Are higher resoultions really worth it?

[SpeedZealot369]

you need to find the best playable combination of resolution and detail.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
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.

You left out 800 X 600, which skewed the results from your 640 X 480 jump to 1024 X 768. 640 X 480 to 800 X 600 is around 56% and 800 X 600 to 1024 X 768 is around a 63% increase. 1600 X 1200 to 2048 X 1536 is about 63% as well. Each bump in resolution normally has the same returns, so the law of diminishing returns doesn't really apply here, unless people are making up their own custom resolutions.

Anyway, it is all relative... Personally, when I was playing Star Wars Empire At War last night I was again thinking "Wow, am I sure glad I didn't get a super high resolution display"... First 1280 X 768 looks perty... Second, even on my 7800 GTX parts of the game run choppy without AA... So, I mean games are taxing the systems more. Everyone kept saying the 7800 GTX finally brings 2048 X 1536 resolution to be playable, well, that depends. It was a true statement at the time, but now 8 months in the future, it isn't so true. I mean sure, it can play HL2 still fine, but not these newer games, like F.E.A.R.

Each person has their own idea of what looks best... So, no one can really give a definate answer. Mine would be different than most others. But it is all personal opinion... Botton line: Form your own opinion, do not adopt another persons opinion.

 

[RobertR1]

Watch a show on standard TV and then watch the same show on a HDTV. Should give you a good idea of what resolution does.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
Watch a show on standard TV and then watch the same show on a HDTV. Should give you a good idea of what resolution does.

Well, standard is... what, 320 X 240? I could probably get a 36" card board box and use my multicolored crayons and give you a better picture. There is a point where resolution can be too low for the display that it is on. 320 X 240 looks awesome on a 5" screen... But it isn't going to look pretty on a 36"

 

[RobertR1]

Standard = 640x480i

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
Standard = 640x480i

Yes, it is capable of that, but watching a TV show on a standard television is 330 lines of resolution and a VCR is 240 (of a recorded show). But if using a DVD, it will look 480 interlaced.

Some Website
Let?s start with standard television signals, which everyone is familiar with. Standard TV signals are made up of 330 lines of resolution.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: bjc112
I would rather play 16x12 with little to no details on, than 800x600 maxed..

Opposite here (if scaling at 800x600 was good).

NTSC television consists of 525 lines of resolution (480 visible, 45 VBI) at 59.94 fields per second. PAL is 625 lines (576 visible, 49 VBI) at 50 fields per second. NTSC looks pretty crappy even on my 19" LCD, imagine that on a huge TV.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: bjc112
I would rather play 16x12 with little to no details on, than 800x600 maxed..

Opposite here (if scaling at 800x600 was good).

My personal preference would agree with XTknight.

 

[RobertR1]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: RobertR1
Standard = 640x480i

Yes, it is capable of that, but watching a TV show on a standard television is 330 lines of resolution and a VCR is 240 (of a recorded show). But if using a DVD, it will look 480 interlaced.

Some Website
Let?s start with standard television signals, which everyone is familiar with. Standard TV signals are made up of 330 lines of resolution.

Cool. Thanks for the info. Damn standard TV

 

[PingSpike]

I'd rather play with the effects on. Resolution is nice, but the effects are what really make you go "whoa". I'm not that big of a graphics fiend anyway though.

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: 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.

you spend money on a SLi mobo and a duel-core cpu but not on a better video card and 512mb more ram and bigger moniter why?..

 

[ItSells]

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

Rolloz backzorz!!!!!!

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: bjc112
I would rather play 16x12 with little to no details on, than 800x600 maxed..

i'd just max everything.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: 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.

you spend money on a SLi mobo and a duel-core cpu but not on a better video card and 512mb more ram and bigger moniter why?..

I wonder the same thing, but if he is happy, I suppose that is what matters.

 

[BFG10K]

High resolutions make a huge difference to image quality. It's not possible to express in words just how big the difference is.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: ItSells

Originally posted by: 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.

you spend money on a SLi mobo and a duel-core cpu but not on a better video card and 512mb more ram and bigger moniter why?..

I wonder the same thing, but if he is happy, I suppose that is what matters.

plenty of reasons.
the proc cuz i want this computer to last my 4 years in university so dual core was the best choice.
opty 165 cuz i'll be able to OC it when i need to.
mobo cuz its OC and sli compliant.

its basic value building strategy to get those parts good that you won;t upgrade often . then later upgrade the parts you went cheap on..

 

[sodcha0s]

Well let me suggest for your next "cheap" upgrade at least a 17" monitor. As it stands for you now no other upgrade would come close to enhancing your gaming experience more,

 

[nib95]

I cant actually use anything less then 1920 x 1200 now, not for games, for games I still think 1680 x 1050 is the sweet spot.
But for everything else, my design work, video editing, web browsing, sound production, I cannot go anything below 1920, so much more screen area, and so much easier to work with.
Thats the main reason I went with the Dell 2405FPW, cheapest and best value/performance means to getting there.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Well let me suggest for your next "cheap" upgrade at least a 17" monitor. As it stands for you now no other upgrade would come close to enhancing your gaming experience more,

i don't think so. i figure if i do upgrade my monitor i will probably not like my graphics cards weakness anymore. i am content with just turning up the eye candy and enjoying the show,.

maybe in a few years when i do have enough to get a new monitor and graphic card ( what price do you thin the 7600gt will be at in 1 years time? )

 

[Raduque]

There are some of us who can't upgrade what we game on. My laptop is an x300. I've overclocked the hell out of it jsut to be able to run games at low resolutions. I run Quake4 at 720x480 with max everything (not Ultra quality, though), and NFSMW at 640x480 with medium road detail, and medium AA, max everything else. I haven't tried many other games, but in both NFSMW and Q4, they both look great, despite a low resolution on my widescreen (1280*800) LCD. NFSMW doesn't look as good as it does on Xbox360, but it looks easily as good as it does on 1024 max on my gaming rig. And q4 looks almost identical with my gaming rig (max everything, 1024).