Games at non-native resolution

http://www.widescreengamingforum.c [...] /Main_Page

For games like Crysis the problem is trying to play at 1920x1200 which is tough even without AA, so either you turn down features and lose what make Crysis Crysis, or you suffer interpolation which essentially make everything blurry by trying to fit one pixel into two, or 3 into 5, etc.

The best solution is if you can play in windowed mode, and if you have the option in control panel you can play with the 'centered' option, but that does mean a smaller window, that's where you have to make the judgement call on size.

probably the best solution IMO, given your situation and concerns, is to invest in 2 'smaller' lcds, such as 2*19" (eg, 1280x1024 for one while gaming, or 2560x1024 for both when not gaming), that way you dont have to worry about performance when gaming at a native resolution, and you also have twice the desktop real estate when not gaming... this will likely also be less expensive than a larger 24" monitor that has less overall real estate to use, less by almost half a megapixel.

and if you wanted to, you could also have the game run on both lcds at a widescreen resolution, but thats better for games that arent fps based, where the focal point instead isnt just oriented at the middle of the screen.

1680x1050 is a good compromise, dropping down from a 22" 1680x1050 to 19 "1444x900 isn't to far below native resolution. I am planning to go for a 20-22" monitor with the system in my sig. Some LCD's can run all resolutions at native, but I forget what they call it. You will though have black side bars at lower than the screen size.

1:1 pixel mapping, thats it. Oblivion is one of those games that looks really good when you drop down in resolution.

Crysis is the first game I've played off native resolution. With the demo I went back and forth between lower settings or resolution. I finally decided that the game looked better with higher settings and non-native resolution. The fuzzier look of playing off native doesn't look as bad while playing than carefully comparing screenshots.

Personally I'd take a pass on windowed mode but I guess it all comes down to preference.

Of course one other option would be to buy a 30". With a native resolution of 2560x1600 you could run a game like Crysis at 1280x800 and have no interpolation.

lol, I know what ya mean man!

Best,

3Ball

This is the one that me and my friend both have and we have both loved it thus far...it is by far the best monitor I have ever had. This is the second Samsung LCD monitor that I have had and neither have had any problems. This monitor can also be found at some best buys a for a similar or in the case of my friends even a lower price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824001095

Best,

3Ball

Interesting reading... I was thinking of commenting earlier, but wanted to read first.

I run my 20" 1680x1050 monitor at reduced resolution for a number of games (BioShock, Oblivion, etc) primarily because of my X1800GTO graphics cards. While I wouldn't run my standard Windows desktop at reduced resolution, I didn't feel I was missing much on the games. With all the stuff happening in the game, I'd rather bump up the detail a notch than the resolution. If I have to stop and take a screenshot to tell the difference between setting A and setting B, I'm not going to worry about it too much. But for reading text, it REALLY sucks to drop down.

My next monitor (to replace my 19" CRT which is used as a second monitor) would probably be a 22" LCD. Same resolution as my current one, just a little bigger. If I had some extra cash or found an outstanding deal, I'd consider a 24" unit, but I'd rather take the extra cash and upgrade my video card to handle the monitors I currently have better.

Just my $0.02.

The only game I can not play @ 1920 x 1200 is crysis. I drop it down to 1280 x 800 with AA and it looks fine. I can max out CoD4 with no problem @ 1920 x 1200 with AA. "Head full of eyes" , you and I have basically the same rig so I recommend a 24" screen. Especially if you want to watch Blu-Ray movies or HD-DVDs in all their glory.

You should visit your local Best Buy or whatever you have in your area and have a look at the difference between the 20"/22" inch monitors, you will see bigger square pixels that are spaced farther apart. All I got to say is its a night & day difference for me, if your eyes are not that great then 22" is the way to go.

To be perfectly honest, I've never really noticed much difference in visual quality between playing at native resolutions and playing on a slightly lower res, except for the fact that the image is not as crisp (but still looks great IMHO). For some people that's a big issue, for me it isn't at all.
I'd rather lower the resolution and be able to crank up the settings to the max and enable AA, than play at my native resolution and compromise on in-game settings and detail with no AA.
To me, game details and settings are much more important than screen resolutions. That's not to say I don't like higher resolutions, I do and every game that my card is able to run smoothly on native res with the highest settings is played that way, but when it's either this or that, resolutions are just not as important, and don't affect picture quality as much as game details do, IMO.

Just a reminder, a screen shot is not going to show you interpolation so anyone basing it on comparing screen captures is showing what the computer is sending not what you are seeing after the interpolation.
There's no hard and fast rule, it's a question of whether you notice the subtle detail of things like AF may be an indication of whether you care about it. As NO1s mentioned getting a larger panel gives you the nice option of 4:1 scaling with no interpolation.

It all depends on 2 major things IMO, you sensitivity and how well the monitor in question interpolates out-of scale resolutions.