Your opinion on monitor resolutions

[NarcoticHobo]

Assuming one had a dual 6800GT rig running Doom 3 they can reach 66fps, which is the max of a 16ms LCD if the LCD was 1600x1200.

However assuming the LCD was 1920x1200 would it be able to do the same?

If so, how many new games would it be before it would begin to fail, 1, 2, 3?

Would it be better to go with a 1680x 1050 LCD? Or would that seem like a waste of the power of the dual 6800GT's?

Is there a huge difference between those two resolutions, or their nonwidescreen counterparts, and if so would you say it is worth the large resolution at the expense of other computer components?

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Any ideas?

 

[meltdown75]

I have to ask

What is the advantage of playing something at anything higher than 1200x1600

Forgive me, I'm a newby but I play everything at 1074x786.

 

[MiniDoom]

Higher resolution=more pixels=sharper detail=better picture, but more memory.

 

[Tiamat]

Higher resolution while keeping screen size the same = smaller pixels = harder to see alaising if game is played at native resolution. For instance, my Samsung 213T LCD is 1600x1200. I can see alaising in HL2 @ this resolution, however it is much less bothersome than the alaising at 1280x960. If I were rich and had an IBM T220 (?) that can display 3600x2400 resolution (IIRC) and i had proper video drivers and video card, and HL2 could support this resolution, I would not be able to see the alaising unless i was maybe 1" away from the panel as the pixels are extremely miniscule.