Is 1080 (16:9) becoming more graphically demanding than 1200 (16:10)?

[EastCoasthandle]

I am seeing that some games offer more viewable area when it's played at 16:9 instead of 16:10. This is because it's coded in such a way where there is more visible area to see on the left and right sides. When you compare the top and bottom they are similar between 1200 vs 1080. This is debatable as some believe that it's erroneous to allow 1080 to have more viewable area then 1200. The reason for this trend is also debatable with some blaming consolitis.

So, when you look at GPU reviews for certain games are we really seeing the whole picture of performance? What if a mistake is made and one card was reviewed at 1200 while the other at 1080 for a game that offered more viewable area at 1080?

For example:
AvP 2010
Just Cause 2
NFS Shift
Settler 7
As well as a few others out there. Should 1080 be the new high end standard for reviews?

 

[wolf2009]

interesting topic

 

[newtekie1]

I think the two resolution are so close together it doesn't matter, the performance difference is going to be a few FPS at most.

Besides that, the number of pixels being renders are still what matters most, not what part of the scene is actually displayed in the field of view. If what was displayed in the FOV was the deciding factor in performance, we would see no performance change from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200, as both would have the same FOV.

 

[bpgt64]

Thats an interesting question...however I think it has more to do with 1080p being more common in monitors than 1920x1200..Just because the 1200p is probably less common format than 1080p for most digital content also.

 

[angelkiller]

Besides that, the number of pixels being renders are still what matters most, not what part of the scene is actually displayed in the field of view. If what was displayed in the FOV was the deciding factor in performance, we would see no performance change from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200, as both would have the same FOV.

My thoughts exactly.

But QUESTION: So the increased FOV at 1080p means you can see more. Doesn't that mean that there is more things to render because there is more going on in the pixels? In other words, even though it's less pixels, because you can see more, it's harder to render. In an extremely simplified example, would be 10 easy pixels (to render) versus 7 hard ones.

 

[CounterZeus]

I don't think it matters much. 1920*1080 with more fov probably needs more geometry/vertex calculations, but less fragment calculations(pixels), while 1920*1200 would need more of the latter. Just a guess though.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Isn't the standard 1080p? So does it even matter? I've yet to see a TV or monitor that allows for 1200p. I think i'm confused.

 

[fredkruge]

I think the FPS between 16:10 and 16:9 is negligable, but about FOV... I think it would slightly impact performance because yea, more calculations because of the larger viewing area being showed.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Isn't the standard 1080p? So does it even matter? I've yet to see a TV or monitor that allows for 1200p. I think i'm confused.

1920x1200

 

[newtekie1]

Isn't the standard 1080p? So does it even matter? I've yet to see a TV or monitor that allows for 1200p. I think i'm confused.

With computer monitors, the original standard was 1920x1200 or 16:10. This was the upsize to 1680x1050.

However, as TVs started to use 1920x1080, and 1080p being marketted to hell and back as FullHD, it created a market where 1080p panels are in high supply and hence it is cheap to manufacturer a 1080p monitor while consumers are brainwashed into wanting 1080p only. So now, most monitors use 1920x1080, especially the more inexpensive monitors.

 

[newconroer]

I am seeing that some games offer more viewable area when it's played at 16:9 instead of 16:10. This is because it's coded in such a way where there is more visible area to see on the left and right sides. When you compare the top and bottom they are similar between 1200 vs 1080. This is debatable as some believe that it's erroneous to allow 1080 to have more viewable area then 1200. The reason for this trend is also debatable with some blaming consolitis.

So, when you look at GPU reviews for certain games are we really seeing the whole picture of performance? What if a mistake is made and one card was reviewed at 1200 while the other at 1080 for a game that offered more viewable area at 1080?

For example:
AvP 2010
Just Cause 2
NFS Shift
Settler 7
As well as a few others out there. Should 1080 be the new high end standard for reviews?

Good post Coast.

I think this is a spinoff of negative consequences of one of my main gripes with the panel industry, in that everything is being reduced to 1080p for cost effectiveness reasons, fueled by the marketing saturation of "1080p" - As Tekie was just talking about.

If what you are saying is correct, even if performance is the same, we're not getting proper dot per pixel representation and/or FOV considerations.

Not much we can do I suppose.

 

[pabloc74]

it's better for me 2560x1600 XD

 

[douglatins]

I blame console porting

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

go always for 16:9 aspect ratio, it´s the movies way, and perfect for gaming and FOV

 

[MohawkAngel]

What FOV means ? Thx for the info

 

[FilipM]

FOV = Field Of View

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

With computer monitors, the original standard was 1920x1200 or 16:10. This was the upsize to 1680x1050.

However, as TVs started to use 1920x1080, and 1080p being marketted to hell and back as FullHD, it created a market where 1080p panels are in high supply and hence it is cheap to manufacturer a 1080p monitor while consumers are brainwashed into wanting 1080p only. So now, most monitors use 1920x1080, especially the more inexpensive monitors.

A number of people on here have made good arguments as to why they prefer 1080p in the dozen or so threads we've had debating this. So I wouldn't generalize that everyone buying them is brainwashed.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Many are still of the opinions that the 1920x1200 offers better real estate for desktop and game use. Not all games use the improper FOV. So that isn't a good reason to get a 1080 monitor. Remember, you can always change from 16:10 to 16:9 when using a 1920x1200 monitor.

 

[Easy Rhino]

i dont see how 1920x1080 could be more graphically demanding then 1920x1200 considering the latter has more pixels...

 

[kid41212003]

It's really sad to say this but it looks like what East said might be true.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/65008

I took 2 screenshots 1 @ 1920x1200 and 1 @ 1920x1080, and 1080p does indeed have wider view.

Instead of expand 16:9 -> 16:10, the game crop the extra wide instead.

Look likes my next monitor will be 2560x1440...

 

[MohawkAngel]

Listen boys I got a 22 inches 16:10 lcd computer moniter and cant see hell of a difference. Ok Ok the movie i have seen was in 1080P but the screen can "trick" the movies to put them in the 16:10. Almost no difference unless you have eagle eyes. My opinion... 16:10 is the Beta and the 16:9 is the VHS .... less quality for cheaper have win counting also the fact that almost no movies where made in 16:10 ..like the problem they had with Sony betamax player at that time.
Next time ill just buy an OLED 16:9 screen with 1080P and 55 inches and will have enough size to see that motherfu***** sniper hidding in the bushes 2 miles away in Battlefield ! lol

 

[1freedude]

i dont see how 1920x1080 could be more graphically demanding then 1920x1200 considering the latter has more pixels...

I try to think of these things in terms of matrix manipulation...this is just a guess...i have no proof to back this up...seems like 1920x1200 comes out with "smoother" numbers that might flow through the cards' memory and cores...1900x1200=2304000/384(mem interface)=6000

the same number for 1920x1080 is 5400. *maybe* this explains...???

later, i'll fire up matlab and run some benches

 

[Depth]

Some games render 16:9 in +H and 16:10 in -V, making the former more demanding. The amount of pixels doesn't tell you differences between ratios.

 

[wahdangun]

hmm, doesn't 3D games render, in you FOV, and basically a 1200p monitor have more FOV but we can't feel it because human eye arrangement is horizontal.

so 1200p would be more demanding unless the dev really screw it with crap-port.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

hmm, doesn't 3D games render, in you FOV, and basically a 1200p monitor have more FOV but we can't feel it because human eye arrangement is horizontal.

so 1200p would be more demanding unless the dev really screw it with crap-port.

At 1920x1080 the resolution does have less vertical pixel real estate then a monitor that offers 1920x1200 resolution. So what should happen is that a screen at 1920x1200 is suppose to show more vertical FOV (top and bottom) then at 1920x1080 when gaming. However, what we are seeing is that vertical FOV (top/bottom) is the same between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 in some game. While 1920x1080 get a wider horizontal FOV in some games. How is this done? Simple, you re-adjust the correct FOV at 1200 and/or 1080.

As for vertical FOV at 1920x1200 I'm guessing that it's based on the 1080 FOV and just re-adjusted when gaming. What that means is that even at 1920x1200 you maybe gaming with a vertical FOV at 1080.



Exampled below are how resolutions look when compared with one another:

Here is how 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 is suppose to look:

1920x1200

VS


1920x1080

Even in the thumbnails you can see that the 1200 offers more vertical FOV then at 1080.