-
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?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ponyo
Lifer
Some older games like Mafia, No One Lives Forever 2, GTA: Vice City, and Quake3 support 2048x1536 natively. Others you can hack ini or cfg file to run it at that resolution.
I go back and forth between my CRT and LCD. Some games look better on LCD at 1600x1200 and I use it as primary for those games. Believe it or not, I actually prefer playing Doom3 on my 2001FP at 1600x1200. It's lot brighter and I can actually see things. For others I use my CRT and switch to dynamic mode and play at 1600x1200 or higher. That's the beauty of LCD/CRT combo. 🙂
I go back and forth between my CRT and LCD. Some games look better on LCD at 1600x1200 and I use it as primary for those games. Believe it or not, I actually prefer playing Doom3 on my 2001FP at 1600x1200. It's lot brighter and I can actually see things. For others I use my CRT and switch to dynamic mode and play at 1600x1200 or higher. That's the beauty of LCD/CRT combo. 🙂
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
I'm a "framerate is everything" kind of guy when it comes to FPS games, but 2D RTS games can often benefit from greater resolution, which translates to more map real-estate onscreen at once. Running Age of Empires is infinitely better at 1280x1024 than it is at 800x600. I don't know if it will even do 1600x1200 though, I think the game engine limits it.
Dethfrumbelo
Golden Member
1600x1200 @ 2XAA would probably give the best quality/performance ratio.
My 19" monitor can do 1920x1440, but the rest of my hardware is only up to 1024x768 most of the time.
Just for laughs, I've tried 1920 with 4xAA on some games, and while it runs like a slideshow, everything is absolutely jaggy-free.
My 19" monitor can do 1920x1440, but the rest of my hardware is only up to 1024x768 most of the time.
Just for laughs, I've tried 1920 with 4xAA on some games, and while it runs like a slideshow, everything is absolutely jaggy-free.
AA is really not necessary at resolutions of 1600x1200 and above. It's whole purpose is to reduce jaggies that happen more the lower the resolution is. The difference @ high resolutions with and without AA are barely noticeable in most games, and not worth the performance hit IMO.
🙂
ssvegeta1010
Platinum Member
i have no monitors capable of over 1400x1050 (15" SXGA+ laptop) and the difference of 10x7 to 12x10 is amazing, but a major FPS hit
PoopyPants
Platinum Member
the difference from other resolutions to 16x12 is night an day PLUS and most people dont realise this,, but AA and AF are NOT bloody needed when you run at 16x12.
most people think that the brand new x800 or 6800 can run 1600x1200 with full aa or af but thats a lie,, they cant.
1600x1200 requires no Antialaising and MINIMAL AF at best. its just a fact, and people who disagree are lieing, its not needed. if you turn on AA and your running 1600x1200 then your fooling yourself. if you think it looks better, your fooling yourself.
of course the downside is yes it is a big performance hit, but NOT as much as if you were running 1024x768 with AA and AF turned on.
i play ALL games at 16x12 except doom 3 and riddick ( a few recent racing games have been pretty beefy so i go to 1280 or 1024 but i dont tweak them too much., and riddick is harder on my 6800 GT than doom 3 is believe it or not that unreal 2 engine is a friggin beast.!!. but everyday gaming for doom i play 1280x1024 just to relax the video a little bit. unless its not an issue and riddick for optimal frames per second i only play at 1024x768.
its a personal prefferance, but 1600x1200 is the way to go. if your hardware can handle it.
most people think that the brand new x800 or 6800 can run 1600x1200 with full aa or af but thats a lie,, they cant.
1600x1200 requires no Antialaising and MINIMAL AF at best. its just a fact, and people who disagree are lieing, its not needed. if you turn on AA and your running 1600x1200 then your fooling yourself. if you think it looks better, your fooling yourself.
of course the downside is yes it is a big performance hit, but NOT as much as if you were running 1024x768 with AA and AF turned on.
i play ALL games at 16x12 except doom 3 and riddick ( a few recent racing games have been pretty beefy so i go to 1280 or 1024 but i dont tweak them too much., and riddick is harder on my 6800 GT than doom 3 is believe it or not that unreal 2 engine is a friggin beast.!!. but everyday gaming for doom i play 1280x1024 just to relax the video a little bit. unless its not an issue and riddick for optimal frames per second i only play at 1024x768.
its a personal prefferance, but 1600x1200 is the way to go. if your hardware can handle it.
johnsquare
Junior Member
for the avid gamer... they need it indeed... for the gamer who just loves to pass time... i dont think so... considering the money you'll be spending for it... 😀
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
