Difference of 1440x900 gamiing compared to higher res?

[Yuriman]

Something that's capable of a higher resolution than your display (albeit with a small screen when in 16:9 or 16:10). This baby can do 2048x1536.

I have an IBM P275 as my 2nd monitor. 2048x1536 @ 75hz = win.

 

[Grinja]

In the dropdown menu choose "Desktops & Displays"

Right-click on your monitor in the list bar at the bottom - a menu opens - choose configure.

Image scaling is on the first tab that opens (Attributes).

I don't know why they've changed CCC to make everything so hard to find.

Thanks for that.
For some reason mine is greyed out, I'm sure I was able to enable it a few months ago.

 

[Spoooon]

FWIW, when I moved from a 19 inch 1440x900 LCD to 1680x1050, it did not make the difference between playable and not playable.

I don't remember what video card I had though.

 

[TemjinGold]

not really. a 22inch screen with a 1680x1050 res is going to look basically identical to a 19inch screen with 1440x900. now it being physically larger will be helpful of course but its still the exact same info being displayed for the game.

now if you had a 19inch screen with 1680x1050 then things would look a little crisper and have less aliasing than a 1440x900 on the same size monitor.

You're thinking FPS games. That's why I said RTS games.

 

[damage424]

Gaming on my 19" 1440x900 LCD, I can max out all the settings on recent games. I don't see any jaggy lines, and everything looks great. I always wondered how much better it can look then this if I went to a larger screen and higher res.

 

[v8envy]

Something that's capable of a higher resolution than your display (albeit with a small screen when in 16:9 or 16:10). This baby can do 2048x1536.

More importantly, something with good black levels and color uniformity. And the ability to run at more than 60 frames/second.

I miss my CRT.

 

[Arkaign]

not really. a 22inch screen with a 1680x1050 res is going to look basically identical to a 19inch screen with 1440x900. now it being physically larger will be helpful of course but its still the exact same info being displayed for the game.

now if you had a 19inch screen with 1680x1050 then things would look a little crisper and have less aliasing than a 1440x900 on the same size monitor.

Erm. 1680x1050 or 1920x1080/1200 is a huge advantage in FPS as you can pick out small details to snipe at Sometimes you're aiming at just a handful of pixels, and with a lower res, you can't even make thinks out at that distance.

 

[toyota]

Erm. 1680x1050 or 1920x1080/1200 is a huge advantage in FPS as you can pick out small details to snipe at Sometimes you're aiming at just a handful of pixels, and with a lower res, you can't even make thinks out at that distance.

maybe if you are talking about different resolutions on the same size monitor. if you are claiming that there is an detail advantage on a 24 inch monitor with 1920x1080 over a 19inch with 1440x900 then I dont think so. heck dont most competitive gamers use a low res most of the time anyway?

 

[crisium]

Yup, to ensure that even the lowest lows of minimum framerate drops remain extremely high.

 

[Arkaign]

Yup, to ensure that even the lowest lows of minimum framerate drops remain extremely high.

Depends on the game though. Load up BF2 to see what I'm talking about, preferably a SP game where you can spot something at a great distance. At 1920x1200, you can see a soldier several hundred meters away, and scope/snipe him easy. At 1440x900, the ability to see small things at distance is greatly reduced. Instead of say 9x6 pixels for the area in question, it's more like 7x4 .. making it a bit harder to distinguish an enemy from just another blob in the distance. It's a small difference, but it helps.

Of course, framerate is even more important, but if it stays 100+, then you want as high a resolution as possible.

I think an easier way to explain it is that a high resolution doesn't change your FOV, unless you're going to a different aspect ratio altogether. So you're still looking at :

/-----------------\


\-----------------/

As your viewing area. What is within the viewing area is seen with greater detail with a higher resolution. When you get really low, like 1280x800, spotting a sniper on the top of a rooftop becomes pretty much worthless.

 

[BFG10K]

There’s a massive difference between 2560x1600 and 1920x1200, much less something prehistoric like 1440x900.

And yes, higher resolutions make distant objects clearer and easier to see, among other things.

 

[toyota]

There’s a massive difference between 2560x1600 and 1920x1200, much less something prehistoric like 1440x900.

And yes, higher resolutions make distant objects clearer and easier to see, among other things.

what if you had a small monitor with 1440x900 that actually has a tighter dot pitch than a larger monitor with 1920x1200? how would possibly you see more detail just because its 1920x1200? it seems like it has to be the resolution in relation to the monitor size that would have to do with having more detail or crisper image.

 

[AzN]

the pixels dont look big at all to me because those monitors are only 19 inches. after all its the resolution in relation to the size of the monitor that matters isnt it?

Right. Pixel pitch is what makes the pixels look big or smaller not resolution.

If you have a smaller monitor with high resolution the pixels look small and more detailed while bigger monitor with same resolution looks big and ugly and need more AA than the smaller monitor.

 

[Arkaign]

what if you had a small monitor with 1440x900 that actually has a tighter dot pitch than a larger monitor with 1920x1200? how would possibly you see more detail just because its 1920x1200? it seems like it has to be the resolution in relation to the monitor size that would have to do with having more detail or crisper image.

Well, larger monitors let you sit back a little bit compared to smaller ones, even if the resolution is the same.

The reason you can see more at a higher resolution is because more pixels are used to draw the same amount of gamespace in your display area for a given object, all other things being equal. More pixels = more detail, and this makes identifying enemies and objects at a large in-game distance easier.

In other words, if you were standing in a FPS game with a very long view distance, such as BF2 (and presumably BF3 when that hits), and you looked at say a tank at 100m at 1920x1200, it would look pretty much identical to looking at a tank at 70m on a 1440x900 display, as far as detail for that object goes. Getting further into this, like I said earlier, looking at an object 300m+ away on a higher res display (2560 is amazing for this), you can clearly distinguish an enemy infantry unit crouching beside a tree or over the edge of a rooftop, whereas on the lower-res display it will more likely appear as a blob of pixels mixing in with everything else, and if it's not moving, you're going to be hard pressed to see it. This is really critical to those flying around in helis and jets looking for little ground targets as they pass over.

Even at interim spaces of 50m-100m, having the higher resolution makes it easier to target tasty hitboxes like the heads of enemy infantry, but when you really start to get closer, yeah then resolution starts to become less important. For an FPS like the olden days such as Quake1, with much less environmental detail and obstacles, and with vastly reduced distances, there wasn't a giant difference for someone playing say 1024x768 vs. 1600x1200.

 

[Arkaign]

Right. Pixel pitch is what makes the pixels look big or smaller not resolution.

If you have a smaller monitor with high resolution the pixels look small and more detailed while bigger monitor with same resolution looks big and ugly and need more AA than the smaller monitor.

I think someone may be confusing the 'look' vs. actually being able to distinguish objects at distance due to resolution difference.

If you're standing in the exact same spot in-game, if the viewing distance from the player's perspective is the same, the higher resolution setting will allow you to locate and identify objects that are either difficult or impossible with the lower resolution setting, so long as you're comparing apples to apples.

Not talking about pixel pitch, screen size, but rather how much space the game engine has to work with in terms of showing an object on screen.

 

[AzN]

I think someone may be confusing the 'look' vs. actually being able to distinguish objects at distance due to resolution difference.

If you're standing in the exact same spot in-game, if the viewing distance from the player's perspective is the same, the higher resolution setting will allow you to locate and identify objects that are either difficult or impossible with the lower resolution setting, so long as you're comparing apples to apples.

Not talking about pixel pitch, screen size, but rather how much space the game engine has to work with in terms of showing an object on screen.

I think it's not apples to apples to compare a 19" screen that does 1440x900 and then compare it to 1920x1200 24" screen only to realize objects seem bigger because of resolution when the screen size is also at play.

 

[AzN]

This was just a bad example.. This is similar to photography than to do with monitors.

 

[Barfo]

can you see further from the 1080p vs 720p?

Looking from the same monitor and just changing resolution from 1080p to 720p I can not tell the difference nor can I see further at higher resolution. Although 1080p is more detailed.

Even though the objects are at the same distance, the look much clearer in 1080p and thus they're easier to hit.

 

[happy medium]

The top picture looks much closer to me and more detail.

 

[zerocool84]

Even though the objects are at the same distance, the look much clearer in 1080p and thus they're easier to hit.

Exactly

It'll be much clearer and easier to see things from any distance.

 

[AzN]

Even though the objects are at the same distance, the look much clearer in 1080p and thus they're easier to hit.

I don't see further with 1080p or is it harder for me to identify objects same distance although I see more detail with 1080p with the same monitor I have now. It's a little different when using a smaller monitor to view the 720p as the details are squished into the smaller monitor.

I've put multiple LCD monitors side by side while gaming showing exactly the same thing on screen. The detail seems exactly same to me. Smaller monitor 1440x900 and the larger doing 1920x1080 and can't tell the difference other than that 1080p monitor is bigger.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't see further with 1080p or is it harder for me to identify objects same distance although I see more detail with 1080p with the same monitor I have now. It's a little different when using a smaller monitor to view the 720p as the details are squished into the smaller monitor.

I've put multiple LCD monitors side by side while gaming showing exactly the same thing on screen. The detail seems exactly same to me. Smaller monitor 1440x900 and the larger doing 1920x1080 and can't tell the difference other than that 1080p monitor is bigger.

 

[Dribble]

Biggest difference is when you are not gaming. Windows is much more pleasant to use with really high res screens - there's just much more space for more windows.

 

[gorobei]

assuming the game caps at a fixed fov and the same aspect ratio monitors, the difference is how many pixels you have to aim with. at the same position on both screens, a 14x9 monitor may draw the enemy soldier 4 pixels tall with a 1 pixel head while a 19x12 monitor will draw him maybe 9 pixels tall with a 3 pixel head. if the game has bullet drop, you have to figure out a sight offset to counter bullet drop to get the hit. more pixels gives you finer control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrKcFnO2fyk&NR=1
watch @ 6 min mark. the grid represents your monitor granularity. a higher res monitor would give you a smaller grid and more angles to offset to get the elevation right.

since the smallest increment you can turn the view camera is one pixel. more pixels allows you to turn more precisely. mind you this is really only applicable in sniping and in games with massive 2km maps and real bullet physics like BF2 which allow 900m shots. point and shoot games like cod have no need for this.

 

[BFG10K]

what if you had a small monitor with 1440x900 that actually has a tighter dot pitch than a larger monitor with 1920x1200? how would possibly you see more detail just because its 1920x1200?

Pixel pitch only affects how big the pixels are. It has absolutely no affect on how many pixels can be allocated to draw an object. Only pixel count can affect that.

Having a smaller pixel pitch doesn’t necessarily mean the image will have more detail. Which do you think will display more detail: a 4x3 display with a .00001 mm pixel pitch, or 2560x1600 display with a .20 mm pixel pitch?

The more pixels you have, the better rasterization works because the closer screen space gets to world space. The pixel pitch is irrelevant here; all that matters for this particular equation is the raw pixel count. Higher resolutions make it easier to see and distinguish objects, especially at longer distances.

Also on any display, any object which is mapped to less than one pixel width/height may not even be drawn. A higher resolution has more chance of drawing it because it has a larger pixel budget, and hence there’s more chance it’ll be mapped to at least one pixel width/height.

This applies to anything being rendered in 3D (effects, textures, etc), not just objects.