Is it a waste to run GTX 260 216 on 22" 1680x1050 res?

[toyota]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
I don't have a clue? That's rich.

I don't disagree that smaller pixel pitch gives you some increased sharpness, but it's at a cost (everything is smaller).

Are you guys really arguing against the commonly held conception that you need less AA with a higher resolution? Given the choice between upgrading from a 16x10 panel to either a 19x12 panel with the same pixel pitch or a 16x10 panel with smaller pixel pitch you'd choose the smaller 16x10? No. Resolution trumps all.

A smaller pixel pitch is roughly equivalent to putting more distance between you and your monitor. The physical distance between pixels on your screen is *completely relative* to how far away you are. Please try to tell me that resolution is affected in the same way. Please try to tell me that a 640x480 image with 4xAA is going to have the same level of detail as a 1920x1200 image with 4xAA if you just have the right pixel pitch. Sharpness is *not* the same thing as detail. With higher detail you need less sharpness to have an equivalently acceptable image.

its all been clearly explained so what do you not get? yes AA is there to smooth out the lines and helps compensate for running a lower res. yes a higher res is sharper but if its on a much larger screen with more space between the pixels then its advantage of looking of sharper and not needing AA goes out the window. if you had a 80 inch screen with 2560 res you could see every pixel on the screen and probably need tons of AA. at the same time a 20 inch screen with a 1680 res would have a tighter pixel pitch and look sharper. my 17inch crt doesnt look as bad with 1024x768 as a 19inch crt does.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: chizow
Haven't read all the replies in detail, but Lokutus is right, increasing resolution reduces aliasing by increasing the number of samples, which is exactly what FSAA does, just using different sampling methods. An example would be using a fixed screen size then comparing a lower resolution with half the samples, which would result in a much more aliased image. FSAA uses various methods but ultimately does the same thing by increasing number of internal samples and then scaling the render output to the target resolution.

perhaps you should actually read the replies in detail. he is saying that regardless of relative size that a larger res would need less AA which is not true. a 20 inch with 1680 is indeed sharper than a 27 inch with 1920 res.

 

[chizow]

Sharpness of pixels isn't the main concern. The 20-inch would still have more aliased edges, even if they're smaller/finer than the 27-inch which would have less aliased edges, even if the pixels are larger.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: chizow
Haven't read all the replies in detail, but Lokutus is right, increasing resolution reduces aliasing by increasing the number of samples, which is exactly what FSAA does, just using different sampling methods. An example would be using a fixed screen size then comparing a lower resolution with half the samples, which would result in a much more aliased image. FSAA uses various methods but ultimately does the same thing by increasing number of internal samples and then scaling the render output to the target resolution.

perhaps you should actually read the replies in detail. he is saying that regardless of relative size that a larger res would need less AA which is not true. a 20 inch with 1680 is indeed sharper than a 27 inch with 1920 res.

This has degraded into bickering. *You* should read the replies in detail. And you should go read up on anti-aliasing, because while I (and chizow) have partly conceded your position, your statements make it apparent you don't really know what anti-aliasing is.

Go read chizow's first reply in this thread, and if you agree with what he said, then I have no issue with your position. Pixel pitch *does* increase sharpness. But it is a commonly held conception that higher resolution requires less AA to achieve the same image quality. This is, of course, subjective to a large degree. But the mechanics of how anti-aliasing works is not.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: chizow
Sharpness of pixels isn't the main concern. The 20-inch would still have more aliased edges, even if they're smaller/finer than the 27-inch which would have less aliased edges, even if the pixels are larger.

still doesnt make sense. I can prove that right now by looking at my 17inch monitor and seeing that there are hardly any jaggies at 104x768. that same 1024x768 image on a lager monitor clearly shows more jaggies.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow
Sharpness of pixels isn't the main concern. The 20-inch would still have more aliased edges, even if they're smaller/finer than the 27-inch which would have less aliased edges, even if the pixels are larger.

You'd rather have dull pixels I suppose. :laugh:

You get less aliasing on smaller monitors with same resolution as a bigger monitor. If you can't see that you obviously can't see things clearly.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: toyota
still doesnt make sense. I can prove that right now by looking at my 17inch monitor and seeing that there are hardly any jaggies at 104x768. that same 1024x768 image on a lager monitor clearly shows more jaggies.

It shouldn't make sense, as the finer pitch would have the advantage in that case as you didn't increase the resolution and samples on the larger monitor as you stated in your 20 to 27 inch comparison.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
You'd rather have dull pixels I suppose. :laugh:

You get less aliasing on smaller monitors with same resolution as a bigger monitor. If you can't see that you obviously can't see things clearly.

I'd certainly prefer dull pixels over arguing with dull minds any day.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow
Sharpness of pixels isn't the main concern. The 20-inch would still have more aliased edges, even if they're smaller/finer than the 27-inch which would have less aliased edges, even if the pixels are larger.

You'd rather have dull pixels I suppose. :laugh:

You get less aliasing on smaller monitors with same resolution as a bigger monitor. If you can't see that you obviously can't see things clearly.

Uh, no. You get the *same* aliasing. The images are the same. You're talking about zooming out. Zooming out does not change the image. It changes your perception of the image. But it doesn't change the image. This is where you guys are tripping up.

Changing the resolution changes the image. If an object in a given scene rendered inside a 100x100 block of pixels at one resolution, when you increased the resolution, you'd now have 150x150 pixels rendering that same object (or whatever, depends on the resolution change). If you concentrate on the same 10x10 block of pixels that shows the corner of a box (if the object we're talking about was a box), then yes, what you're saying would be completely true. But that is not the context. That box is now being rendered by *more* pixels, and so the one side of the box that had two very abrupt jaggies along its length, would now have 5 or 7 jaggies, making it look much more smooth. So you'd need less AA to make *the scene* have the same detail/clarity.

If you want to concentrate on a box of 10x10 pixels and argue sharpness till you're blue in the face then go ahead.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn
You'd rather have dull pixels I suppose. :laugh:

You get less aliasing on smaller monitors with same resolution as a bigger monitor. If you can't see that you obviously can't see things clearly.

I'd certainly prefer dull pixels over arguing with dull minds any day.

Aren't you happy you have both? :laugh:

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow
Sharpness of pixels isn't the main concern. The 20-inch would still have more aliased edges, even if they're smaller/finer than the 27-inch which would have less aliased edges, even if the pixels are larger.

You'd rather have dull pixels I suppose. :laugh:

You get less aliasing on smaller monitors with same resolution as a bigger monitor. If you can't see that you obviously can't see things clearly.

Uh, no. You get the *same* aliasing. The images are the same. You're talking about zooming out. Zooming out does not change the image. It changes your perception of the image. But it doesn't change the image. This is where you guys are tripping up.

Changing the resolution changes the image. If an object in a given scene rendered inside a 100x100 block of pixels at one resolution, when you increased the resolution, you'd now have 150x150 pixels rendering that same object (or whatever, depends on the resolution change). If you concentrate on the same 10x10 block of pixels that shows the corner of a box (if the object we're talking about was a box), then yes, what you're saying would be completely true. But that is not the context. That box is now being rendered by *more* pixels, and so the one side of the box that had two very abrupt jaggies along its length, would now have 5 or 7 jaggies, making it look much more smooth. So you'd need less AA to make *the scene* have the same detail/clarity.

If you want to concentrate on a box of 10x10 pixels and argue sharpness till you're blue in the face then go ahead.

No a smaller monitor at the same resolution the aliasing is less because the pixels are squeezed into a smaller monitor. Pixel pitch differentiate the the sharpness of the monitor. If you don't understand what that is I suggest you read about it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
Uh, no. You get the *same* aliasing. The images are the same. You're talking about zooming out. Zooming out does not change the image. It changes your perception of the image. But it doesn't change the image. This is where you guys are tripping up.

Exactly, I'm trying to think of another way to illustrate this for them but its obvious the point will be lost.

Here's another way to look at it.

If you take a 640x480 image, its going to look horribly aliased, regardless of what size monitor you look at it on, 17, 20, 24. That's because there are less sampled pixels making up the image to accurately render the scene.

Now if you take that same image and output at 1280x960, doubling the resolution and placing it on those same monitors, the image will be much less aliased. Even if you compare the 24" at 1280 with larger pixels to the 17" at 640 with smaller pixels, the image itself will still be less aliased on the 24" as it has more samples.

Originally posted by: Azn
Aren't you happy you have both? :laugh:

Only when you're around, proving how incompetent you are each time you post.

Anyways, here's another explanation for the more simple-minded people amongst us:

If I ask you to draw a diagonal line in a sand box, will the line look better if you used 50 rocks? Or 100 rocks? You can make the sand box bigger or smaller, it won't matter. The line with 100 rocks will always look more accurate. :laugh:

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Your rocks analogy is pretty good. They're just arguing blindly. They aren't interested in possibly learning something. So I don't care to pursue it any more.

If the OP is still paying attention to his thread that got thoroughly high-jacked, I'm struggling with the same dilemma: 22" or 24". I have my eye on a couple Dell monitors, the 2408WFP and the 2209WA. I wouldn't concern yourself with the image quality consideration. A GTX 260 216 will do fine with a 24" monitor. Will you have all the eye candy some people are obsessed with? Probably not. But the higher resolution in games, and especially the extra desktop real estate, are the winners in my mind.

Now I'm just trying to decide if the price difference to get the 24" is worth it for me personally.

 

[chizow]

Heh ya, your blocks analogy is good too, just takes way too much visualization if someone is having trouble grasping the basics. Its certainly not an easy concept to wrap the brain around but ya I'd agree certain people will just argue mindlessly instead of trying to actually understand and learn.

But back to the OP's and your dilemma. Personally I think the 22" 1920x1080 panels are intriguing if the price of the 24" panels are a concern. You'll get the higher resolution, finer pitch and retain the ability to display 1080p FullHD content all at a similar price to the 22" 1680x1050 panels. The extra 2" on the 24" are certainly nice, but not sure its worth 2x the price. I went through the same decision about 2 years ago and ultimately went with the 24" after trying a 22" for a week, and also paid over 2x as much ($600 or so).

 

[imported_wired247]

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Originally posted by: chizow
...
But back to the OP's and your dilemma. Personally I think the 22" 1920x1080 panels are intriguing if the price of the 24" panels are a concern. You'll get the higher resolution, finer pitch and retain the ability to display 1080p FullHD content all at a similar price to the 22" 1680x1050 panels. The extra 2" on the 24" are certainly nice, but not sure its worth 2x the price. I went through the same decision about 2 years ago and ultimately went with the 24" after trying a 22" for a week, and also paid over 2x as much ($600 or so).

I'm a software developer and I work from home 3 days a week so desktop real estate is actually top of my list. The 1080 panels aren't very interesting for that reason. I like 16x10 aspect ratio.

I have a pair of 2009W's at work, and their finer pixel pitch (0.258mm) is actually a detriment to me. I don't like how it makes everything in Windows smaller. And I'm not going to try mucking around with Windows' DPI settings and stuff, as that can really screw with lots of programs. It's not unacceptable by any means, just something I'm paying attention to when buying new monitors for home.

Originally posted by: wired247
http://xkcd.com/386/

Exactly! I already replied a few too many times.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Only when you're around, proving how incompetent you are each time you post.

Anyways, here's another explanation for the more simple-minded people amongst us:

If I ask you to draw a diagonal line in a sand box, will the line look better if you used 50 rocks? Or 100 rocks? You can make the sand box bigger or smaller, it won't matter. The line with 100 rocks will always look more accurate. :laugh:

Rocks think a like I suppose.

That's quite funny considering you argue even when there's proof. :laugh:

Does aliasing look smaller on a smaller monitor or bigger monitor? Answer the question Chizow! :laugh:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
I'm a software developer and I work from home 3 days a week so desktop real estate is actually top of my list. The 1080 panels aren't very interesting for that reason. I like 16x10 aspect ratio.

I have a pair of 2009W's at work, and their finer pixel pitch (0.258mm) is actually a detriment to me. I don't like how it makes everything in Windows smaller. And I'm not going to try mucking around with Windows' DPI settings and stuff, as that can really screw with lots of programs. It's not unacceptable by any means, just something I'm paying attention to when buying new monitors for home.

Ah ya that makes sense. In that case the 24" or 22" 16:10 panels would be much better as the pixel pitch on the 22" 1080p would certainly make text much harder to read. My Also if you're staring at code a lot, some 24" panels can swivel the screen 90 degrees.

The harder choice would be 2 x 22" for the same price as a 24", unless you already have a 2nd panel you plan to use. If you didn't have a 2nd panel already, 2x22" would be tempting option.

Originally posted by: Azn
Rocks think a like I suppose.

That's quite funny considering you argue even when there's proof. :laugh:

Does aliasing look smaller on a smaller monitor or bigger monitor? Answer the question Chizow! :laugh:

That's why I put you in the same sand box with them.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I'm either going to buy 2x22" or 2x24".

 

[Jules]

How about a 4870 1GB or a 4850x2? Or is the GTX 260 better for a 22inch?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Jules
How about a 4870 1GB or a 4850x2? Or is the GTX 260 better for a 22inch?

by 22 inch I assume you mean 1680x1050 res. at 1680 a 4870 1gb or gtx260 would kick ass with plenty of reserve and you clearly have the cpu to push them. IMO a 4850x2 wouldnt be worth the hassle at 1680.

 

[imported_wired247]

For a TV I'd rather have the biggest available with a reasonable resolution, 720p for up to 42" and 1080p above 42"

For a monitor, I'd rather have the highest resolution available in the smallest size. i.e. the smallest 1920x1080 for example.

 

[Jabbernyx]

Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
I have a pair of 2009W's at work, and their finer pixel pitch (0.258mm) is actually a detriment to me. I don't like how it makes everything in Windows smaller. And I'm not going to try mucking around with Windows' DPI settings and stuff, as that can really screw with lots of programs. It's not unacceptable by any means, just something I'm paying attention to when buying new monitors for home.

Feel the same way about 22" x1080 panels (tried a Samsung 2233SW). Will be returning them and getting ASUS VH242Hs instead.

 

[Jabbernyx]

Originally posted by: wired247
For a monitor, I'd rather have the highest resolution available in the smallest size. i.e. the smallest 1920x1080 for example.

Might want to be careful with that statement. 17" 1280x1024 monitors have a dot pitch of 0.264mm, which is still comfortable to read. But 22" 1920x1080 have a dot pitch of only 0.248mm - TINY!

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Jabbernyx

Originally posted by: wired247
For a monitor, I'd rather have the highest resolution available in the smallest size. i.e. the smallest 1920x1080 for example.

Might want to be careful with that statement. 17" 1280x1024 monitors have a dot pitch of 0.264mm, which is still comfortable to read. But 22" 1920x1080 have a dot pitch of only 0.248mm - TINY!

You can always make the fonts bigger if you wanted which I didn't even need to. I have 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor. Fonts seemed small at first coming from a 19" 1440x900 but it really isn't. I have no problems reading 2 feet away. I sometimes lay on my bed and read stuff while I'm 3 feet away. Then again I have decent set of eyes.

Anyways. Higher resolution on a smaller monitor squeezes all that information into a smaller monitor so it looks more detailed than a bigger panel with same resolution. That's why wired247 said what he said.

Originally posted by: chizow
That's why I put you in the same sand box with them.

What you should be doing is taking all those rocks out of your head. :laugh: