TFT, Gaming and fixed resolutions

Jimbo Mahoney · 6 Jun 2006 at 10:49

Hey guys,

Eventually, I will have to retire my 22" CRT for something bigger and higher res, which only leaves a TFT.

My only real gripe with TFTs these days is the fixed resolution - what do you guys do in the latest games on a TFT @ 1920 x 1200? Do you run something like FEAR at that res and 20fps, or go with black borders and another res, or do you resample a lower res to fill the screen?

Thanks for the help.

toxic · 6 Jun 2006 at 10:53

you do exactly as you do with a CRT monitor when you cant play a game at its maximum reolution of 1600x1200....you drop down a level. Widescreen monitors also have lower reolutions with the same aspect ratio...if the games support widescreen that is.

RedDwarfUK · 6 Jun 2006 at 12:25

Does it not look bad with it not running in its native resolution? If you run windows in anything other than its native resolution the sharpness goes and it looks like cack.

I would love to get a 20" monitor but the only thing that puts me off is the high resolution I would have to run it in. I can run battlefield2 at 1600x1200 and get 90+ fps but I wouldnt want to run any newer games at that res.

If someone could point me to some literature regarding the quality of running games at non native resolutions I would appreciate it.

toxic · 6 Jun 2006 at 12:31

not really...1680x1050 has 1.764 million pixels where 1600x1200 has 1.92 million. Therefor in theory you should get better performace runnning in that widescreen mode than you would from 1600x1200...less calculations for you GPU to do. Like every other monitor CRT's included, running at a lower resolution might just look quite so sharp...buts thats PC gaming all over...you will never play any of the latest games at 16x12 without a decent graphics card anyway. What card do you have?

fish99 · 6 Jun 2006 at 12:56

Lower resolution stretched to fill the screen do look a bit blurry on a TFT. In most games it's not a problem since you just use the native res, but Fear and Oblivion are two games I can think of where even a decent PC will struggle with the higher resolutions. I've got P4 3.2 HT / X800 XT 256 mb / 1.5 GB ddr400 - not the best but still decent, and I have to run both those games in 1024*768 (without AA).

If I was going to buy a TFT right now, I think I would still choose a 19" just because it has less pixels and running native res isn't such a problem at 1280*1024.

BubbySoup · 6 Jun 2006 at 14:35

The 2405 does a good job of running outside of native. I often run at 1680x1050 full screen when playing games and I find it fine.

Jimbo Mahoney · 8 Jun 2006 at 09:47

toxic said:
not really...1680x1050 has 1.764 million pixels where 1600x1200 has 1.92 million. Therefor in theory you should get better performace runnning in that widescreen mode than you would from 1600x1200...less calculations for you GPU to do. Like every other monitor CRT's included, running at a lower resolution might just look quite so sharp...buts thats PC gaming all over...you will never play any of the latest games at 16x12 without a decent graphics card anyway. What card do you have?

Obviously, running at lower res will not look as sharp, but on a CRT, it's as sharp as it can be because the screen switches resolutions. On a TFT, it gets resampled into the available pixels, which is my concern. I've used TFTs in the past, and the resampling looks pants, so I wondered if it was still as much a problem.

I'm running a X1900XT @ 750/800 (sig shows bench clocks of 790/830), but I like to have 60fps as a minimum in games, so I run FEAR @ 1024 x 768 2xAA (for example). It's obviously playable at 1600, but not enjoyable.

jamena · 8 Jun 2006 at 10:32

CRT also have a limited dot pitch, and there are still little dots being lit up, it's just that CRT pixels tend to be set out in a less square pattern so the blurring is less noticeable. CRT look better in some senses as you go to lower resolutions because they can draw the picture more accurately whereas if you bump them up high the picture starts to get fuzzy.

The picture quality of an upsampled pictre on a TFT depends on your graphics card, the type of connection, and the quality of the upsampling hardware in the specific monitor so one TFT may be horrendous while another has barely noticeable degredation. Conversely TFT's get sharper as you increase the resolution to their maximum. I'm running a 20" widescreen TFT from a 9800pro so have to use lower resolutions in some games - it results in a sort of AntiAliasing blur I think

Moral of the story - read reviews for your specific monitor choices. Some are a lot better than others at it. If you have the room and do not require the portability then feel free to stick to a CRT

Blackstar_solar · 8 Jun 2006 at 12:58

RedDwarfUK said:
Does it not look bad with it not running in its native resolution? If you run windows in anything other than its native resolution the sharpness goes and it looks like cack.

I would love to get a 20" monitor but the only thing that puts me off is the high resolution I would have to run it in. I can run battlefield2 at 1600x1200 and get 90+ fps but I wouldnt want to run any newer games at that res.

If someone could point me to some literature regarding the quality of running games at non native resolutions I would appreciate it.

One thing to remember is that in windows pretty much everything is static, so its much easier to notice "non-native" problems with monitors. However, in games, stuff is moving, and unless you REALLY look for it when your standing still for example you really won't notice it.

I had exactly the same fears when I went to TFT but tbh I couldn't be happier!

Zefan · 8 Jun 2006 at 13:02

Only one thing I can say really and that is that it'll never go away and that it's damn annoying :mad: