Bumping the res on games, big difference?

tomanders91 · 23 Dec 2007 at 13:15

How would my8800gts 640 handle these games at 1920x1200?:

CoD4
UT3
Oblivion
CSS/TF2/HL2

Would i need to lower the details in these?

james.miller · 23 Dec 2007 at 13:21

there's a big difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. you can also get away with using less AA. i found the difference in performance between the two to be very small, but at 1920x1200 there's less jaggies (even with less aa) and edges and textures are sharper and more defined.

tomanders91 · 23 Dec 2007 at 13:24

yeah thats what im thinking, as im not the sort of person who demands AA atm at 1440x900, so none at 1920x1200 would still be good.

feelintherage · 23 Dec 2007 at 13:46

right i have a similar question im going to be moving from a 15" tft to a 20" with a 1650 res how much of a hit will my 1950xtx, by this i mean will i have to upgrade my gcard or will i be fine, i dont play a lot of fps other than ccs and a bit of the orange box when i get it for xmas

thanks

Tefal · 23 Dec 2007 at 13:49

tomanders91 said:
How would my8800gts 640 handle these games at 1920x1200?:

CoD4
UT3
Oblivion
CSS/TF2/HL2

Would i need to lower the details in these?

THink you might need a gtx duno if a gt might do though.

And their right don't often need AA on.

MIght want to ask in gfx section someone might have your card/simmalar setup at somepoint.

Or you could look up some reviews of your card as they will have benches at diff ress's try anandtech

tomanders91 · 23 Dec 2007 at 14:08

looks like even the 320mb GTS can play UT3 at 1920x1200 ok at full details.

HangTime · 23 Dec 2007 at 21:32

Not a huge difference in visual quality IMO, unless you are going to extremes. Generally speaking I find even 1024x768x32 looks OK, although obviously higher is better.

I find that screen size makes more of a difference than resolution, for example despite being lower res, I reckon that 1680x1050 on a 22" looks better than 1600x1200 on a 17". The image is by definition less defined, but the extra size more than makes up for it.

tomanders91 · 23 Dec 2007 at 21:37

so a 22inch 1680x1050 monitor would look a lot better than the same res on a 20inch.

HangTime · 23 Dec 2007 at 22:06

Well.... it's open to debate.

For me, size matters. So I'd take a 22" over a 20", all else being equal.
HOWEVER, bear in mind that the larger screen will have a lower DPI and hence will look marginally more pixelated - i.e. the distance between pixels is slightly higher.

So from a purely technical standpoint, the 20" has a superior, crisper image. Yet from a gaming standpoint, it's not as good, because things are smaller

helmutcheese · 23 Dec 2007 at 22:09

Im happy with my high end Mitsubishi SuperBright 22" CRT, game at 1920x1440 and looks better than any LCD I have temp owned.

tomanders91 · 23 Dec 2007 at 22:14

HangTime said:
Well.... it's open to debate.

For me, size matters. So I'd take a 22" over a 20", all else being equal.
HOWEVER, bear in mind that the larger screen will have a lower DPI and hence will look marginally more pixelated - i.e. the distance between pixels is slightly higher.

So from a purely technical standpoint, the 20" has a superior, crisper image. Yet from a gaming standpoint, it's not as good, because things are smaller

Ah ok, cheers

I will see how much money i have to spend in the new year and then decide on what to go for, thanks to everyone who replied.