• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Resolution vs Graphics Detail - Which is Best?

Squink

Squink

Squink

Soldato
Joined
25 Apr 2007
Posts
5,255
Since I've not got the equipment to test any of this out, I'd be interested in the opinions of those that have. Say you have a 27" monitor and like to keep decent fps in your games of around 50-60.

Which is the prettiest/most impressive to look at and why?

1. 1920x1080 resolution with the in-game settings maxed out, at which your GPU will maintain the 50-60 fps level.
2. 2560x1440 resolution with the in-game settings dropped to a level (say medium) that allows it to run at the 50-60 fps mentioned above.

The reason I ask is that I hope to eventually purchase hardware that will enable this choice. Does the extra sharpness of a high res monitor running lower in-game details look inherently better than a lower res monitor that can max everything out?
 
I'd rather have the higher resolution. Usually, I find medium details look good (or good enough); the return in quality for the fps drop diminishes the higher you go. I'm running 1200p.
 
Last edited:
I always go native resolution and lower details if need be. I can do 1-1 pixel mapping on my monitor, but cant do with the all round black border. 1920x1200 here too. At higher res such as 2560x1440, you can drop aa down as it doesnt need it as high at this res.
 
Tough choices and a little bit more to add....

For me, if the choice was 1080P or 1440P, I would have to take the 1080P but at 120Hz and turn the details up. I have gamed on both and although the IPS 1440P Dell looked good with deep colours, the screen tearing or input lag with V-Sync on (stops tearing) was bad but on the 120Hz 1080P, it was always smooth. I have since gone for a 4K screen and find the resolution to be stunning and dropping off things like AA gets the frames back up without sacrificing image quality.

So for me in terms of choice it would be.

1. 4K - lower settings
2. 1080P 120Hz - higher settings
3. 1440P as high as possible settings
 
The reason for asking of course is that 1440P is more demanding in terms of outright cost to buy and also on the GPU itself to shift all the extra pixels. If there was no discernable qualitative difference, one might go for the cheaper option, but if the general consensus is that higher resolution looks better regardless, then it means the more expensive option is worth considering.

In my situation I upgrade once every several years and in 4 years from now, a powerful graphics card will struggle with 1440P, but perhaps not at 1080P, so I'd have to turn the details down on a 1440P monitor.
 
If you are wanting to go 1440P, you could always tone down the settings to 1080P in 4 years time but if you went 1080P, you couldn't up the resolution to 1440P (if that makes sense).

Th0nt said:
Hmmm good feedback that Greg.
Click to expand...

What no fanboy comment? :D only joking and thanks :)
 
No, seriously need a new monitor Greg (this one was from vista era) so do I go for a cheapish 1080p on a daily deal or wait it out for freesync?
 
Th0nt said:
No, seriously need a new monitor Greg (this one was from vista era) so do I go for a cheapish 1080p on a daily deal or wait it out for freesync?
Click to expand...

I would sell up and buy a shiny new G-Sync monitor and lock yourself into nVidia :D

Seriously though, I would wait it out. They are saying that some of the DP monitors can be flashed via firmware to work with Free-sync (or whatever it is called) but is it worth the gamble? I say no and just sit tight bud.

That;s what I would do if I was in Team Red :)

Haha very funny Pete :p
 
Yeah I think I will force myself to do that and grind my teeth over your impressive 4k experiences. :o

QcW8kwg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
4K's dead to me.
It's all about 21:9.
Click to expand...
This, 21:9 exites me far more than 4K. Especially those 3440x1440p ones ;)

As for the original question, I'd probably rather stick to native res and lower the settings to medium. As mentioned earlier medium details still look pretty dang good on todays games.
 
I'm using a 2560x1080 at the moment, but I'm loving 21:9. I'll be jumping straight onto a 3440x1440 when free sync's working with one (Perhaps a new model, either way, I'm waiting) and AMD pump out some new GPU's.

If there's a Gsync one and Nvidia have new cards, perhaps I'll move to Nvidia (But I doubt it).

I hope Asus make a Sonic Master one, as I LOVE the monitors.
 
I've found gaming at 21:9 to be very, very good.
Most games that have problems have very easy work arounds. Take what I'm playing now, Red Faction Guerilla. You can't manually select the resolution, but if you delete the options folder, it'll start at 2560x1080, you then change other settings.

Fable 3, no setting in game, but had a program in its folders to select 2560x1080 :p
 
Martini1991 said:
I've found gaming at 21:9 to be very, very good.
Most games that have problems have very easy work arounds.
Click to expand...

This, I got the original Dell 21:9 screen on release and the only game I have had a real problem with is Starcraft 2 as that won't do >16:9 as Blizzard consider it an exploit lol.

Had a slight issue with Darksiders 2 supporting 21:9 but still overlaying the HUD in 16:9 so it was stuck in from the edges but not a major issue. Doom III worked once all the custom settings were locked in the config, Doom 3 BFG worked off the bat but is complete garbage compared to Doom III lol, WoW/Diablo3 work fine, as do GW2, Wildstar, Supreme Commander, Metro Last Light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom