Resolution vs quality

mpj88 · 6 Sep 2008 at 22:44

Hi just wondered do people think that resolution is better than other functions. For example running a game at 1440x900 with 16xAA or 1920x1200 with 4xAA, same with v-sync etc. What would you prefer?

BarKeep · 6 Sep 2008 at 22:54

If you use an LCD monitor then using the native resolution will always give the best result (IMO). Then the choice of AA etc. is a compromise of performance vs. visual 'candy'.

steve258 · 6 Sep 2008 at 23:01

resolution.

at higher resolution you'll notice less jaggy as well without enabling aa. 2xAA is enough for me in most games.

Defuze · 6 Sep 2008 at 23:18

I think it's ideal to be able to play your games at native resolution, which is why I would never go past 1280x1024 or 1440x900.

What's the point of buying a 1920x1200 monitor if your going to be running it at lower res?

If you look at the current gen console games, everything runs at 720p but there are no 720p TV's or monitors. :confused:

Strife212 · 6 Sep 2008 at 23:21

Resolution

But preferably both

mpj88 · 6 Sep 2008 at 23:26

haha yeah well we dont all have sli'd 280s!

EsaT · 7 Sep 2008 at 11:03

Defuze said:
I think it's ideal to be able to play your games at native resolution, which is why I would never go past 1280x1024 or 1440x900.

If you look at the current gen console games, everything runs at 720p but there are no 720p TV's or monitors.

Vertical resolution under 1200 is masochism for most uses.
And interpolation works generally very well:
http://www.proadviser.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-lg-w2600hp-part16.html
Also if monitor does it badly then graphic cards can do it better.

Since breakthrough of 3D cards consoles have had low resolution everything so no point in comparing to them!

reflux · 7 Sep 2008 at 11:18

EsaT said:
Since breakthrough of 3D cards consoles have had low resolution everything so no point in comparing to them!

A lot of console games don't actually even run at 720p. Halo 3 runs at 1152×640, the sort of pixel count us PC gamers used to use back in the days of the original Half Life!

martian_aphid · 7 Sep 2008 at 11:23

resolution -it usually improves quality and requires less AA imo. But what about pixel pitch also?

redballoon · 7 Sep 2008 at 14:08

Depends on the game. Something like TF2 scales well and the softer look with 16QAA is good but a detailed game like Mass Effect for example should be played at native res.

JonnyBase · 7 Sep 2008 at 15:38

Native res + antistropic/AA at levels that perform well for game being used. AA and stropic imrpove the visual quality on some games considerably.

Greenlizard0 · 7 Sep 2008 at 20:05

Resolution for me by far.

Snograt · 7 Sep 2008 at 20:13

reflux said:
A lot of console games don't actually even run at 720p. Halo 3 runs at 1152×640, the sort of pixel count us PC gamers used to use back in the days of the original Half Life!

This is true. I had to run a very expensive pair of SLI'd Voodoo2s to get HL to run well at 1024*768. that was somewhere around 1999/2000 IIRC.

Helios1234 · 7 Sep 2008 at 20:28

Resolution even if I have to compromise on graphics settings. If I don't play on my native resolution, games don't appear very good even if the graphical settings are higher.