Closed

LCD Display: NOT running the native resolution

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?
11 answers Last reply
More about display running native resolution
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Quote:
    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. :D
  6. Quote:
    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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 ... :wink:
  9. Quote:
    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.
  10. darkstar782 said:
    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.
  11. This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Resolution LCD Monitor Graphics Displays