• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is 1600x1200 really necessary?

SonicIce

SonicIce

Diamond Member
Why spend $400 on a 6800GT because it can play at higher resolutions? You could spend like $200 on a 6600GT that can play any game at 1024x768 just fine. The extra $200 you saved could go towards a nice set of speakers and you would have an better gaming experience than crappy speakers at higher resolution. Does 1600x1200 look that much better than a resolution like 1024x768 or 1280x1024?
 
My monitor does 16x12 but at a crappy refresh rate. So I limit myself to 12x10 which still looks great, especially with a little AA/AF thrown on top.
 
Well ok but lets see you say the same thing when in a year or less you have to start turning a lot of things down and the res lower.

We can buy better cards now and have them look better and run smoother now and last longer. And yes 1600 x 1200 looks tons better on a good monitor. (although I run most my games at 1280 x 960. I find it to be a very good balance).
 
It depends if you run on a LCD and what size monitor you have. And it also just feel good to play at maximum setting. (But not woth the xtra money IMHO, so I'll be a happy 9800pro gamer for yet a year 🙂)
 
wait 3-4 month, less that price drop.. so what if you're playing doom 3, 6month behind.. use that money to invest and hopefully you can double it.. :0
 
Yep. I was stunned at the difference in Doom 3. At XGA I was saying to myself, "What's the fuss all about?" At UXGA the game is stunning.
 
Yes, there is a huge difference between 1024x768 and 1600x1200. The graphics don't look as "squished" and jaggy when at 1600x1200 resolution. If you personally can't tell a difference between the two resolutions:

1.) You need a better monitor.
2.) Your eyes need to be examined. Go to your local eye doctor to get them checked out.
 
Another reason is if you're using an LCD. I think a good number of ATers have the Dell 2001FP, and while it scales better than a lot of other LCDs, games look best at 800x600 or 1600x1200. So if you dropped $560-1000 on an LCD, $400 on a video card to pair with it probably isn't that big a deal.
 
Originally posted by: Naustica
I'll stick with 320x240.
Click to expand...
And software rendered.

But seriously, in 1998 I had a friend who played Quake2 on his junker 233 MHz Cyrix MII. He could only get about 10fps at 320x240 software rendered. I gave him my old PCI VooDoo1 and he was able to play at hardware 640x480... but still 10fps. The quality difference was huge!

(Amazingly, he was still a very good player in some of our early LAN parties in 320x240 mode! Guess hardware doesn't make skill after all!)
 
I don't think I will be able to play games at 1024x768 after running 1600x1200... There are so many Jaggies even with a decent amount of AA withthat low of a resolution.
 
Most monitors don't really support high resolutions that well, I think it will be at least 2-3 years before 16x12 becomes near standard because games are constantly released that force us to run them at lower resolutions 640x480 800x600 and 1024x768 will be around A LONG LONG time. More processing intensive the game = less resolution you can play it at.
 
Originally posted by: Gannon
Most monitors don't really support high resolutions that well, I think it will be at least 2-3 years before 16x12 becomes near standard because games are constantly released that force us to run them at lower resolutions 640x480 800x600 and 1024x768 will be around A LONG LONG time. More processing intensive the game = less resolution you can play it at.
Click to expand...

Most LCD's don't do very high resolution CRT's are great at them. My 19" CRT does 16x12 and a 19" LCD only does 12x10
 
Gaming? 10x7 is for suckas just like lcds.... 22" diamondpro and 16x12 is where it's at!!!
 
22" diamondpro and 16x12 is where it's at!!!
Click to expand...

Not quite, 2048x1536 on a 22" DP and then you are talking 😀

Edit-Forgot to mention, 1600x1200 is good for when you are forced to run low resolutions because of framerate limitations. Of course, it doesn't look nearly as good as running 20x15 or 19x14, but at least it's tollerable in a pinch or if you are on a very small display(17" or less).
 
Why spend $200 on a set of speakers because it can play at slightly lower distortions? You could spend like $20 on a CA-3000 that can play any game music just fine. The extra $180 you saved could go towards a nice set of knockers and you would have an better life experience than crappy sex with slightly better music. Does 5.1 sound that much better than a speaker like 2.1?
 
I don't think I've ever gamed at 1600x1200. I usually do 800x600 to get decent performance, 1024x768 when I'm feeling spunky and wanna watch a slideshow. But I guess that's what happens when you spend your money on other things than PC hardware. Ok back to ATOT for me...
 
I play Doom 3 at 12x10 res/high detail on a 9800 Pro just fine, no need for me to go drop another 400+ dollars on a video card...
 
It's not only jaggies, but the lack of information at 1024x768. The objects are a lot more detailed and textures are a lot more clearer in 1600x1200. Which is why you need a 400 dollar video card to render a game for 1600x1200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top