Pro gamers resolution

[steve wilson]

Hi Guys,
I remember back in my CS days that the pros used to use 21 inch monitors with 640x480 resolution. I think it was because the FPS was very high if you did so.

What resolution and monitor size do the pro's play at in COD or what ever is the game of choice at LAN events these days?

 

[shortylickens]

No, pros didnt do that unless they were hideously retarded. And the myth of super high frame rates improving your game has long since been debunked.
You just dont want it to be a slide show and to that end I set the details down until I can consistently get around 60 FPS.
And if you've been reading the threads lately you will see that most modern shooters are designed for the consoles and if we're lucky we get a shitty port that runs like hammered ass on top of the line hardware.

 

[steve wilson]

well my pc is pretty old now, c2d e6600 at 3.15ghz with a 5770... so that's not such a bid thing for me.

I game at 1024x768 in black ops... and with everything set to low I'm still getting a bit of stuttering with max fps set to 60.

So pros just use settings that make the game smooth and play at high res now?

 

[beginner99]

well my pc is pretty old now, c2d e6600 at 3.15ghz with a 5770... so that's not such a bid thing for me.

I game at 1024x768 in black ops... and with everything set to low I'm still getting a bit of stuttering with max fps set to 60.

So pros just use settings that make the game smooth and play at high res now?

the new COD is bugged so that's not a good reference point. But Bad company 2 would play well on your system probably also @1080p resolution.

most lcds run at 60 hz. Ok some new ones support 120 hz for 3d but that's just a gimmick.
Human eye is pretty limited. That's why moves @24hz look like movies and not slideshows, a fly on the other hand would perceive it as slideshow. That's why the are nto so easy to catch. And 100 FPS or 300 FPS makes 0 difference.

 

[BFG10K]

I’m not a pro, but a low resolution with no AA has definite disadvantages over a high resolution with AA. With the former, you can’t really see what the hell you’re shooting at.

Ok some new ones support 120 hz for 3d but that's just a gimmick.

120 Hz is not a gimmick at all, and is both subjectively and objectively useful even without glasses.

That's why moves @24hz look like movies and not slideshows,

Movies have motion blur, plus they have no real-time input like a game. Despite this, movies can still be jerky with fast camera pans and/or rotation.

 

[MustangSVT]

the new COD is bugged so that's not a good reference point. But Bad company 2 would play well on your system probably also @1080p resolution.

most lcds run at 60 hz. Ok some new ones support 120 hz for 3d but that's just a gimmick.
Human eye is pretty limited. That's why moves @24hz look like movies and not slideshows, a fly on the other hand would perceive it as slideshow. That's why the are nto so easy to catch. And 100 FPS or 300 FPS makes 0 difference.

wow. wrong and yet preaching!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I’m not a pro, but a low resolution with no AA has definite disadvantages over a high resolution with AA. With the former, you can’t really see what the hell you’re shooting at.


120 Hz is not a gimmick at all, and is both subjectively and objectively useful even without glasses.

Intriguing, to be honest I haven't looked into 120Hz displays, do you have a good review? Thanks

Movies have motion blur, plus they have no real-time input like a game. Despite this, movies can still be jerky with fast camera pans and/or rotation.

Yup

 

[CurseTheSky]

Strictly for gaming, 1920x1080 would be my choice, considering the 16:9 and 16:10 field of view (game dependent). Now that hardware is so cheap, there's really no reason to be playing at ultra-low resolutions. Even the "dated" system you listed above should have no problem of playing modern games at 1680x1050 and above.

 

[lsv]

I was a pro gamer in my younger years. When I played quake 3 I would play with everything as minimal as possible with the highest refresh rate possible. It was 1024x768@120hz. In Quake3 there was and is still a bug where the higher the FPS the faster you would move in the air. Allowing the player to make farther jumps. As well as having the smoothest possible game and not have FPS ruin a critical moment.

For current games I do not care as much about high FPS. I've grown up and don't game like I used to.

However if you are a pro player and the game engine allows you to remove say a bush, extra shadows or anything else to make the enemy more visible within the rules then you would do so. It's simply another advantage to be taken advantage of. As with anything in life you take seriously

 

[shortylickens]

I was a pro gamer in my younger years. When I played quake 3 I would play with everything as minimal as possible with the highest refresh rate possible. It was 1024x768@120hz. In Quake3 there was and is still a bug where the higher the FPS the faster you would move in the air. Allowing the player to make farther jumps. As well as having the smoothest possible game and not have FPS ruin a critical moment.

For current games I do not care as much about high FPS. I've grown up and don't game like I used to.

However if you are a pro player and the game engine allows you to remove say a bush, extra shadows or anything else to make the enemy more visible within the rules then you would do so. It's simply another advantage to be taken advantage of. As with anything in life you take seriously

You play better when you remove your bush?
:hmm:

 

[Scotteq]

You play better when you remove your bush?
:hmm:

They've been doing that in San Francisco for YEARS!

 

[JoshGuru7]

It's pretty obvious why you would turn off most graphics elements - they are distracting.

As far as resolution goes, nobody has mentioned one of the bigger reasons why people turned down it way down back in the old days. Hitboxes were drawn larger when you played with lower resolution, because games gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't played at a high level of competition in 10 years, but I doubt this is an issue now. Going from 640x480 to 1920x1280 is 800% the number of pixels, while going from 1920x1280 to 2560x1600 is just a 66% increase. Even if it still matters, it matters a lot less.

 

[coreyb]

i played cs at 1028 with a 21 inch monitor. AA + AF on also. worked really well. and yes pros do this as well, some even go down to 800x600. but most would be around 1028

 

[manimal]

They've been doing that in San Francisco for YEARS!

I think the brazilian wax was invented in brazil..just saying..


I wish people would stop blaming bad porting for console games on pcs...

one has to remember these games usually are run even lower than 540P with upscaling done in the consoles...

for instance people cried about GT4....it ran at like 480P on the consoles..

of course its gonna be a resource hog at 1080P with 10x the draw distance, better textures, etc..

now COD on the other hand IS a dog...

 

[Rezident]

Good thread and an interesting topic. What do people think about shadows? I know people who swear by turning them off but personally I find them useful in newer games (as long as FPS is 60-ish anyway) e.g. last night in Black Ops there was at least once I saw an enemy’s shadow moving before I saw them.

 

[mwmorph]

Also input latency. Playing at 1024 or 1280 on a 21" CRT brought extremely fast refresh rates. Couple that with Vsync and you get non-vsync like input lag with no tearing. Add in single color, bright player skins (example, make all enemies bright purple or red and all friendlies bright blue, forgot what it's called but there's a name for that) and you can get pretty good input reaction times ons hots.

Article on TF2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/6
No Vsnc 51ms
VSync @ 60hz 89ms
Vsync @ 60hz 1 frame render ahead disabled 76ms
Vsync at 120hz 25ms

 

[ViviTheMage]

I was CAL I for a few seasons in CS with a local LAN team ... none of us played lower then 1280 res...people that played 640x480 were fools.

NOW I played at 1920x1200

To those that say FPS above 30 didn't matter ... it did. It WAS smoother with 60-100+ FPS in CS 1.6>

 

[lsv]

I was CAL I for a few seasons in CS with a local LAN team ... none of us played lower then 1280 res...people that played 640x480 were fools.

NOW I played at 1920x1200

To those that say FPS above 30 didn't matter ... it did. It WAS smoother with 60-100+ FPS in CS 1.6>

Still is, 30fps is a joke. You can see it stutter about. I think 60 is the minimum for noticeably smoothness.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I was a pro gamer in my younger years. When I played quake 3 I would play with everything as minimal as possible with the highest refresh rate possible. It was 1024x768@120hz. In Quake3 there was and is still a bug where the higher the FPS the faster you would move in the air. Allowing the player to make farther jumps. As well as having the smoothest possible game and not have FPS ruin a critical moment.

For current games I do not care as much about high FPS. I've grown up and don't game like I used to.

However if you are a pro player and the game engine allows you to remove say a bush, extra shadows or anything else to make the enemy more visible within the rules then you would do so. It's simply another advantage to be taken advantage of. As with anything in life you take seriously

MW2 still had this issue. Some jumps needed 90 or 120 fps to be made. Is it a big difference in that engine no not really, but if you are trying to make some fun jumps it is.

Also thanks to BFG10k - it is very tiring hearing the whole no difference from 100 to 300 fps bs over and over. People, please understand that your eyes are not digital there is no hard cap on the fps they can see.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Still is, 30fps is a joke. You can see it stutter about. I think 60 is the minimum for noticeably smoothness.

there is a difference between 30fps average and 30 fps minimum. I think most people saying 30 fps are referencing as long as you do not dip below 30, games are essentially playable at your settings.

 

[skace]

People have no idea what competitive gamers used to do to get performance advantages. mipmap!

 

[lsv]

there is a difference between 30fps average and 30 fps minimum. I think most people saying 30 fps are referencing as long as you do not dip below 30, games are essentially playable at your settings.

30 min fps feels sluggish to me. I prefer a constant 60 where my hardware is constantly getting much higher and with vsync you never go above 60fps. Smoothness is preferred

 

[Bateluer]

Hi Guys,
I remember back in my CS days that the pros used to use 21 inch monitors with 640x480 resolution. I think it was because the FPS was very high if you did so.

I've never heard of anyone doing that. It sounds completely retarded though. Once you've experienced the higher resolution, its hard to go back. 640x480 just looks like absolutely crap compared to 1920x1200. Take a look at the low res screen shots in Anand's netbook reviews.

 

[Molondo]

Several Starcraft players play at low settings. Helps to spot cloacked units.

 

[TidusZ]

The reason people played CS with low resolution was the heads of characters were larger and it was "easier" to get headshots. The reason people play SC2 with low graphics is that its easier to make out units quickly, the detail of the textures just gets in the way. FPS wasn't really an issue in cs after it was out for a while and same with sc2, and it usually isn't the reason for turning graphics down.