Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best resolution for games on a dream sys?

Tags:
  • Resolution
  • Games
  • FPS
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 19, 2002 4:43:48 AM

2.4 or 2.53 ghz P4
1 GB RDRAM
Ti-4600
19" FE950+ Multisync

I'm using a piece of crap comp that can't even run Half life with a half decent FPS at 640 resolution. I'm thinking my designated res will be 1280. What you think? Or is this too slow, FPS wise?

1024 would be okay I guess, but I think I'd want more high res quality.

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>

More about : resolution games dream sys

April 19, 2002 5:35:44 AM

I have yet to find a game I can't run well at 1024x768 will full details on my MX.
You should be able to pull 1280x1024 with 4x AA no problem.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 19, 2002 1:43:00 PM

I want 8192x6144 pixel res, period.

<font color=blue>Be yourself, do whatever <font color=red>you</font color=red> like</font color=blue> (Not at my expense though)
Related resources
April 19, 2002 2:21:31 PM

Depends a lot on the game

I can get really great FPS in counter-strike at 1280x960, 3x FSAA and I am only running a Athlon 1.4 ghz Tbird with a plain vanilla GF3.

Of course, should I attempt to play dungeon siege at anything over 1024x768, I get like 20 FPS.

Also - never ever run 4x FSAA unless you are taking screenshots - the improvement in quality from 3x is really minimal, and the performance hit is rather large.

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
April 19, 2002 4:15:34 PM

I'm only interested in 2x AA, as anything larger takes a serious performance hit.

Since this is gonna be my dream sys, I refuse to have framerates anywhere below 65. I don't get why people want a boost from 110 FPS to 140, when there is NO difference (the eye cannot percieve more than 60-70 FPS).

Well, I guess as new games come out if I want to have a good FPS i'll have to eventually downtone it to 1024 =(

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
April 19, 2002 4:23:55 PM

AA is generally slower than a resolution bump. Try 1600*1200, and if you still see jaggies then try 2X AA on that. If it's too slow, bump down the resolution. The GF4Ti4600 should be able to handle all current games at 1600*1200*32 MAX without AA and most the same res with AA.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 19, 2002 9:09:47 PM

"2.4 or 2.53 ghz P4
1 GB RDRAM
Ti-4600
19" FE950+ Multisync"

"The_MaguS (journeyman)"

"What you think?"




I'm at a loss for words......
April 20, 2002 10:29:33 AM

I don't like that resolution. My monitor makes it look like crap. I either play at 1024x768 or 1600x1200. New game vs old game basically.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 20, 2002 5:58:57 PM

Quote:
I'm only interested in 2x AA, as anything larger takes a serious performance hit

This is only half true - check some benchmarks. 2x FSAA and 3x FSAA are typically identical in performance, but I think that 3x FSAA (quincunx, or whatever Nvidia calls it) looks a good deal better.

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
April 20, 2002 6:00:18 PM

I still see jaggies at 1600x1200, but they aren't bad.

My opinion is that 1280x960 w/FSAA looks far better than 1600x1200 w/no FSAA

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
April 22, 2002 5:18:42 AM

640x480 x 4xFSAA anyone?

My tech advice here is not free. Email your credit card detials to mynic@hotmail.com :smile: :wink:
May 24, 2002 3:34:22 AM

hey guys, wake up, remember the geforce 4 ti archetecture is different than even the geforce 3s, it has new AA improvements. 4xAA dosnt take that big of a hit. personally i dont use it, i just jack up the res, i have a 19 inch monitor and anything 1280x1024 or above looks fine without AA. course i could use it if i wanted to, i have a ti4400. but thats not the point. the reason i dont play at 1600x1200 most of the time is because then my monitor refresh rate is 60hz and ill get a headache after an hour or two.

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
May 24, 2002 4:24:14 AM

i did 320x240 with 4xSAA in UT, actually it didnt look too bad. it really shows you how AA works, cause the pixels are so big, you should try it

The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
May 24, 2002 6:09:13 AM

interesting idea... never done that.
i did try UT / serious sam with 2 and 4x AA at 800x600 but it just chugged on my geforce2pro.
eventually i might upgrade, but my gaming requirements at the moment are fairly limited.

plus geforce 3 & 4's still cost buckets in ozland.

:lol:  Whats better, <font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue> or <font color=green>AMD?</font color=green> :lol: 
May 24, 2002 11:50:40 AM

Hehe, my R8500 can handle 2X Quality FSAA on UT at 1024*768*32 with no drop in FPS!

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
!