Difference of 1440x900 gamiing compared to higher res?

[Arkaign]

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

You have to compare apples to apples, at the same exact in-game position, the higher-resolution screen will always have more pixels to define a given object. Forget area, forget pixel density, as all of that is somewhat subjective to how close you sit to the screen.

Have you ever played a portable FPS on an iphone? They have ridiculously high pixel density, but the lack of ultimate resolution means that objects in the distance aren't really rendered in any recognizable way.

 

[Grinja]

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.

Thanks for this... was wondering why the option was greyed out.
I had to use 1440x900 for it to work for me.

 

[hotpursuit]

I have a 23' 1920X1080 monitor. When I play GTA4 on 1920X1080 my FPS is like 28-33. Smooth. I turn down the resolution to 1440X900 and I get 31-36 average. So i would say roughly 5 FPS increase for me. With cod6, maxed out, absolutely no lag. @1440X900 i cant see that much performance increase in this game than running it on 1920X1080.

 

[damage424]

GTAIV on 1990x400 for me goes anywhere from 25-70 fps, roughly. All the settings are nearly maxed out on my 4850.

This thread sure does confuse me though!

 

[deimos3428]

GTAIV on 1990x400

That's some ultra-wide-screen action you've got going there.

 

[BFG10K]

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

Yes, but only if the pixel count is higher; dot pitch by itself doesn't increase the detail level. Like I said, a pixel always shows the same thing regardless of its size.

Or to put it another way, a 1920x1200 display @ .20 mm shows the same content as a 1920x1220 display @ .15 mm; the latter will just have a smaller picture, and less aliasing obviously. But in terms of detail level, both will will show the same content.

 

[hotpursuit]

GTAIV on 1990x400 for me goes anywhere from 25-70 fps, roughly. All the settings are nearly maxed out on my 4850.

This thread sure does confuse me though!

??!!!! How did you do that? I've got a XFX HD4870 1GB GDDR5. How did your HD4850 get those scores? Maybe mine is underclocked?

 

[HalfCrazy]

Yesterday I went and bought a 22" widescreen lcd. Which supports VGA/DMI/HDMI and 1080p. Games are really sharp playing at 1920x1080. Using my old 20" widescreen as extended monitor.

That way I'll have little more workspace available to me.