Widescreen Gaming Performance

[stan03]

Would there be a significant difference in the FPS while playing a game at 1440X900 vs 1680X1050 with all other quality settings remaining the same? I'm considering getting a new monitor, but I can't really decide between 19 and 20in. The monitor size doesn't really matter that much, I'm considering price and performance over sheer size. Right now I'm looking at the Samsung 940BW, if anyone has got any better/different recommendations that would be great. Thanks. If it matters, the video card is a Mobility X1600.

[Krome]

Consider the Samsung 215tw, it's 21"/HDCP compliant, and has Component inputs. I'm running HL2 Deathmatch @ around 40-50 fps w/ a fx5900xt.

[jivetrky]

I would say get a 1680x1050 display, you can always play in a lower resolution. in most cases you aren't going to see a big issue with non native resolutions when in a 3D game. But on the desktop you would want the most space you can get. And 1440x900 is kinda on the small side, IMO.

[stan03]

Consider the Samsung 215tw, it's 21"/HDCP compliant, and has Component inputs. I'm running HL2 Deathmatch @ around 40-50 fps w/ a fx5900xt.

That looks like a great monitor, but the price is just a little steep, its 200 dollars more than the 940BW.


Ok, I don't know that much about LCDs, but I was under the impression that non native resolutions always looked bad. I tried playing CS Source at lower than 1680X1050 (my laptops native resolution) and it looked pretty blurry. Is that not the case with an actual monitor?

[jivetrky]

the native on my laptop is 1920x1200 and I was playing oblivion at 1440x900 and thought it looked just fine

Was the same with my old 2405FPW...It had native of 1920x1200 and I played oblivion at 1680x1050 and it looked fine

(with mostly maxed settings in both cases)

I never really tried the 2405FPW with other games at lower resolutions because my vid setup let me play all other games at either 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 (1:1 aspect)

I'll probably install a few more games on this tonight, and I'll see how they look at lower resolutions.

[redrumy3]

i play all games at 1440 x 900 since thats my highest on my 19" sceptre :D love it

[ajrettke]

expect a 27% drop in framerates from 1440x900 to 1680x1050.

[jivetrky]

expect a 27% drop in framerates from 1440x900 to 1680x1050.


definitely true...but my point is that in many/most cases running a 1680x1050 LCD in 1440x900 will look just fine. But it will let him have some more desktop space and also give him the ability to play in higher resolutions if/when he gets a better vid card

[stan03]

expect a 27% drop in framerates from 1440x900 to 1680x1050.

Where did you get this number from? Does this factor in things like AA and AF?

definitely true...but my point is that in many/most cases running a 1680x1050 LCD in 1440x900 will look just fine. But it will let him have some more desktop space and also give him the ability to play in higher resolutions if/when he gets a better vid card

Did you ever install those other games to see how they look at non-native resolutions? Cause if they really don't look too bad, it would be nice to have a 20in monitor...

[kiIIxthexIights]

i would go with the 19 inch. the acer 19 inch widescreen from newegg is greeat and really cheap also.

[jivetrky]

Where did you get this number from? Does this factor in things like AA and AF?



Did you ever install those other games to see how they look at non-native resolutions? Cause if they really don't look too bad, it would be nice to have a 20in monitor...



I just did Saturday...I played FEAR and PREY on my laptop. It has a native resolution of 1920x1200 And I tried playing at 1680x1050 and 1400x900.

1680x1050, to me, looked perfect, but in 1440x900 I did notice some big looking pixels.

But then I'm also going from 1920x1200 down to 1440x900 ....so if only going from 1680x1050 I'd bet 1440x900 wouldn't look that bad

[KillrBuckeye]

I have a Dell 2005FPW that runs at 1680x1050, and I've tried games at non-native resolutions just to see how they'd look. I agree with jivetrky in that it depends on how much different of a resolution you're going to use. I've tried 840x525 (pixels were 4 times as large as 1680x1050), and it looked HORRIBLE. But running 1280x960 didn't look that bad, even though the image was stretched.

My personal preference is to use the "image centering" method when using non-native resolutions. For instance, I could run 1280x960 on my 2005FPW and it will keep the pixel ratio 1:1 and draw thin blacks bars at the top and bottom of the screen, and wider black bars along the sides. It's similar to watching a 4:3 movie on a 16:9 television. Image quality is retained--you're just not using portions of the monitor.

With that said, I definitely recommend going 1680x1050. The extra desktop space is very nice. Honestly, I almost find the 1050 vertical lines insufficient. I can't imagine using only 900 lines.

[jivetrky]

yep, the image centering on those is really nice. And I agree i think that 1050 vertical should be like the minimum. I had to get this laptop with 1920x1200 because that's what I was used to with my 2405FPW, and I ddn't think I could go lower :)

I had to use 1024x768 and 1290x1024 while waiting for my laptop and it was hard after being used to so much desktop space.

[Maviryk]

The reason why you pay more for the Samsung 215TW is because of the extra inputs it can accept. It can accept Component, Composite, S-video, and RCA. That and it has the absolute best viewing angles of any monitor I've seen.

It's also HDCP compliant and supports 720p, I believe it will accept 1080i input also.

Looks GREAT when watchin DVDs on my Xbox360 or playing games.

[BossBorot]

here (http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=474020) is a deal on the samsung you mentioned origionally. That card prob cant drive 1680x1050 well so I would just get a 19"

[stan03]

Ok, I think the origional question on monitor size has been settled, I'll probably get a 20in. But regaurding the 1:1 thing, I must be retarded, but I can't seem to find this setting. Anyone want to point me in the right direction?

[jivetrky]

here (http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=474020) is a deal on the samsung you mentioned origionally. That card prob cant drive 1680x1050 well so I would just get a 19"



a 9600 won't drive games at 1440x900 either....so he might as well get the better one and then when he upgrades video cards he will have a better display....plus the 9600 will still run a 1680x1050 desktop just fine

[stan03]

If it makes any difference, the video card is a mobility X1600 on a laptop, not the 9600 listed in my sig.

[jivetrky]

then I'd say you should be fine at 1680x1050 in most games.

[KillrBuckeye]

But regaurding the 1:1 thing, I must be retarded, but I can't seem to find this setting. Anyone want to point me in the right direction?With the drivers I'm using, it's in the nVidia Control Panel under nView Display Settings => Device Settings. This brings up the Digital Flat Panel Settings where you can select how resolutions are displayed (Centered output = 1:1). If you don't have an LCD monitor hooked up with a DVI cable, you won't be able to access this screen.

[FranksAndBeans]

The scaling differences won't be as noticeable on a laptop, at least from my experiences. If you are on a laptop then there is a pretty high chance you are dealing with an analog output, and the image quality is somewhat compromised due to that and also it being a laptop card.

Running off native on LCD's just fuzzies/softens things up a bit. It is terribly noticeable (unacceptable imho) on fonts and in productivity applications. In renderings like games and videos it is not a big deal at all, at least if the game is highly graphical and not using lots of text and small icons. In most FPS you'd really never notice.

If the monitor is going to be exclusively used with a laptop, size doesn't matter that much (how is that possible?), and cost is an issue, I'd definitely recommend getting a deal on a 19" wide. I've seen them at ~$120 w/ rebates. A bit small for my tastes, but sounds ok per your comments.

[jivetrky]

My display is digital on my laptop and I also have a DVI out on the back.

And how would image quality be lacking because it's a laptop card? my card is still a 7900 series card. Yeah it's not as fast as a desktop 7900 card (scores 5000 in 3DMark06) but the image quality shouldn't be any lower.


And as for fuzzy fonts and stuff...there would be no reason he would run out of native res in something other than a 3D game.....so fonts and stuff wouldn't really come into play.