impacting you card as much.

also, i have no problems running lcd's outside of their native resolution for gaming. on a 2d windows desktop, running outside native resolution is unbearable for me, but in games its a lot more palatable.

 

[JimmiG]

Who plays games at a resolution of 720 lines anyway? I vaguely remember using such a resolution with my Voodoo3 back in in the 90's...

 

[VashHT]

For me I stick to native resolution, my monitor doesn't scale very well and everything has a weird blur to it if I'm not at it's native res.

 

[Barfo]

Who plays games at a resolution of 720 lines anyway? I vaguely remember using such a resolution with my Voodoo3 back in in the 90's...

O RLY?

That res would have been a tad high for a Voodoo 3, not to mention it wasn't popular in those days.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I prefer 1440 900 max to 1080p low. But 16 10 med will prolly look best

 

[festa_freak]

Pick your native resolution and adjust settings from there. If you lower the resolution on a CRT it isn't a big deal but with the LCDs I've owned they get really fuzzy when a lower resolution is selected.

My 600 celeron with a 32MB video card ran HL2 fine back in 2004. Why is your computer having such a hard time?

I'm upgrading soon too (as soon as Ivy bridge is out) so good luck with your new build!

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Gaming at less than native Rez with an LCD is fine, I have done with 3 of my monitors with no problem. But windows desktop usage does get blurred if you vary the rez by a few notches, but gaming is good one Rez apart and tolerable 2 Rez apart. 3 notches apart isn't tolerable.

 

[kylebisme]

Gaming at less than native Rez with an LCD is fine, I have done with 3 of my monitors with no problem.

It depends on the setup, lots of LCDs have really crappy scalers. You can get around that by enabling GPU scaling in the video driver options though, which does a respectable job. Anyway, I generally run games with all the graphics options on along with at least a little AA, and will choose good scaling at lower than native over native with lesser settings whenever I have to pick between the two to get smooth framerate.

 

[AdamK47]

I prefer Ultra High at 1600P, or as we use to call it in the non-dumbed down olden days, a resolution of 2560x1600.