LCD Display: NOT running the native resolution

[_Morphine_]

What is the real world difference in NOT running the display's native resolution. Can someone link me to visual examples of a 1920x1200 display running a game at a lower res?

 

[valis]

i run all my games on a 21" CRT, ALL resolutions are "native", plus i get faster refresh rates, more colors, faster update, no ghosting, yadda yadda yadda

 

[darkstar782]

Why would you want to run at a lower res?

With a 1920x1200 monitor, you run in 1920x1200 for all games that support 16:10 widescreen, and 1600x1200 with black bars at the side for all others.

 

[zenmaster]

Why?

Lots of reasons............

1) You prefer the larger size to seeing more stuff. Depending on the Monitor Size and the default resolutions, this could be a decision.
Imagine that some 17" and 20" monitors have the same native size.

Things will be much smaller on the 17".

2) Video Card - If you have an older video card, it may not run as high with as much candy.

 

[qwertycopter]

I think his point is that you need a really high-end graphics solution to run at that res. He wants the large display for Windows apps, might not have the cash for the graphics card(s).

To the OP: Non native will look blurry and possibly distorted. You want to run at native in gaming.

 

[petevsdrm]

Why would you want to run at a lower res?

With a 1920x1200 monitor, you run in 1920x1200 for all games that support 16:10 widescreen, and 1600x1200 with black bars at the side for all others.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Check out this site, they can help eliminate those pesky black bars for almost everything.

 

[The_Abyss]

What is the real world difference in NOT running the display's native resolution. Can someone link me to visual examples of a 1920x1200 display running a game at a lower res?

I've run a 1600 x 1200 LCD (VP201s) for around 3 years now and have just ordered a new Samsung 24" at 1920 x 1200.

I always game at the native resolution. Gaming below it even on the best LCDs results in a choppier picture that even the highest setting of AA cannot fully correct.

You can't see the difference on a screen shot as it does not accurately reflect what is being displaying - you'd need a manual photograph of the screen.

I'm hoping that 1920 x 1200 will be a good resolution to stick with for the next few years - highly likely given the hype over TV's HD resolutions. I run a 8800 GTS 640mb at the moment, but I strongly suspect that this will require upgrading within the next 12 months to keep gaming at native with all the detail options turned on.

 

[_Morphine_]

Ah just what I wanted to hear.

I am about to purchase a dell 27" 2707fpw (1920x1200)
I am trading in 2 21" CRTs at 1600x1200 @ 85Hz

Gaming on a CRT is greater than an LCD IMHO. However, I do a lot of reading and design work on my display as well. After trying a friends extra 20" LCD I was hooked on the relaxation it supplied for my fried eyeballs. I am picking the lesser of the 2 evils here, lower FPS and image quality for no migraines.

I am not comfortable buying into the first generation DX10 cards at all. I suspect a dramatic increase in performance with the next wave of cards and I dont want to sink any money into SLI or a GTX yet. The idea behind me asking the poll was to see if buying a lower end card for the time being and upgrading in 6-12 months was an option.

Looks like it will be low settings at 1920x1200 and a planned upgrade around the end of the year(ish).

I did read something after posting I found interesting. If the lower resolution is a division of the native, the pixels will not blur as bad. The example given was a 1600x1200 native res LCD running 800x600 in game and looking decent.

 

[ooo]

Hello I´m using a lcd viewsonic vx2025wm and i have noticed something interesting about resolution in general ... The displays specify the native resolution because when u see a movie for example 720x480 dvd , the movie measures 17 cm height in 1280 x 720, adjusting even in wide aspect 16/10 with vlc, and others but when u choose 1680x1050 and the aspect ratio by default guess what the height of the movie increase upto 18.5cm so in every other resolution u choose the image will be deformed or will be anamorphic, long faces , wide faces not exactly the correct ratio ... just take the centimeter and try it the diferrence will be notice...

Ahhh in games try FEAR and choose x example 800x600 high and see the fps, usually is 35 ... when you´re monitor is setting to 1680x1050...

Then try it same settings 800x600 high but the monitor in windows at 800x600 too and u will see some fps increments ...

 

[The_Abyss]

I did read something after posting I found interesting. If the lower resolution is a division of the native, the pixels will not blur as bad. The example given was a 1600x1200 native res LCD running 800x600 in game and looking decent.

Absolutely for sure - deviating from the native proportion especially on a cheap screen can have some ugly resutls.

 

[chris2002rocklin]

Why would you want to run at a lower res?

With a 1920x1200 monitor, you run in 1920x1200 for all games that support 16:10 widescreen, and 1600x1200 with black bars at the side for all others.

If you have black bars on the bottom of a 1920 * 1200 display, you are running at 1080P or 1920 * 1080. If you ran at 1600 * 1200 you would have black bars on the side, and you'd also be missing content at the top and or bottom, depending your driver.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey