In my opinion, 1600x1200 is a little high for a 19" CRT (and 72Hz is lower than I'd want to run on a CRT too). I used to have a 22" CRT for a little while and found 1600x1200 (either at 85Hz, or all the way up to 109Hz) to be the best resolution as far as "size" of the pixels on that size monitor. 1280x960 would probably be good for a 19" CRT.
In my opinion, 1600x1200 is a little high for a 19" CRT (and 72Hz is lower than I'd want to run on a CRT too). I used to have a 22" CRT for a little while and found 1600x1200 (either at 85Hz, or all the way up to 109Hz) to be the best resolution as far as "size" of the pixels on that size monitor. 1280x960 would probably be good for a 19" CRT.
JimmyH
Member
- Jul 13, 2000
- 182
- 12
- 81
Low rez will always be an advantage w/ online fps. Not just the high fps but varience in fps when the action gets hot will ruin your aim. Given your 6600gt, you outta consider 6x4 or 8x6 w/ low settings, no AA or AF for maximum competitiveness.
Cygnus, what rez did you run q3dm17, the longest yard at?
Cygnus, what rez did you run q3dm17, the longest yard at?
I run Q4 at max settings, 4AAA and 8AF 2 1280*1024 and never go below 30fps. I went into my config file and turned on caching, and set it to 196mb for caching and 2024kb min. file size. I ususally stay at 60fps and 30-40ish in firefights. This is only for the first few hours. I turned off the fps as it was annoying me but it runs the same as far as I can tell for the rest. This is with the system in my sig.
In fear I have to turn most things to medium and run it at 2AAA and @1280*720. I just pretend that I am playing fear on a 17'widescreen monitor
Originally posted by: JimmyH
Low rez will always be an advantage w/ online fps. Not just the high fps but varience in fps when the action gets hot will ruin your aim. Given your 6600gt, you outta consider 6x4 or 8x6 w/ low settings, no AA or AF for maximum competitiveness.
Cygnus, what rez did you run q3dm17, the longest yard at?
Low settings can help if you want to maintain good framerate, but at 800x600 or 640x480(!), the display is so blocky that it becomes difficult to accurately pick out targets at range. And that's NOT good for competitiveness (or at least for my general playing abilities). This isn't *so* bad in CS, since the maps are relatively small (so you're rarely engaging anyone at super-long distances), but in a game like Unreal Tournament [insert version here], it can make things difficult.
A 6600GT shouldn't have any problems with CS:S at 1280x960 or even 1600x1200, as long as detail settings aren't cranked all the way up and AA/AF are off.
I don't like ignorant people, and I don't drink coffee.
The resolution thing is so simple, I don't understand how people don't understand it.
Stop bashing high resolution u ass-wipe with weak sh1t, 1700x1280 2x AA and 8x AF's performance equal to 1360x1040 4x AA and 8x AF in Doom 3/Quake4, this is a fact I've tested my self with the game, and quite frankly they both look the same in some situations, but I like 1700x1280 more my self because it looks better when I try to look into some 1s face far ranges.
I never gotten drunk before, and I never been with a hooker, not sure about you though.
I guess the word "Hooker" poped on ur mind because you've been with so much of them.
Hey ignorant ever heard of nVidia screen resolution and refresh rates panel? It allows you to add custom resolutions of your choice. Stupid people :roll:
http://img358.imageshack.us/my.php?image=add13pb.jpg
omgur2kewl.
Everyone knows you can use custom resolutions. But you are acting as if the resolutions you are stating and using for comparisons are what everyone uses. No one cares if 1700x1280 with 2xAA is equal to 1360x1040 with 4x. Besides, those resolutions aren't even the correct aspect ratio, hence they are MADE UP.
Alright u know what I used 1600x1200 2x AA vs 1280x960 4x AA which is the perfect 4:3 aspect ratio, guess what their performance is still just about the same.
Ur right, every 1 knows, but YOU didn't until, I told you. And no 1 cares about what you have to say because U havn't said a single helpful thing in this thread.
OMG ur either too stupid or retarded to realize my point, all I was saying is that High resolution + 2x AA is equal to low resolution + High AA in performance or better performance in some minimum framrate situations, and quite frankly it's always better to run at a higher resolution.
And sometimes you don't always need 4:3 aspect ratio to play Mr. omgur2kewl kthx, why do you think 1280x1024 exist for for game playing even though iz 3.75:3 aspect ratio and not 1280x960 which equals to perfect 4:3.
Doom3/Quake 4 can run at any resolution u want it to run u have to modify the autoexec.cfg, Source can run at almost any resolution, F.E.A.R can run at any resolution too if you know how.
I'm gonna test F.E.A.R. and post some screenshots just to shut ur ass up little stupid boy.
http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1600x12002xaa27px.jpg thaz 1600x1200 2x AA
http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12804xaa39sw.jpg thaz 1280x960 4x AA
during gameplay there is nearly no performance difference at all between both resolution and AA settings.
http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12804xaa39sw.jpg thaz 1280x960 4x AA
during gameplay there is nearly no performance difference at all between both resolution and AA settings.
QFT
except I am running at 1920 X1200
I love it myself. I try and game at native if I can but going down to 1600 X 1200 on the 2405fpw doesn't degrade too badly. I haven't really tried 1024 X 768. I guess I could ...
Originally posted by: CP5670
You could say that.
My monitor has LCD-like sharpness at 1600x1200 and still looks very good at 2048x1536, but the text size becomes too small at either resolution (the viewable area is 20"). You can increase the font size or the dpi, but that only affects some of the text and can cause things to get misaligned. The dpi setting also had a weird effect on IE and Firefox on my laptop, causing all the graphics to get pixellated for some reason.
Same with my LCD, My desktop is keep at 800x600 and all my games are at 1280x1024
No need to kill the AF! It barely has an impact on performance...
With that said, I'd probably go for the 16X12 one, if for no other reason than because it's basically my LCD's native resolution (1680X1050), so it will look much better to run it @ native res with no AA than to run it at a lower res with AA.
Besides, you can usually enable 2x AA with virtually no performance hit and that will get rid of most of the edge crawl, which, combined with the increase in resolution, will probably look better than the lower res with 4X AA anyways...
For once I agree with gtx4u. I personally have just found higher resolution to look better than lower res + AA. Definitely keep the AF on though; otherwise the textures look like crap once you look in in the distance...
Ever hear of anger management?
Oh, and a small tip for you, no one is impressed at how tough and smart you think you are, in fact, when most of us read the things you write we tend to ignore you because you present yourself as being somewhat stupid and arrogant. I'd like to think thats not the case, but that is how you come off. I'm not sure why you feel the need to insult someone because they dissagree with you, but I assure you, every time you do it the value of your opinions is reduced.
I don't know what his problem is either...
Look at the end of the page linked below, it's pathetic really but not as bad as what happened in this thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter