Gaming at 1680x1050 vs. 1920x1200 with 8800 GTX

I play all my games in 1920x1200 and couldn't go back to less then that.

Sounds reasonable but no such luck. The only store in the area is a CompUSA and they dont allow it. Already tried.

Anyway, I can understand your point because I am a graphic artist. I understand the DPI concept. However, the reason I ask is because of this; I realise that one of the main pros of more pixels is a much better image smoothness, or less jaggies. But since the 8800 GTX is capable of such ridiculous AA (16xAA), then I am questioning whether the added pixels are really necessary. Two more inches of screen space are definately not worth $450 extra bucks. However, if the added 490 pixels im getting can provide noticeably better image quality and definition, then Id go for it.

For instance, is there a noticeable difference in image smoothness between the two res without AA turned on? Do textures and the like look more detailed with the added pixels?

Im just trying to justify the $450 extra I would need to shell out. Also, Playing at 1680x1050 would obviously help my 8800 GTX achieve a longer service time.

@BadDad

Would it be a hassle if I asked you for screen shots of any game at both res? Could you play around with both settings and give your honest opinion? Is there a noticeable difference in image quality? Obviously, if you have an LCD, the image quality might detiriorate by lowering the res, but see what you can do. Thanks.

Dont count on constant high frame rates at 1920x1200 with all the options maxed.

I run two pcs with 8800GTX's on CRT screens at those sorts of resolutions and a little higher, and oblivion with texture mods can still result in stutter at times in intense areas, X3 unmodified will have the occaisional stutter and LOTRo also causes issues (although that could be coding related as the client appears to have some memory leak issues). I dont doubt theres other games out there that can cause slow down even with the 8800GTX when you get to the high resolutions with everything turned up.

Also need to make sure that the actual pixel size is smaller when you go to the larger screen in order to see significant improvement in image quality from resolution otherwise if the pixels are the same size but theres just more of them you are just seeing more of the game at the same quality. It wont be taking away any jagged edges unless the pixels are smaller. I use LCD screens at work but CRT screens for play, Im going to be gutted when one of these CRT's dies because theres little that can match them for image quality refresh rate or resolution with high DPI.

Im planning on going SLI as soon as I have the money.

And the price difference certainly reflects that.

Anyways, I don't think that performance should be your concern when choosing between the 22" and the 24". Playing with 8xAA instead of 16xAA isn't going to kill you, so choose the monitor you want, not the one you think will perform better.

Ditto on the CRT's for gaming. I've often thought about trading my LCD in to go back to CRT. Can't be beat for IQ. I have dreams about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW9 [...] B00004YNSR

Go for the 24" you won't regret it

*It is a piece of furniture

But yea, not the most space-efficient monitor.

My Dell 2405 is great. Would definitely recommend.

While I do appreciate your comments and the comments of other posters, I would appreciate it greatly, and Im sure everybody would appreciate it greatly as well, if one of you gamers with a 1920x1200 screen can do us all the favor of taking some screen shots.

The ideal set up would be taking 4-5 screens for 1920x1200 and and 4-5 screens for 1680x1050, each screen with a different level of AA. Obviously, if someone has a better set up, please include more screens depending on the AA capabilities of the set up. Cause if you can go all the way up to 16xAA, you will be a godsend. Please do not resize the images or reduce the quality. Sorry if im being too demanding, but honestly, anyone who can go through all the trouble will have the appreciation of everyone participating on this thread. Thanks!!

Edit: And a scene with power lines and trees and stuff that can take advantage of AA would also be a perfect candidate for this. Thanks!!

That has been my reasoning. Getting a 22" monitor will extend the service time of a $550 card.

So far, I havent been able to justify the purchase of the 24". It is much better quality and allows more connections, but I plan on purchasing a projector anyway, so I would be using the PJ as my primary TV and game console viewing. The monitor is just for gaiming and internet/web design/programming.

The less amount of pixels will almost probably allow me to use 16x AA with smoother fps. And in the end, image quality is what im looking for, cause if I want size, ill just hook the PC up to my PJ and get 100" of gaming on my wall. Now that would be a sweet set up.

I think you're slightly confused.

There is no inherent difference in image quality between 16x10 and 19x12 resolutions. Like some have already mentioned, the difference lies in the DPI - this is where your comment about less "jaggies" and such comes in. The more DPI, the better. However, you're not ever (well, you shouldn't run your 24" native 19x12 monitor at 16x10, and your 22" 16x10 :CD won't run at 19x12. Since pixel pitches are all about the same, more or less, there will not be a difference in image quality.

That said, I cannot go back to a 22" for several reasons.

1)Real estate - the difference 2 inches makes at that size is huge, and trust me, it's worth every penny. If you have the pennies to begin with that is.

2) TN panel (all 22" panels are I believe atm) vs a real panel. I don't often look at my monitor from the side, but there are enough times where you turn your head or move around or whatever and if you have a TN panel - you immediately start to see the dreaded darkening/yellowing of the screen. Heck, with most 22" TN panels I can see it just from the angle from where I'm sitting in front of it to the sides of it (if that made sense). So yeah - TN panel = bad, if you ever see them side by side with a real panel you will never use one again.

Really it comes down to your budget, since the 24" screens will run you double still than a 22" will cost you. But since you have a GTX already and are even thinking SLI - I would say go for it. You certainly won't regret it, I don't think I know any 24" inch LCD users that regretted the purchase.

24" have many pros over the 22"

The biggest one is the TN panel as you stated. The BenQ FP241W sports a P-MVA, so of course it is much better quality in comparison to a TN panel. Also, the connectivity is great with the BenQ with its HDMI and Composite connections.

I have the money, dont get me wrong, but the whole thing is justifying the purchase, as it will run me $450 extra. However, your argument so far is pretty strong, so right now im leaning towards the BenQ.

@DTQ

Thanks for the attempt man. Sadly I cant help you since I would not know how to do it. Good luck.

Is it going to matter what screen rez the screenshot is taken at if you are going to be examining it at whatever rez you currently have? :?

I know you could just look at part of it at a time, but that's not going to give you an idea what 19x12 looks like, it's just going to give you an idea what part of that image looks like at 1024x1280 (or whatever you have now). If you really want to see how high the quality of image is at higher resolutions, you've got to get in front of one somewhere. It seems like if you told the guys over at the computer store that you were going to buy one they would let you test drive, no?

I do CAD work and some of the newer laptops they are buying us are 19x12, and brother they are really nice! (of course they haven't got ME one yet...)

Your post has two ideas behind it. One is the concept of DPI which is a printing term, but I do not know of the monitor jargon for this effect. The other is Pixel Pitch which is a similar concept. The laptops you are mentioning, with 1920x1200 17" screens, have an amazing Pixel Pitch in comparison to most LCDs. At 1680x1050, the 20" monitor offers the best Pixel Pitch, and the difference between the 22" and the 24" in Pixel Pitch is almost negligeable.

However, where you are mistaken is that at 1024x768, you say you only see a part of a 1920x1200 screenshot. That is false because when you resize a resolution in a game, you are not increasing your viewing area, you are increasing the amount of DPI (not really DPI but its the closests thing I can think of that resembles the effect of making the res higher). With higher DPI, there are more pixels available to one inch of screen space, meaning that it has more definition and less jaggies.

I think your basic misconcpetion is that you are going to be resizing your gaming resolution on your LCD. This worked in the CRT era - you could up your res basically to what your video card would support - and get better image quality because essentially your DPI was increasing - but LCDs are slightly different in that they have a NATIVE reolustion - the number of pixels - and ANY other resolution needs to be interpolated and simply WILL NOT look nearly as good (ie 16x10 will look SIGNIFICANTLY worse on a 19x12 montior than on a native 16x10 monitor, even if you don't stretch the resulting picture).

Thus your image quality on all current LCD monitors, as determined by the pixel pitch, is all about equal. You just get a BIGGER size of screen at the same DPI (= pixel pitch) for a 19x12 monitor vs a 16x10 monitor.

Indeed, you're right - but the whole point is that you ain't gonna be doing any resizing, unless you want your IQ to go down the drain. If you buy a 22inch monitor, you WILL be gaming at 16x10, and if you buy a 24 inch, you WILL be using 19x12, and nothing else.

Bottom line is if you have the money get the 24' I had a 22' for a week and decided it wasnt enough,been happy with my decision ever since!

Actually that's incorrect. If the game supports WideScreen, then your game will change your view angles. Oblivion and a bunch of others do this (I know Oblivion personally so it's my example).

In your reply to PvD you use the 1024x768 resolution (4:3) and 1920x1200 (16:10), that will show an effect. however keep them WS resolutions then it should scale the scene equally and you should see similarly on a 1680x1050 screen what you see on the 1920x1080 screen, however they'll both be different from the 1280x1024 screen.

Attach an external monitor or use a CRT and change the resolutions from WS to 4:3, you will see the exact same area differently if the game automatically adjusts for WS as it should if supported. If the game didn't adjust for WS reoslutions then your image would be distorted or you'd have black bars.

Here's a WS support list;
http://www.widescreengamingforum.c [...] s_List_-_A

Look at the difference in Oblivion between 4:3 and 16:10 support;
http://www.widescreengamingforum.c [...] livion.php

will have to go to a quad core cpu and a 2900xtx or 8900 ultra SLI with 1 gb of memory x 2 , 4 gb of ram and mandatory water cooling for all the above...lol

@vpsaline

That is why im getting a P5N-e SLI. Future proofing my investment.

Also, I must admit that when my two most awaited games come out (Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway and Assasins Creed), if the performance is not at a point where I like it to be, Im instantaneously upgrading, whether it be SLI or another GPU. I could always sell my 8800 GTX to a friend to recouparate some of the money. But currently there is no game title on the market a 8800 GTX cant run.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007 [...] dex.x?pg=9

Even at 2560x1600 on one of the most demanding games out, a single 8800GTX can still get you by at a reasonable level.

Hmm actually, I think I've been talking out of my @ss.. it would make sense that having more pixels will improve the IQ even if the pixel pitch stays the same.

Please ignore my previous dumbass comments... :x

There is no AA applied to those pictures.

Upon closer examination.. can't really find any differences.. ?

No AA? The 1920 I could just about understand that on but the 1600 ? With no AA at all Iwould expect to see some jaggies there even on my 0.22 monitor! even at 1920 I get some. Are you sure the Nvidia drivers arent overriding game settings? My single 8800GTX should be giving similiar image quality to the 8800GTX in SLI, at the same settings? Maybe its just that scene I dont know which game that is and so dont know if thats an intro or in game scene? but Certainly non o the games I have here show those sort of edges without AA enabled either in game or in the drivers.

They were screen shots of game play in Quake 4 uncompressed jpeg.

The 8800 GTX do have some default AA settings applied to it. I read it here I think

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/vide [...] ex.php?p=1

It is not an in-game scene, I saw the non-AA version and the AA version and there is a difference with the fence in the back. Ill try and post it later.

@Mitch074

I think youre being a little too paranoid here.