PC gaming resolution question

[ajloeffl]

I am looking into building a decent gaming PC. From looking over performance comparisons and articles related to builds, it appears that resolution is the biggest factor in whether a certain build can play a game with good framerates. I am wondering what resolution you guys run games at. I've never run at higher than 1024x768 and I wonder if it is worth shelling out a ton more $$$ to run at high resolutions. Do you get enough extra enjoyment out of 1900x???? to be worth spending twice the amount on a PC to run that high?

Thanks

 

[DoMTaR]

All that really depends on is the monitor you are hoping to run games on
I personally preffer 22" wides at 1680x1050, high enough res for detail...but not so high that I cant max all my settings.

 

[shadowmaster625]

An 8600GTS will do you nicely at that resolution. I mean, Oblivion runs smoothly with max settings. And no, higher res doesn't get you anything. The eye can only process so much visual information at once....

 

[computertech82]

I'm runing oblivion at 1024 by 768 max details, pushes my 8800GTS card down below 30fps outside. In town it runs at 125fps (go figure). other games runs quite well at 1024 by 768 at max settings. Basic rule is higher the resolution, the faster you want the video card.

 

[spuddyt]

what have you done to your 8800? my 8600 gts (which by all accounts, mine included is substantially worse, even though its OC'd) is capable of running oblivion fine on that res with max details (I even forced 4x anti aliasing and hdr at the same time)

 

[Trialsking]

@comptech82

Yeah really, what drivers are you using....My 8800GTS 640 on Oblivion has just about every setting maxed(except grass distance and shadow detail @ 50%) @ 1440 x 900 2x AA 16x AF, HDR, and I get avg. 50+ fps outdoors. the new beta XP drivers(160.22 i think), helped raise my fps by like 20, so you might want to try them out.

To original poster, I used to game @ 1024x768 and then jumped to my 19" monitor @ 1440x900 and it does really look much better. If your card will support it, high rez = much better looking IMHO.

 

[tmeacham]

I play on a 20" flat panel that's a few years old at 1600 x 1200. I play at that resolution because it's the native resolution of the monitor. It's important to keep that in mind if you're using flat panel monitors. It doesn't matter how fast your rig can run the game at a higher resolution if it's all blurry on the screen because it's too far away from the native res.

 

[fraggelrock]

I was reading an interview with Toxjq, and it seems like the pros like to game a low resolutions, since FPS is so important to them.

Don't know if I would want to game on low res though.

 

[prawcess]

Tmeacham made the most important point relative to this discussion. Its not really about trying to be Mr. Cool with the high res.. If you have an LCD monitor, you have to be able to play at at least the native res.

Now 1024X768 will work for... what a 17" maybe? But 19", 21" etc.. you will have a higher native resolution. With a CRT it doesnt really matter as much. With an LCD however, your hand is somewhat forced.

 

[zargon48]

prawcess is correct,,
always try to use your monitors "native-resolution & refresh-rate"
for best performance, 20-inch monitors seem to be the average
for most-gamers[and usually LCD-widescrenn], so, heres a short
List for "LCD monitord and rates;

17in. 1024x768 RF=75
19in. 1280x800 RF=75
20in. 1440x900 RF=75
22in. 1600x1200 RF=75

hope that helps,,

have fun everyone!!

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

different people get different pleasure from bigger screens... get at least like 17" it's alot bigger if you are use to seeing a 15"

 

[notherdude]

prawcess is correct,,
always try to use your monitors "native-resolution & refresh-rate"
for best performance, 20-inch monitors seem to be the average
for most-gamers[and usually LCD-widescrenn], so, heres a short
List for "LCD monitord and rates;

17in. 1024x768 RF=75
19in. 1280x800 RF=75
20in. 1440x900 RF=75
22in. 1600x1200 RF=75

hope that helps,,

have fun everyone!!

I've never seen this list. Every 20-22 inch WS LCD I've seen runs native at 1680 x 1050 and 60 hz refresh. My 24 inch runs at 1920 x 1200. Am I missing something?

 

[computertech82]

@comptech82

Yeah really, what drivers are you using....My 8800GTS 640 on Oblivion has just about every setting maxed(except grass distance and shadow detail @ 50%) @ 1440 x 900 2x AA 16x AF, HDR, and I get avg. 50+ fps outdoors. the new beta XP drivers(160.22 i think), helped raise my fps by like 20, so you might want to try them out.

To original poster, I used to game @ 1024x768 and then jumped to my 19" monitor @ 1440x900 and it does really look much better. If your card will support it, high rez = much better looking IMHO.

Running the newest driver from Nvidia. 1024by768 AFx2 no HDR. That's max distance view, max grass distance, shadow detail 50%. Also using alot of mods including OOO and MMM. Now i have a 4000+ x2 cpu, so that does slow it down a little.

 

[Myrkul23]

I am building a new PC and thinking of going with a 24" LCD... the BenQ FP241w. Do you think that playing the new games at native resolution (1920x1200) at near max settings is practical, or should I go with the lower resolution of a 22"?

 

[Sharp]

i just put together a new system build, a pretty good gaming machine, e6750, 8800 gts 320mb, 2 gigs of ram and a acer 22' wide screen monitor. I thought about not getting the widescreen monitor think that problems with the resolution might occur and or laggy performance. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!! i f#$%* LOVE my monitor oblivion runs on all full settings and hdr at 1680 1050 with ~60 fps outside and 175 outside. Half life 2 is a joke it looks so good, when i look at my monitor i dont see a computer screen. i see a window.

 

[Snail]

I have a 22inch Benq widescreen and a 7600gt and was worried about gaming at 1680 x 1050 but have noticed no issues.....but I don't apply AA or anything so its still smooth.

BTW - I used to game at 1280 x 1024. I try and run games at the same res as the monitor.

 

[systemlord]

Why is it that a 20" square LCD (@1600x1200) has more pixel's in it than a 22" LCD (1680x1050)?