Ok, so I have been out of the loop for a while, and am getting back into reading reports to prep for a new pc purchase. So this might be a bad question to ask, but.....

I see a lot of test reports using like 1600 and 1900 resolutions. In my little world, I run a CRT at 1024x768. Seeing reviews at super hi rez is like seeing results in worst case scenario. So I think that low rez results will be better than acceptable.

Are a lot of people running these hi rez scenarios? Is that about really big LCD monitors? I just can't see how this huge rez is required. Is this about HiDef? Do I have to junk my CRT?

Any brief comment about why this is needed? Bring me up to speed. I can follow the chatter, but I think I missed something somewhere.

Thanks.

Perhaps I should add...

I am looking at a Gigabyte 780G chipset mobo w an AMD 4850e cpu and a ATI/AMD 3870 vidcard. Or waiting for the latest versions of all of the above(?). And of course the 4800 ati series is really disturbing everything

The HTPC notion is interesting. But really I want to play CRYSIS, cos I loved FarCry. I'm an FPS-gamer since Doom in the days of dos. (what's dos?)

My pc that died was a p3-866 (yeh, I know) (capacitor boilover after running Doom3 and FarCry w a Gforce4 - yes it worked with fairly lo grafx - although D3 lagged a lot every time I got attacked.

Also I am trying to learn about HD tv and what's possible - like a lot o people.

But where do people use 1900ish resolutions? That's the real question. And do I need a new monitor?

Thx.

Majority of people probably use 17-22" screens.

1280x1024 - 1600x1200

I use 19" widescreen 1440x900. About same as 1280x1024

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

im using 1920x1200 lcd from officedepot i got for $300 USD, which is really cheap for this big of a screen.

Yup, I'd say most people are running LCD monitors, perhaps with 1600x or 1680x WS being the more common rez. But in general, I'd say most people are definitely running at least 1280x all the way up over 2000x. Most affordable LCD's run fixed at either 1280x or 1600x/1680x, so that is why I assume what I said in my first sentence.

Yes, running at lower resolutions, like 1024x, will net you an insane performance boost over somebody running 1920x or in that range, but you lose a ton of image quality. It also means you can play normally very demanding games pretty easily with just a pretty cheap graphics card.

I'd say buying any graphics card over $200 for 1024x rez would be a waste of money. And you would still have some headroom to add some AA to improve IQ, I would think. I think a $200 card would let you add some a good amount of AA on pretty much all games, maybe even Crysis. But assuming your monitor isn't very large, just 4x AA would probably make a world of difference. Now if I wanted to add 4x AA to Crysis running at 1600x, I need pretty much a top of the line card.

For me, personally, if I were forced to run 1024x (I run 16x10 & 16x12) rez, I would get a card that would let me run 4x AA at least. AA (antialias, which smoothes out jaggies), does MUCH more for image quality when running on low resolutions than it does for those running 1900x or higher. When you run at a really high resolution, you get a natural smoothing effect just because the rez is so good and jaggies aren't nearly as prominent.
But at 1024x (unless your monitor is super tiny), the jaggies will make image quality (IQ) look pretty bad on top.

You know how a 1080p HDTV looks so much smoother and crisper than a standard TV? That is kinda the same difference between running 800x or 1024x and running over 1900x.

You don't HAVE TO junk your CRT if you can't afford an LCD. Games still support resolutions as low as 800x & 1024x, so it isn't like you won't be able to play certain games just because your rez is low, but you definitely won't be getting the most out of your games. Meaning that you may not see some of these games in their full glory, as they were meant to be seen and showed off.

People running in high rez is definitely all about the monitor. But if you don't know, as I mentioned LCD's don't scale like CRT's. So, unlike with CRT's, it only makes sense to run at an LCD's native rez, which these days is pretty much always above 1024x. You can run at different resolutions, but again, the LCD's don't scale well. But on the plus side stuff looks awesome at native LCD's rez.
So I guess you could say that a big factor in buying a graphics card for people is what their rez is. The higher rez you run at (or want to run at), the more of a gpu you need.

As for the benchmarks you are seeing, it makes sense. Most people buying these latest gpu's do run at those 1600 & 1900 resolutions. But also, seeing how games run at these resolutions and higher (you will some some benchies testing on 2500x) is a good test for the gpu's, a good way to see what these cards are made of.

Junk your CRT? If you can, hell yeah! Get a good WS. I have a 22" WS and a 20" non-WS for games for older games or games that I just like to run at 16x12.
But these days, unless you do have older games that you want to run in all their glory that don't support WS, get a 20" or 22" WS LCD for good modern gaming experience. Go for the 1600x range for resolution if you can, but if not 1280x with a good amount of AA won't look too bad either.

Also, the general rule of thumb with LCD's is that the smaller they are, the smaller resolution they run at and the larger they are the larger rez they run at, which makes sense because low rez looks best the smaller the screen. And of course larger resolutions look best on larger screens. Basically the larger the screen size, the more imperfections stand out, such as jagged edges, which is why you want that higher resolution.

Hope that helps!

I believe you'd really appreciate a 20" - 24" LCD and the costs are very low nowadays. Gaming at 1900+ is a nice luxury. If you did opt for a 24" you'd have some adequate desktop real estate @ 1920x1200 that you'd surely like.

I have a 24" @ 1920x1200 and I couldn't go back to using a smaller screen. Games look amazing as you get more of the feeling of being in the game rather than just playing the game. I've downloaded some HD content and it's nice but I'm waiting for BluRay drives to come down a bit more before I buy one but when I do it will be great. I think most people, as marvelous wrote, use smaller screens but the way I look at it is the screen should last a while and it's what you have a computer for. Whatever your doing your looking at the screen so it should be as pleasant an experience as possible and you may as well get a good quality screen because what's the use of saving a few dollars if your only going to wish you had gotten something else.

...and that's why I just got a 30", so I could be done with it instead of getting something else...and wanting something else.

You can really never have too much screen real estate.

I'm running a standard 19" LCD at 1280X1024. When I get some money, I'm looking at a 28" LCD, which will run at 1920X1200. The thing you need to keep in mind with LCD's, as others have pointed out, is that you need to run them at their native (i.e. highest) resolution so they will be clear. Far as the CRT goes, I say keep it. I still have an old 17" CRT setup at my workstation. It's great when fixing older systems because, unlike an LCD, it's crystal clear at any resolution.

The biggest monitor I can fit is a 22in wide screen cause my printer and desk wall block anything bigger.

When I upgraded my monitor and GPu to a 20" non-widescreen I loaded up Quake.. was it 4 or 3? Dunno.... I had finished the game before and wanted to look at it again.

WOW! All I can say it was a 110% different experiance with it all turned up to max. I played it all the way through again.

Trust us.. a 22" WS is pretty cheap. I remember playing $350 for a 15" CRT. An ACER AL2216 is entry level, but good clarity, refresh, and all the standard gamer needs. I just got one for my son at $219.

I use a 32" 1920x1080 screen for everything. Perfect size and resolution. Very sharp. I don't need 1920x1200 at all. Besides, 1920x1080 is just slightly > 1600x1200, so I usually look at that benchmark.

1920*1080 = 2.07 MegaPixels ; 1920*1200 = 2.3 Mp; Not that huge of a difference. 1600*1200 = 1.92 Mp; 1280*1024 = 1.31 MP; 2053*1600 = 3.28 Mp. 2053*1600 is on the extreme side for me, at 32" and a 3.x MP screen for 16:9 is probably as large as I would want to get.

More people game at 1024x768, 1280x960 using CRT's because of better image quality and higher FPS. My 20" 1680x1050 LCD doesn't display more than 60FPS. Also, games running at 1024x768 don't dip below max FPS the screen displays as much. My E4600, 8800GT 512mb, 2GB on CoD2 online maxed out settings have hit the very low 30's which is crap. 99% of the time, it stays above 70FPS. I play on a 52 player server.

30" is way too big, you have to turn your head to see everything. Plus, can you play Crysis on it at all? I don't suppose scaling games like that makes it very pretty, unless you have the Gateway with the video processor and play it at 1280x800 scaled 2x to 2560x1600. Playing fast paced twitch games online require >60 FPS. 30 is absolute crap, 40-45 is better, but 60 is fluid. Crysis on the other hand and Halo 2 don't need FPS because of armor. That's why Halo 3 on 360 is like a slide show compared to CoD4 on 360. They didn't need to optimize the game for FPS, nor did their graphics have to be good at all, since Halo 3 is like a cartoon.