Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Solved

2560x1600 gaming next generation

Last response: in Video Games
Share

Hi ,i searched everywhere but i couldnt find any complete answer.
If next gen consoles would support 1080p,PC-s will,not long, probably support 2560x1600 res and making games also for that resulution.
1.Are there any games already in circulation that full support 2560x1600 res?
1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels
2560x1600 = 4,096,000 pixels

Playing Battlefield 4 in 2560res would be awsome and does anybody know if that resulution is/will be supported in few years(even sooner)?(like nowdays pc games at 1080p)

2.Are now there any pc monitors that support 2560x1600 but are smaller than 27"inch. Something like 22",24".
Are there possibility that we'll see 22",24" inch monitors in few years(even sooner) with res 2560x1600?
Or that resolution will be only reserved for 27",30" monitors?
:pt1cable: 

More about : 2560x1600 gaming generation

Register or log in to remove

We already have.... years ago!
- Buy a larger monitor and run SLI'd GTX660 TI's or better.

If they don't increase the DPI of monitors, eventually a $20 integrated GPU will run everything a human can make.
They can't expect people to sit down in front of a screen that is 92 inches across just to run at 6720 x 4200 (28.224 Mpixels per frame!).

Yes, our current 24 Gpixel/sec fillrate, which is only good for 375 Mpixels/frame (in a 3D scene) won't last forever... as much as 'future proof idealists' will tell us otherwise.
Related ressources
Ask the community

13thmonkey said:
the games support whatever your monitor can display.

the monitors are coming, no idea when, but the panels are available, see apples retina mac book pros.

Oh, and why would it be awesome? at playing speed you won't notice i'd bet.


Well i presume if people can notice big difference between 720p and 1080p then definately can see big difference between 1080 to 1600p?or im wrong?

If 1600p dont have yet monitor less then 27" then 4k will be 40". Playing 4k games on 30cm away from 40" :non: 
I dont like dual or triple monitors(for FPS) due to border between them.But now they make already monitors that have less then 2mm border line.
I dont believe 4k gaming will be available at least for 4,5years.How know even at that time if its gonna be affordable like 1080 monitors now.


sorry for my n00b-ness but i didnt research much for a long time,and this i first time i come in contact with 1600p in games on single monitors.
I dont understand thing with 1600p. If they have been out for some time,why then are not much popular?
I mean ..on Battlefield 3 everybody bragged/wished if they can play in 1080p.I never hear nobody said that on 1600p on battlefield 3 looks..well 2 times better then 1080p.
Everybody wants to play on 1080p but 1600 could look MUCH more realistic.Or developers when making, for example,battlefield 3 are not using full power of 1600p.
2millions pixels vs 4 millions..should be difference like black and white

I have a 2560 x 1440 monitor and my oldest game I have installed that supports the resolution is Medieval II total war Rome total war only goes to 1920 x 1080 or 1200. I am surprised there are not more smaller higher res monitors around considering 1080 is coming to 5" phone screens.

da3ndorphin3 said:
sorry for my n00b-ness but i didnt research much for a long time,and this i first time i come in contact with 1600p in games on single monitors.
I dont understand thing with 1600p. If they have been out for some time,why then are not much popular?
I mean ..on Battlefield 3 everybody bragged/wished if they can play in 1080p.I never hear nobody said that on 1600p on battlefield 3 looks..well 2 times better then 1080p.
Everybody wants to play on 1080p but 1600 could look MUCH more realistic.Or developers when making, for example,battlefield 3 are not using full power of 1600p.
2millions pixels vs 4 millions..should be difference like black and white


At the distances you sit the difference may not be noticeable, and with the concentration when gaming is very different to tv watching.

one of the reasons that they are not possible is that it is only this generation of gpus that can cope (at a reasonable cost and perf).

The coders don't have to do anything at all. they don't have models for 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 ... to 2560x1600 they have models and the resolution is a view onto those models, so any game can run any resolution.

simon12 said:
I have a 2560 x 1440 monitor and my oldest game I have installed that supports the resolution is Medieval II total war Rome total war only goes to 1920 x 1080 or 1200. I am surprised there are not more smaller higher res monitors around considering 1080 is coming to 5" phone screens.


This is also what i was thinking.If you can have retina and other displays with greater then 1080p then i dont understand why the hell they dont make 22'',24' inch monitors at that resolution.
But as time goes they will make it when there is larger audience for it with next gen gaming because...well next gen is just starting to take off.

13thmonkey said:
At the distances you sit the difference may not be noticeable, and with the concentration when gaming is very different to tv watching.

one of the reasons that they are not possible is that it is only this generation of gpus that can cope (at a reasonable cost and perf).

The coders don't have to do anything at all. they don't have models for 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 ... to 2560x1600 they have models and the resolution is a view onto those models, so any game can run any resolution.


Probably is that why arent they much used by gamers..yet.As gpu power yearly goes up very quickly,and there is not much price difference between 2 and 3-4gb vram gpu which is need for high res, in few years or less monitors will be much cheaper and gpu can cope with higher resolution.
Then we will see again PC go step further then consoles,like this generation 1080p pc vs 720p on consoles. Maybe now its just to soon but i presume not long monitors will be more affordable.

Best solution

The reason there are not higher resolution 22" screens is that there is not a reliable market for them. The GPU power needed to drive a 2560x1600 image is CONSIDERABLY higher than what's required to push a 1080 image. People who have rigs capable of actually pushing max frames upwards of 60 fps with all of the eye candy enabled at 2560x1600 aren't buying 22" monitors, and people shopping for 22" monitors don't generally have that kind of horsepower on hand in their rig.

This might change, but not for at least another GPU architecture cycle and that's only if there is a monumental output gain in the next models after GK-110.

casualcolors said:
Games that are rendered in polygons and not aspect limited (Sine Mora) support whatever your monitor displays. Sprite-based games unfortunately won't scale higher than they're drawn without pixel stretching.


agree, was simplifying for simplicities sake.

da3ndorphin3 said:
Probably is that why arent they much used by gamers..yet.As gpu power yearly goes up very quickly,and there is not much price difference between 2 and 3-4gb vram gpu which is need for high res, in few years or less monitors will be much cheaper and gpu can cope with higher resolution.
Then we will see again PC go step further then consoles,like this generation 1080p pc vs 720p on consoles. Maybe now its just to soon but i presume not long monitors will be more affordable.


Vram is the smallest part of the equation, my gtx 470 couldn't give decent frames at 1600p, it could display it, just slowly.

resolution is not standard by generations, different people use different resolution.

example:

3840x2160 - for kings
2560x1600 - for enthusiast
1920x1080 - for the average gamer
1680x1050 - for the humble gamer
1440x900 - for the poor gamer
1280x720 - for filthy console peasants
1024x600 - for filthy console peasants
Register or log in to remove
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Video Games categories
!