Are higher resoultions really worth it?

[TanisHalfElven]

i weanted to know if its worth increasing resolutions tyo 1028x768 at the cost of lowring detail and lighting and other stuff.
here's the deal. my new computer (see sig) can run FEAR at high with a minimum fps of 27 IF i select the high option and then decrease resolution to 800x600 and texture rosolutions to medium. my question is how much of a difference do higher resolutions make. i mean i played quake 4 at 1028x768 and 800x600 and saw no significat difference. so i am wondering what does higher resolutions give.

ps. my monitor is a 14" crt. is that why i see no diffeence b/w low res and high res ?

 

[Bobthelost]

14" CRT

That would be why you see no real difference.

 

[DigitalFreak]

I think only you can really answer that question. If you don't notice a difference, then it's not worth the FPS loss.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

ok so is the 14 " the issue.

i am happy though since i can FEAR at nearly highest settings.

but really what does higher resolutions give... i never figured that out.

 

[nRollo]

Increasing resolution increases the pixels per inch and increases detail, so yes it is worth it.

 

[Bobthelost]

Increased resolutions means you get more details. More bits flying away from explosions, more texture on the floors etc.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

but is detail REALLY worth the loss of effects.

 

[mphartzheim]

You're asking other people for a personal preference.

I'd go with your own personal preference, just like DigitalFreak said.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

thtas part of my question. the other part invoilves questioning ppl what is so good about higher resolutions.
yeah but i guess your right. i usppose i would prefer everything looking good even at lower reses than everything uglied at higher reses.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Increasing resolution increases the pixels per inch and increases detail, so yes it is worth it.

Of course this is true only up until a point, the number of actual pixels on a LCD (which is easy to figure out) or the number of RGB phosphor groups on CRT (which is a little trickier). The extreme is easy -- it's physically impossible for your 14" CRT to be able to fully display all the details of a 1600x1200 image. There just aren't enough elements to do so. It's debatable at what size screen becomes possible. I suspect it's higher than most people think.

 

[yacoub]

1024x768 is the minimum acceptable gaming resolution today. Anything less isn't even the full experience. Higher resolutions above 1024x do add to the immersion though.

 

[Dman877]

Play Halo on the Xbox and then play it on the pc at 1280/1024 or 1600x1200. If that doesn't answer your question, more power to ya

 

[RussianSensation]

Image QualityFor most games, imo, detail is much more important than resolution.

Increasing detail levels of textures, water effects, sky, reflections is what truly adds detail and graphics quality to a game. Basically, a game with highest detail levels at 640x480 (ie. Doom 3) can look better than say Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF. Resolution normally allows for greater pixel count which decreases aliasing (jaggieness of straight lines) and washed out textures somewhat. It generally makes everything look clearer. Of course you can solve these issues by enabling AA and AF as well. AF in particular will do a lot more than resolution increases when it comes to sharpening textures.

Here is a good example (article) of what changing image quality can do to a game like FEAR:

FEAR - DX7, DX8, DX9 PS2, DX9 PS3

As you can see by the time you move to highest image quality, it is impossible to increase resolution and get the same image since resolution does NOT add effects. That is why a PC gamer's argument that console games do not look good because they display low resolution isn't as strong of an argument. However, when you combine high detail level + high resolution, you get the best of all worlds.

Resolution
Image 800x600
Image 1600x1200

Once you click on both images and try to enlarge them you'll see the 2nd one can be enlarged dramatically. Imagine 14 inch monitor where 800x600 image can cover most of the monitor. Now if you take 800x600 and try to cover a 20 inch monitor it wont be enough since 20 inch monitor has a resolution of 1600x1200. Thus, the image will be washed out and less clear since you'll be "stretching" textures and pixels farther apart to cover more distance (ie. if you put 5 dots together to draw a line of 3 mm, it'll look a lot more like a line than if you put 5 dots across 3 cms). So essentially, you simply need resolution to produce a larger sized picture at similar or better focus. If you are comfortable playing on 14 inch size screen, there is no need for increased resolution. But if you want a greater size of the picture displayed, that's where resolution comes into play.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: yacoub
1024x768 is the minimum acceptable gaming resolution today. Anything less isn't even the full experience. Higher resolutions above 1024x do add to the immersion though.

yeah i have read THAT (in different wording) at a lot of places.
but like i said i just could not figure out why thats so.
like i said i did not notice a significant loss of .... eye candy in quake 4 when i played at 800x600 at the same settings. (notice i said significant.. there was some loss but not all that great)


ps. i'm sorry if myu noobish questions are annoying any one btw.
also can anyone tell me how i can benchamrk BF2. so i can set it to optimal settingsa.

 

[yacoub]

One simile I can think of that might help is that playing below 1024x is like looking through a peephole instead of actually opening the door to look. Sure, you can see everything through the peephole, but it lacks the detail and immersion that begins once you open the door. Now,if you've never opened the door before, the peephole might seem fine to you. Once you've played games consistently in a higher resolution though, try switching it back down to 800x600 and you should immediately recognize how it is lacking.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Image QualityFor most games, imo, detail is much more important than resolution.

Increasing detail levels of textures, water effects, sky, reflections is what truly adds detail and graphics quality to a game. Basically, a game with highest detail levels at 640x480 (ie. Doom 3) can look better than say Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF. Resolution normally allows for greater pixel count which decreases aliasing (jaggieness of straight lines) and washed out textures somewhat. It generally makes everything look clearer. Of course you can solve these issues by enabling AA and AF as well. AF in particular will do a lot more than resolution increases when it comes to sharpening textures.

Here is a good example (article) of what changing image quality can do to a game like FEAR:

FEAR - DX7, DX8, DX9 PS2, DX9 PS3

As you can see by the time you move to highest image quality, it is impossible to increase resolution and get the same image since resolution does NOT add effects. That is why a PC gamer's argument that console games do not look good because they display low resolution isn't as strong of an argument. However, when you combine high detail level + high resolution, you get the best of all worlds.

Resolution
Image 800x600
Image 1600x1200

Once you click on both images and try to enlarge them you'll see the 2nd one can be enlarged dramatically. Imagine 14 inch monitor where 800x600 image can cover most of the monitor. Now if you take 800x600 and try to cover a 20 inch monitor it wont be enough since 20 inch monitor has a resolution of 1600x1200. Thus, the image will be washed out and less clear since you'll be "stretching" textures and pixels farther apart to cover more distance (ie. if you put 5 dots together to draw a line of 3 mm, it'll look a lot more like a line than if you put 5 dots across 3 cms). So essentially, you simply need resolution to produce a larger sized picture at similar or better focus. If you are comfortable playing on 14 inch size screen, there is no need for increased resolution. But if you want a greater size of the picture displayed, that's where resolution comes into play.

yeah i read that article some time back too thats why i was convinced about enabling all effects. but i never found a similar article about higher resolutions.
thanks for your advice. i will try 640x480 and 8x AF too now.

also there's a feature in fear's graphic settings called pixel doubling (or something like it.) could some one please tell me what that does.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Image QualityFor most games, imo, detail is much more important than resolution.

Increasing detail levels of textures, water effects, sky, reflections is what truly adds detail and graphics quality to a game. Basically, a game with highest detail levels at 640x480 (ie. Doom 3) can look better than say Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF. Resolution normally allows for greater pixel count which decreases aliasing (jaggieness of straight lines) and washed out textures somewhat. It generally makes everything look clearer. Of course you can solve these issues by enabling AA and AF as well. AF in particular will do a lot more than resolution increases when it comes to sharpening textures.

Here is a good example (article) of what changing image quality can do to a game like FEAR:

FEAR - DX7, DX8, DX9 PS2, DX9 PS3

As you can see by the time you move to highest image quality, it is impossible to increase resolution and get the same image since resolution does NOT add effects. That is why a PC gamer's argument that console games do not look good because they display low resolution isn't as strong of an argument. However, when you combine high detail level + high resolution, you get the best of all worlds.

Resolution
Image 800x600
Image 1600x1200

Once you click on both images and try to enlarge them you'll see the 2nd one can be enlarged dramatically. Imagine 14 inch monitor where 800x600 image can cover most of the monitor. Now if you take 800x600 and try to cover a 20 inch monitor it wont be enough since 20 inch monitor has a resolution of 1600x1200. Thus, the image will be washed out and less clear since you'll be "stretching" textures and pixels farther apart to cover more distance (ie. if you put 5 dots together to draw a line of 3 mm, it'll look a lot more like a line than if you put 5 dots across 3 cms). So essentially, you simply need resolution to produce a larger sized picture at similar or better focus. If you are comfortable playing on 14 inch size screen, there is no need for increased resolution. But if you want a greater size of the picture displayed, that's where resolution comes into play.

yeah i read that article some time back too thats why i was convinced about enabling all effects. but i never found a similar article about higher resolutions.
thanks for your advice. i will try 640x480 and 8x AF too now.

also there's a feature in fear's graphic settings called pixel doubling (or something like it.) could some one please tell me what that does.

It just cuts your current resoulution in half.

 

[firewolfsm]

i don't see the difference in resolution as much as effects, if playing at 11 instead of 12 lets me raise the effects a little, i would rather play at 11

 

[Genx87]

Come on, spring the 90 bucks and get a 17" CRT.

Seriously, 14 "? I dont think they have made 14" CRTs in 15 years.

 

[jdkick]

In general, resolution does make a difference...

I just put an X1600XT in my machine lastnight but only had time to fire up Halo for a little CTF. With my previous machine I was playing at 800x600, now i'm running at 1280x1024 w/ max quality. Man, things look so much better/smoother.

 

[bjc112]

I would rather play 16x12 with little to no details on, than 800x600 maxed..

 

[paulxcook]

You're stuck in the same situation I was in, though yours is more... pronounced.

I had pretty good hardware and some of the latest games, but my monitor was at one point a 15", then a 17" CRT. I didn't want to use the cash for a big monitor when I could buy another piece of internal hardware.

But then I thought "what good is this hardware when I can't see the results?" So I spent the cash and bought a 19" LCD with low response time. Holy crap, I couldn't belive the difference. I still can't.

With the hardware you're using, you're doing yourself a great disservice by playing on a 14" CRT. Really missing out.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Well i am more into not buying monitors new.
i bought all my last monitors used.
i did try out a 21 " crt from ibm (used ofcourse) but it put too much strain on my eyes (headaches and spore eyes) i returned it.
i figure if i am buy a monitor now i'll definatly get lcd (but there so freaking expensive).. it took me years to collect enough money to buy my current (18 year old unemplyoed student ) so i doubt i'll by it any time soon.

I would rather play 16x12 with little to no details on, than 800x600 maxed..

really ? why.. but then again you don't hae to choose now that i look at your graphic card... ummmm x1900 ..*drools.. ad tries to steral your card.

 

[Bull Dog]

Personally I'd say the Eye candy is more important than screen resolution...to a point. In the past, I would never game lower than 800x600.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
Personally I'd say the Eye candy is more important than screen resolution...to a point. In the past, I would never game lower than 800x600.

Everything is more important than something else to a point.

Resolution, along with display size, directly affects the size of the pixels on the screen (ie, the effective dot pitch). 640x480 on a 14" screen may not look too bad, but on a 20" monitor, now those same pixels are huge and everything will look very blocky unless you are sitting very far away. I would simply not consider such a low resolution acceptable except on a small CRT or an SDTV (since it can't really display higher resolutions anyway). What good is increasing detail levels if all the extra detail gets reduced to a couple of blocky pixels in the background because the resolution is so low?

Of course, it's a tradeoff against other things that improve image quality (like increasing detail levels or using more/better shaders or enabling AA/AF), assuming you can't do both. At what point the tradeoff becomes worth it depends on your personal tolerance for 'blockiness' in the resolution (which is partly dependent on the size and sharpness of the display in use).

Like most IQ improvements, there's also somewhat of a diminishing returns factor with increasing resolution -- 640x480 (307,200 pixels/frame) to 1024x768 (786,432 pixels/frame) is a huge step up (a 150% increase in the number of pixels), but 1024x768 to 1280x960 is somewhat less dramatic (only a ~50% increase). 1280x960 to 1600x1200 is also about a 50% increase.