Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will running games in non-native resolution look significantly worse?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Laptops
  • Battlefield
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 19, 2012 3:47:36 PM

I made a similar thread yesterday but I forgot to ask a question. I'm buying a laptop primarily for playing battlefield 3 and hopefully if I can run it, battlefield 4. As these are both very demanding games and I'll probably be playing on 1366x768 to reach those higher frames. I want to get the 1920x1080 screen, but I'm worried how battlefield and other demanding games like Arkham City and Max Payne 3 would look in 1366x768. I just want to make sure the graphics would be better than the graphics on my ps3, as I don't want to spend 1000$ on a laptop when my console has better graphics.

The other specs of this laptop are:

I7 3610QM

GTX 660M

Thanks.

More about : running games native resolution significantly worse

a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 3:53:12 PM

If you really want to game like crazy I would build a desktop instead of a laptop. Laptops are far more expensive than desktops and the difference in performance is big.
That GPU is able to run battlefield but not on mid/high/ultra settings. Maybe on low with a lot of settings turned down.

- Fastreaction
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 4:05:24 PM

+ Fastreaction
Related resources
August 19, 2012 4:33:14 PM

Thanks for the replies. I don't like the feel of desktops, I like the portability of laptops and the fact that I can do everything on one machine. I'm just asking if it's worth getting a 1920x1080 laptop if I'll be playing many demanding games on non-native resolution.
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 4:46:08 PM

Desktops take up alot of space in your house, I bought a laptop for playing Wow a few years back then decided to make room for one so I see what your saying.

A 660M isn't a bad GPU, espically for a laptop, but I don't think it'll be able to play everything on max detail for very long. You got to remember that on a laptop you'll never be able to upgrade the GPU so I would maybe look toward spending a bunch more money for a 580M instead.

As for resolution, I've had problems before where windows won't let me pick my monitors native resolution, so I'm left finding my own and usually you can find a different one for each game that looks almost decent, it's still not an ideal way to play however. The FPS drop between 1080p and 1366x768 I'm guessing would be somewhere around 10 fps on average.


Here you can compare different mobile GPU's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...
August 19, 2012 5:02:48 PM

I could live with 1368x768 in Dirt 3, but there's a definite improvement at higher rez's

You can also modify various options to reduce GPU load and maybe use a higher resolution via that mechanism
August 19, 2012 5:17:45 PM

Thanks for the replies. Would Battlefield 3 at 1366x768 on a 1920x1080 screen look significantly worse than a 1366x768 screen on native resolution?
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 5:30:54 PM

Just look at your word processor on non native resolution - letters are not clear.
-Bruce
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 5:40:25 PM

If you want a gaming laptop, get one with the GTX 680m (basically a underclocked GTX 670) or a 7970m (basically a underclocked 7870)

Basically the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to run current gen games at 1080p at a decent frame rate with most if not all of the settings at max.

The lowest priced ones with it starts around $1500.

M1rr0rN1nj4 said:
Thanks for the replies. Would Battlefield 3 at 1366x768 on a 1920x1080 screen look significantly worse than a 1366x768 screen on native resolution?


Not really. some pixels will get stretched and words might seem fuzzy. but for fps games, it probably won't matter much since you go by movement and radar and don't really have to read words...
August 19, 2012 6:04:15 PM

killerhurtalot said:
If you want a gaming laptop, get one with the GTX 680m (basically a underclocked GTX 670) or a 7970m (basically a underclocked 7870)

Basically the only way to guarantee that you'll be able to run current gen games at 1080p at a decent frame rate with most if not all of the settings at max.

The lowest priced ones with it starts around $1500.



Not really. some pixels will get stretched and words might seem fuzzy. but for fps games, it probably won't matter much since you go by movement and radar and don't really have to read words...


Thanks for the reply. It'd still look better than playing bf3 on console, right?
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 6:11:53 PM

M1rr0rN1nj4 said:
Thanks for the reply. It'd still look better than playing bf3 on console, right?


ya. look a good bit better.

And also the best part is definitely the bigger maps. (you can't even do a loop with a jet in the console because you would hit the top of the map area and blow up lol.)
August 19, 2012 7:53:03 PM

I would get a better one, but my budget is 1000$, maybe 1200 max. Any chance I'd be able to run the next battlefield game? I'm not picky, wouldn't mind running it at lowest settings possible. And yeah, BF3 on console makes me rage.
Almost forgot, Thanks for the replies.
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2012 8:14:23 PM

Laptops are not really intended for games, but some will do for a price.
November 11, 2012 5:57:04 PM

I may have the world's worst laptop (acer aspire 6930g Intel centrino dual core @ 2.00 1.99 Ghz, Ati m radeon HD 4650 1gb and 4gb of RAM) and i play skyrim @ high settings with AA and Antisotropic and Vsync OFF and native 1366x768 but i never go higher than 39fps.. basically what i'm saying is DON'T BUY A PHUCKING LAPTOP NEVER!!!! they're not made for gaming like at all. :non:  :non:  :non: 
!