Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Difference between Resolutions

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2011 8:09:49 PM

I have a 1680x1050 22" display and I am just wondering, at this size, is an upgrade to HD (1900x1050 or whatever it is) very noticible? I don't feel like spending $140 for a very very slight upgrade that will tax my system even more.

More about : difference resolutions

a c 130 U Graphics card
May 25, 2011 8:30:46 PM

1920x 1080 just FYI.
This isn't a yes or no type question, its always subjective what one person likes visually compared to another but i would feel comfortable saying that if your hardware is up to it then it will be money well spent.
Send us your full system specs and we can go from there.

Mactronix :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2011 8:38:10 PM

I recently went from 1680x1050 on a 21.5" monitor to 1920x1080 on a 23" monitor (old monitor gave out) and while there is not alot of difference between the 2 the extra bit of width does change it a bit and movies do look a bit better since they were nade for that resolution aspect but I wouldn't have made the change if the old monitor hadn't stopped working !
Score
0
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 25, 2011 8:46:52 PM

This is the subjective thing i was talking about, before i upgraded i used to use X4 AA on games to make them look good. When i got my 21.5 1920x1080 monitor it was so sharp and clear without any AA it nearly made my eyes bleed. Ok slight exaggeration but the difference to me was staggering. I actually dropped the res down to 1680 x 1050 and it looked bloody horrible.

If your not sure then the best thing you can do is go to a PC shop and physically see the new set working. Even if you have no intention of buying it at the shop and will buy online its worth it to be sure.

Still post system specs though as we could be talking about a non starting option .

Mactronix :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2011 9:01:15 PM

mactronix said:
This is the subjective thing i was talking about, before i upgraded i used to use X4 AA on games to make them look good. When i got my 21.5 1920x1080 monitor it was so sharp and clear without any AA it nearly made my eyes bleed. Ok slight exaggeration but the difference to me was staggering. I actually dropped the res down to 1680 x 1050 and it looked bloody horrible.

If your not sure then the best thing you can do is go to a PC shop and physically see the new set working. Even if you have no intention of buying it at the shop and will buy online its worth it to be sure.

Still post system specs though as we could be talking about a non starting option .

Mactronix :) 


That's the reason I went to a 23" instead of another 21.5 with the higher res. -- figure PCs were designed to run at 96DPI so when you go higher than that like 1920x1080 on a 21.5" monitor the dots are smaller leading to a sharper image than designed for while the 23" was the correct widthxlength to remain at 96DPI of screen space so the sharpness was correct and things looked very similar to the 21.5 @1680x1050 due to the extra screen size - (Note : this is the same but reverse of what happens when going to say a 27" or larger HD monitor and experiencing the fuzzy look due to the DPI decrease unless you also move up to higher resolutions than 1920x1080) - that said some people will be more likely to notice the difference than others so whether it suits you is really subjective as mentioned.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 217 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 12:03:53 AM

Moving up to a larger resolution also causes you to have to run a better GPU setup to get good FPS. This may not be a good idea if you are happy with what you have now.

At 22", I'd stay with your current resolution.
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 12:25:53 AM

mactronix said:
This is the subjective thing i was talking about, before i upgraded i used to use X4 AA on games to make them look good. When i got my 21.5 1920x1080 monitor it was so sharp and clear without any AA it nearly made my eyes bleed. Ok slight exaggeration but the difference to me was staggering. I actually dropped the res down to 1680 x 1050 and it looked bloody horrible.

If your not sure then the best thing you can do is go to a PC shop and physically see the new set working. Even if you have no intention of buying it at the shop and will buy online its worth it to be sure.

Still post system specs though as we could be talking about a non starting option .

Mactronix :) 


These are my system specs right now:

ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO
4G DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) RAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition
XFX HD-695X-CNFC Radeon HD 6950 2GB
21" 1680x1080 res Monitor
550W PSU (need to upgrade)
Score
0
a c 363 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 2:57:02 AM

The HD 6950 can handle the higher resolution easily. However, will you notice the difference?

Here are some screenshots to help you decide if you can notice a difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1080...

THG @ 1680x1050



THG @ 1920x1080



Crysis 2 @ 1680x1050



Crysis 2 @ 1920 x 1080



Fallout New Vegas @ 1680x1050



Fallout New Vegas @ 1920x1080
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 4:05:35 AM

mactronix said:
This is the subjective thing i was talking about, before i upgraded i used to use X4 AA on games to make them look good. When i got my 21.5 1920x1080 monitor it was so sharp and clear without any AA it nearly made my eyes bleed. Ok slight exaggeration but the difference to me was staggering. I actually dropped the res down to 1680 x 1050 and it looked bloody horrible.

If your not sure then the best thing you can do is go to a PC shop and physically see the new set working. Even if you have no intention of buying it at the shop and will buy online its worth it to be sure.

Still post system specs though as we could be talking about a non starting option .

Mactronix :) 

That depends on which settings you use.For my gpu it was either 1920X1080 with no aa or 1680X1050 with 4XAA.Evebn on my 1080p monitor 1680X1050 iwth 4XAA looks better
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 4:45:17 AM

jaguarskx said:
The HD 6950 can handle the higher resolution easily. However, will you notice the difference?

Here are some screenshots to help you decide if you can notice a difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1080...

THG @ 1680x1050
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6318/thg1680x1050.jpg


THG @ 1920x1080
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6119/thg1920x1080.jpg


Crysis 2 @ 1680x1050
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9666/crysis21680x1050.jpg


Crysis 2 @ 1920 x 1080
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5892/crysis21920x1080.jpg


Fallout New Vegas @ 1680x1050
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6605/fonv1680x1050.jpg


Fallout New Vegas @ 1920x1080
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3637/fonv1920x1080.jpg


You realize that he can't tell what it would look like on a 1920x1080 resolution, because the pictures are still being viewed at a 1680x1050 resolution. It's like watching a commercial with a great new LED display, but you are watching the commercial on a 480p tv set. You can only see as well as the TV you are viewing it from can display it.
Score
0
a c 363 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 6:17:12 AM

Any person with any monitor should be able to note the difference if you pay attention to the screenshots.

In the first picture set of THG forum you should be able to notice that:

a. Due to the 30 more rows of pixels (i.e. 1080 vs 1050), a 1920x1080 monitor allows you to see the Windows XP sub-forum while a 1680x1050 monitor stops at the Windows Vista sub-forum.

b. Due to the extra 240 columns of pixels (1920 vs 1680) a 1920x1080 monitor will display "wider blank space" on the left and right side of the forum.


In the Crysis 2 set of screenshots it should be clearly evident that you can see more on the left and right side of the screen. Since in the game you are bobbing your weapon around a bit to simulate breathing and the impossibility for any human to hold something perfectly still it is difficult to note the extra 30 rows of pixels in a 1920x1080 monitor.


In the last set of screenshots for Fallout New Vegas it should be clearly evident that a 1920x1080 monitor provides a wider view of the world. On the left side the screenshot ends near the nose of the ruined car with a 1680x1050 monitor. You can see that on a 1920x1080 monitor that the view extends a little further. On the right side you can see that the grass gets cut off a bit with a 1680x1050 monitor.

The extra 30 rows of height is a bit difficult to notice.
Score
0
a c 363 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 6:35:43 AM

Here's another set for Fallout New Vegas that to make it easier to tell the difference.

FoNV @ 1680x1050



FoNV @ 1920x1080


A 1920x1080 monitor will allow you to see the "S" on the left which is part of the "Kings" sign. On the right you'll see the boarded up door.


Whether a 1920x1080 monitor offers a much better experience than a 1680x1050 monitor is up to the OP to decide.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 6:46:59 AM

There are only 2 things he can see by that. 1) He can have it viewed so that the 1080p pics as is, in which case it's bigger than the monitor so he sees only a portion of the pic, or 2) it's shrunk down to his 1680x1050 resolution, and will see a loss of picture quality.

The desktop pic has a small bit of use, as he will see the shrunk down versions size of text, maybe.
Score
0
a c 363 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 3:49:43 PM

bystander said:
There are only 2 things he can see by that. 1) He can have it viewed so that the 1080p pics as is, in which case it's bigger than the monitor so he sees only a portion of the pic, or 2) it's shrunk down to his 1680x1050 resolution, and will see a loss of picture quality.


A very simple program like IrfanView will allow the user to scroll through an image that is too large to be displayed in full on a smaller screen. Therefore, there will be no loss in image quality. It's really simple.

This issue here is not image quality, but rather if the wider field of view that a 1920x1080 monitor will provide over 1680x1050 monitor is worth upgrading to. That is the primary purpose of this exercise.

Yes, there will be minor image quality loss if you are trying to view a larger resolution image on a smaller resolution monitor in "Full Screen Mode", but that loss of quality will disappear once it is viewed on a 1920x1080 monitor.



The desktop pic has a small bit of use, as he will see the shrunk down versions size of text, maybe. said:
The desktop pic has a small bit of use, as he will see the shrunk down versions size of text, maybe.


The extra 30 rows of pixels will not create "shrunk down versions size of text", it allows additional information to be displayed on the screen. In the case of the screenshot of THG a 1920x1080 will allow you to see the Windows XP sub-form without having to scroll down the page.

Don't you understand this simple concept?

"Shrunk down versions size of text" depends on the physical size of the monitor. Text on a 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor will look smaller than on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor which will look smaller than on a 27" 1920x1080 monitor.
Score
0
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 26, 2011 5:01:49 PM

I understand where both of you are coming from (jaguarskx and bystander) and each side has merit. I do feel though that the OP was asking regarding image quality rather than screen real estate.
I could be wrong but i think the question should be. Will the image look $140 better if i upgrade to a 1920 x 1080 monitor.
Is that a fair statement Phishy714 ?

lets wait for the OP to answer that before we get into it any further.

Mactronix :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2011 1:09:06 AM

Best answer selected by Phishy714.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
June 5, 2011 10:08:36 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!