• 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.

What resolution are you playing games at?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What resolution do you game at most often?

  • Less than 1680x1050

  • 1680x1050

  • 1920x1080

  • 1920x1200

  • 2560x1600

  • 5040x1050

  • 5760x1080

  • 5760x1200

  • Lower than all of these

  • Higher than all of these

Results are only viewable after voting.
OVerLoRDI said:
You do lose a bit of field of view, but not a substantial amount. 16:10 monitors are superior for productivity and forum trolling. I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 considering that I don't ONLY game on my machine.
Click to expand...

As my system is a gaming/htpc 16x9 @ 1080p works best for me. I do agree though that 19x12 is nice for everything else.
 
You guys do realize that the rest of the world would look something like this.....

1600x1200 or under -75%
1080p- 23%
2500x1600-1.75%
over 2500x1600 .25%

This is Anandtech and most of us will be using 1600x1050+. 🙂
 
Last edited:
1680x1050 @ 120hz. 2560 x 1600 is nice but too slow with current hardware. When single vga cards are fast enough to render crysis 2 at 2560x1600 @ 120fps, I will upgrade to one of those.
 
happy medium said:
You guys do realize that the rest of the world would look something like this.....

1600x1200 or under -75%
1080p- 23%
2500x1600-1.75%
over 2500x1600 .25%

This is Anandtech and most of us will be using 1600x1050+. 🙂
Click to expand...

Most of the rest of the world doesn't really play the games played by people in this forum 🙂
 
Where's the 4:3 love? 😛

My Viewsonic G810 is still going strong and I have no intentions of retiring it until it stops working. Money well spent.

I chose less than 1680x1050 since this was the closest option for 1600x1200.
 
pandemonium said:
Where's the 4:3 love? 😛

My Viewsonic G810 is still going strong and I have no intentions of retiring it until it stops working. Money well spent.

I chose less than 1680x1050 since this was the closest option for 1600x1200.
Click to expand...
My love for 4:3 died with my 16x12 monitor. Its replacement was a 19x12 monitor since you can't get 16x12 anymore and 19x12 is perfectly usable as both a widescreen and 4:3 monitor.

And you should have picked 1680x1050 or even 1920x1080; 16x12 is 1.92MP, 16x10 is only 1.76MP, and 19x10 is 2.07MP. So 16x12 is technically closer to 19x10 than it is anything else. And thus ends today's lesson on why the largest volume for any given perimeter is a square.😛
 
Interesting results, but not unexpected. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080p reigns supreme by far, and 1680x1050 is as common as ultra HD resolutions AND multi-monitor setups combined.

Which goes to show, hardocp releasing data game performance at 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 is a relatively uncommon resolution, and given that their performance figures are always borderline playable at the settings they run at, it just goes to show why I rarely visit their site first for information I want graphics performance.
 
1900x1200 native res on both my laptop and desktop. I have to game at 1680x1050 on my lappy because the 8600m GT can't keep up. Higher res would be even better but not worth the cost for now imo.
 
Wolves said:
16:9 is superior for work too imo. Much easier to multitask with a wider screen.
Click to expand...
No way. Primary concern in multitasking is usable pixel count, and therefore area. While not directly related to ratio, in practice the 1200p and 1600p 16:10 screens are equally wide but taller than the 1080p and 1440p 16:9 screens, thus winning in area.

If anything, I'd argue that the theoretical best ratio for general productivity is 1:1, because that produces the maximum area for a given acceptable geometric distortion (of the viewing angle and the fact the screen is a flat surface). If more area was desired, you would add more screens of the same size. With the same argument, 16:10 screens are superior to 16:9 because they are closer to 1:1.
 
Wolves said:
16:9 is superior for work too imo. Much easier to multitask with a wider screen.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt you really multitask at all. You work one task at a time and switch between tasks. You may have several tasks open, but humans are rather incompetent when trying to do two things at the exact same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top