Difference of 1440x900 gamiing compared to higher res?

[AzN]

Waste of bandwidth.

So tell me how am I doing it wrong when I put the monitors side by side and the details look exactly the same to me? I can't identity better with higher resolution monitor but the objects are bigger because the monitor is bigger. In my case the smaller monitor had higher detail because the smaller monitor was better quality.

 

[AzN]

dp

 

[zerocool84]

Waste of bandwidth.

So tell me how am I doing it wrong when I put the monitors side by side and the details look exactly the same to me? I can't identity better with higher resolution monitor but the objects are bigger because the monitor is bigger. In my case the smaller monitor had higher detail because the smaller monitor was better quality.

BFG10K's post was a fairly good rundown of it all. I actually just upgraded today from a 19" 1280x1024 to a 23" 1920x1080 and I can definitely tell the difference in the resolution in games.

 

[Phil1977]

Where does one turn on GPU scaling in the newer Catalyst Control Center?

I want to know this too...

Sorry for the late reply...

I'm Austrian, so excuse my poor english...

I hope you can make sense of this:

I run 9.12 drivers...

Ok you go into CCC.

Graphics > Desktops & Display

At the bottom you will see a icon representing your LCD. Note the little arrow. Click on it...

Select configure...

There will be a section "Image Scaling" and a tick box "Enable GPU scaling" and 3 settings...

Now by default the tickbox is grayed out. This is just a bug...

What you need to do is lower your desktop resolution until it's not greyed out anymore... (Meaning you lower your desktop resolution BEFORE you go into CCC).

Not every desktop resolution does the trick. In my case it was 1280 x 768...

Then tick the box and select "Use centered timings"...

Click ok, set your desktop resolution back to native, and you are done!

Let me know how you go!

Thats how I play BF2142...

1024 x 768 on my 18.5" LCD (1366 x 768) native...

I have no opted to run 2x AA but Super Sampling... Looks nicer than 4x MSAA when in motion... 4x MSAA gives you slight shimmering in some areas when the image moves.

EDIT: And regarding the ongoing debate: Obviously a higher resolution will allow you to see more details. And if I had the choice I would get a Full HD screen and a Radeon 5870 or 5970. BUT I am cheap bastard and hence I game on a 18.5" LCD with a Radeon 5750

If you don't game you would be nuts not to buy a Full HD screen. They are cheap as chips and any onboard soltuion can drive them just fine.

 

[Arkaign]

Waste of bandwidth.

So tell me how am I doing it wrong when I put the monitors side by side and the details look exactly the same to me? I can't identity better with higher resolution monitor but the objects are bigger because the monitor is bigger. In my case the smaller monitor had higher detail because the smaller monitor was better quality.

Heh, nothing personal, it's just that it's been explained over and over. Just because you can't personally see things with your eyes doesn't mean they're not there. BFG covered it well.

It's not that having a higher resolution means that your in-game viewing distance is increased, both settings will attempt to render the exact same image, but with fewer pixels to draw a particular item, it's less likely for things at the furthest reaches of that distance to get enough pixels to make any sense.

 

[AzN]

Heh, nothing personal, it's just that it's been explained over and over. Just because you can't personally see things with your eyes doesn't mean they're not there. BFG covered it well.

It's not that having a higher resolution means that your in-game viewing distance is increased, both settings will attempt to render the exact same image, but with fewer pixels to draw a particular item, it's less likely for things at the furthest reaches of that distance to get enough pixels to make any sense.

Doesn't bigger monitors need more pixels to fill the screen to have same pixels per inch as the smaller monitor?

Isn't this the reason why smaller tv's/monitors look sharper than bigger tv's/monitors at same resolution?

 

[Yuriman]

Doesn't bigger monitors need more pixels to fill the screen to have same pixels per inch as the smaller monitor?

Isn't this the reason why smaller tv's/monitors look sharper than bigger tv's/monitors at same resolution?

You're missing the point. The reason a larger display seems less sharp is because you're seeing the same detail over a larger area.

 

[AzN]

You're missing the point. The reason a larger display seems less sharp is because you're seeing the same detail over a larger area.

That's not exactly everything that I was asking. Read the first question and answer that first.

Now if the monitor is the same size you have an advantage with higher resolution and I don't doubt that.

Think pixels per inch on screen. Let's say the bigger monitor might have 10000 pixels per inch and have more inches to come up with higher resolution and the smaller monitor might have 11000 pixels per inch but less inches squared to come up with lower resolution. Wouldn't the 11000 pixels per inch identify objects better than the 10000 pixels per inch?

 

[AzN]

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?

I don't think that's entirely right. Pixel pitch or dot pitch generally produces a sharper image as there are more pixels in a given area.

 

[edplayer]

Wouldn't the 11000 pixels per inch identify objects better than the 10000 pixels per inch?

no.

 

[AzN]

no.

Can you elaborate why? Everyone is saying more pixels the better but here you are saying less pixels is better?

You need to elaborate so even I can understand. Not your "personal" opinion on the matter.

 

[Yuriman]

Look at it this way: a pixel is the basic building block of an image. Any two images with the same number of building blocks will have exactly the same detail, regardless of how large those blocks are. Therefore a screen with the same resolution (number of blocks it can build an image with) with display the same level of detail, regardless of its size. A screen with more blocks will show more detail, regardless of size.

 

[AzN]

Look at it this way: a pixel is the basic building block of an image. Any two images with the same number of building blocks will have exactly the same detail, regardless of how large those blocks are. Therefore a screen with the same resolution (number of blocks it can build an image with) with display the same level of detail, regardless of its size. A screen with more blocks will show more detail, regardless of size.

I understand the basics but we are talking about monitors of different sizes here not just resolution.

Can you answer what was asked in my reply to you? Particularly pixels per square inch and how that translates to details or identifying objects.

 

[AzN]

BFG10K's post was a fairly good rundown of it all. I actually just upgraded today from a 19" 1280x1024 to a 23" 1920x1080 and I can definitely tell the difference in the resolution in games.

You know why you could tell the 23" monitor seemed to have more detail?

A 1280x1024 19" monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.294

A 1920x1080 23" monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.265

Your 23" monitor is showing more pixels per square inch than your 19" monitor.

 

[betasub]

I understand the basics but we are talking about monitors of different sizes here not just resolution.

Your comparison is confused by changing two (largely independent) variables at the same time. Stick to changing just one of size or resolution to make a straight comparison.

 

[edplayer]

Can you elaborate why? Everyone is saying more pixels the better but here you are saying less pixels is better?

You need to elaborate so even I can understand. Not your "personal" opinion on the matter.

I answered your question, I didn't say less pixels were better.

Are you acting retarded to just argue over the internet or do you truly not understand what is going on here? I have seen lots of your posts and you have a decent grasp of computer and I see here, of dpi, so I'm not sure if you are just spamming up these boards. I'll play along for now.



Lets keep aspect ratios the same to make it easy

A 1440x900 monitor has 1,296,000 points of information on it.

A 1920x1200 monitor has 2,304,000 points of information on it.

They are both 16x10 aspect ratio meaning you will see the same field of view (horizontally and vertically) on both of them regardless of what size the screens are. The 1920x1200 monitor has almost 78% more information on it.

"Pixels per inch" only tells you how big the pixels are, not much much detail there is (which resolution does tell you). It would only matter in extreme examples. If you had 2.3 million pixels on a 3 inch screen, it may be too small to make out unless you were very close to it. If you had 2.3 million pixels on a 200 inch screen, although you have much more detail than the 1.3 million pixel screen, the total of information would be spread out so widely that it would likely be less effective to gather all the information in a timely manner (as in your brain processing it) unless you were positioned far enough away.

Not stop acting retarded...

Everyone, please refrain from any personal attacks in the technical forums, such as that which I italicized above. Thanks, -Admin DrPizza

 

[AzN]

nV

 

[Phil1977]

Hi AzN!

How are you? I know it can be hard when you try to get your head around something and you are stuck somewhere and can't break the loop...

Pixel pitch is an interesting figure, but it combines 2 variables in one figure and that makes it hard to get your head around the concept...

I give you an easy example...

You go into a shop and you buy a 21.5" monitor with 1920 x 1080 pixels and also a 24" with 1920 x 1080 pixels... Now please note that the resolution is the same, but the size is not. And pixel pitch combines resolution and size, so pixel pitch will be different... The 21.5 has 0.248 and the 24" has 0.276 (these are real figures from Benq).

Now you hook up the monitors and launch the game...

Lets say you put the screens in clone mode (same image) and we are looking at a gaming character.

The character will be the same size in relation to the screen size. So on the 21" it will be a little bit smaller. On the 24" your character will be slightly larger...

Now you get really close and count the pixels of your gaming character. Well guess what, they end up the same!

Do you get the idea?

So yea pixel pitch can be diseaving...

Yes pixel pitch means more pixels per area. But the area also changed (because you have a larger monitor) and that makes pixel pitch diseaving...

Let me know if you got any more questions mate!

EDIT:

One more note... There is another factor here, our eyes... The 21.5" and the 24" will output the same information. But our eyes will find it easier to take in the information on the larger display (assuming you use the same viewing distance, which most people do).

On the other hand the more information you see, the more "imperfections" you will notice. And in this regard getting a smaller screen (or sitting further away) can work in your favour

The most detail you will get out of a 30" LCD. They run at 2560x1600 resolution.

 

[BFG10K]

Pixel pitch or dot pitch generally produces a sharper image as there are more pixels in a given area.

Exactly, that’s the point. It’s the fact that there are more pixels in the area that there’s more detail level, not because the pixel pitch is smaller. A smaller pixel pitch simply allows the potential for more pixels in the same area, but without these extra pixels it has no effect on detail levels.

A pixel is just an RGB value which shows the same things regardless of its size (i.e. pixel pitch). It’s when pixel count goes up that you’re seeing more detail because more pixels can be allocated to draw a given object.

 

[AzN]

Now you get really close and count the pixels of your gaming character. Well guess what, they end up the same!

I don't think that's right.

A 21.5" monitor has 102.46 pixels per inch

A 24" monitor has 91.79 pixels per inch

So if the gaming character is 3" squared you would see less pixels with the bigger monitor.

 

[AzN]

Exactly, that’s the point. It’s the fact that there are more pixels in the area that there’s more detail level, not because the pixel pitch is smaller. A smaller pixel pitch simply allows the potential for more pixels in the same area, but without these extra pixels it has no effect on detail levels.

A pixel is just an RGB value which shows the same things regardless of its size (i.e. pixel pitch). It’s when pixel count goes up that you’re seeing more detail because more pixels can be allocated to draw a given object.

If higher resolution have more detail wouldn't more pixels in a given area have the same effect?

 

[deimos3428]

I'm not so sure more pixels is better for games. Probably depends on the game.

You get more detail in each frame, but it certainly doesn't make you a better player. I'm actually in the habit of turning the res down to increase the fps, because more frames is definitely better than not enough when you're in a first person shooter. (Anytime I need to hit something really far away, I usually have an in-game scope.)

 

[Yuriman]

If higher resolution have more detail wouldn't more pixels in a given area have the same effect?

It depends on what area the game is stretched over.

20 pixels on one screen = 20 pixels on any other screen, the question is how much of the game or image has to be displayed by those 20 pixels.

Having a higher resolution monitor means that you have more pixels dedicated to rendering a percent of the total image.

 

[Phil1977]

I don't think that's right.

A 21.5" monitor has 102.46 pixels per inch

A 24" monitor has 91.79 pixels per inch

So if the gaming character is 3" squared you would see less pixels with the bigger monitor.

You forget that the gaming character is also larger on the bigger monitor!

Does it click now?

The gaming characters are not the same sizes! If you watch news on a 32" TV and then on a 50" TV the news guy is bigger on the 50".

I hope this resolves the knot in your thinking..

 

[Arkaign]

I'm not so sure more pixels is better for games. Probably depends on the game.

You get more detail in each frame, but it certainly doesn't make you a better player. I'm actually in the habit of turning the res down to increase the fps, because more frames is definitely better than not enough when you're in a first person shooter. (Anytime I need to hit something really far away, I usually have an in-game scope.)

Yeah, it totally depends on the game. Certain games it really makes a giant difference.

I keep bringing of BF2 (there are others as well, such as Arma 2, but that plays like shit), because there are a lot of situations where you'll be carrying a non-scoped weapon and suddenly need to use it for an enemy a good distance away. For example I'll be an Anti-Tank guy with a shotgun (useless for long distance), and I don't want to necessarily waste my RPG rounds on foot soldiers, so I'll pop out my pistol and I can cap people at a shocking distance with it. Even when you are using a scope, having the ability to pick out a protruding head or body part just on the edge of cover is also handy. It's a lot easier when you have a really high resolution to play with.

Not many FPS games have that kind of draw/engage distance though. I'd say 1440x900 is more than enough for a lot of them, particularly those with lots of rapid close-quarters action and relatively little long-distance engagements.