Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Apr 12, 2012.
man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way
16:10 100%. I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.
I would argue that playing 1280x1024 with an HD 6950 is just not making full use of your card right now. As a comparison, I used an HD 6950 to upgrade my brother's aging Q6600 based system so he could run eyefinity in SWTOR with 3x 23" panels. Despite his system being a bit dated he's still able to play high settings and manage 50-60 fps in demanding areas. So that single GPU is pushing 3x 1080p panels and almost 5x as many pixels as your single 1280x1024 display. So that just shows how much of your GPU is sitting idle right now.
You do have a valid and legitimate point that the card will last you for several years and remain able to play some of your games at high settings. But remember the ultra settings in some games will rely on GPU technology that may be implemented in the latest version of Direct X, Direct3D, or OpenGL which your card will not support, so no you will not always be able to run ultra settings in the latest games every year despite running a lower resolution. Some games today (I believe Shogun 2 is among them) require you to run DX11 mode to play the ultra detail settings and get tessellation, where as the high detail modes would be limited to DX10. So some doing what you have done and is still running an older card from a few years ago may still be running a very powerful DX10 card and running Shogun 2 smoothly at 1280x1024, but wont be getting the full detail experience because they dont have DX11 support.
Which is why, perhaps the better option for lower resolution gaming would be to buy the cheaper mid range cards every year or so? That way you get the latest tech every time, you take advantage of the latest processing (lower power, lower heat, lower noise), you get the latest features (directx, opengl, latest media acceleration, etc).
But honestly, resolution IS king. More pixels means more clarity, you get to see more detail, you're not running so much texture compression, and you don't have to rely on a lot of post processing or AA/AF to improve image quality. At 2560x1440 (or 4360x1440 depending if I want to run my triple panels in business mode or fun mode ) I really don't even need AA enabled because you can hardly tell the difference.
TheLostSwede is correct, at 1080p you DO NOT need a $400 gpu, pretty much anything in the $100 range will do. A GTX 460 will plow through any game at 1080p with high settings.
At this point the lowest resolution device I own is my 1080p TV. My ipad runs 2048x1536, my PC runs 4360x1440 (17" portrait, 27" landscape 17" portrait).
The advantage of 16:10 are for text & web surfing because of the more height they have but if i would use my pc only for that an 4:3 monitor would be best
On an 16:10 or 16:9 monitor you can always split the screen in the middle with 2 pages , each page would look like if you were using an 4:3 monitor , well... more like two of them in fact...
Anyhow i like my 16:9 because i can surf the web on half my screen & watch a movie on the other half or do something else at the same time
They are both widescreen & the extras 120 pixels are not that much to go nuts over it IMO
I wonder what the average screen resolution is for a TPU user? Personally I just got one of those super cheap catleap monitors with 2560x1440.
16:10 is silly, you get the same amount of space for movies, but not a whole lot extra for web and games. You should determine if your web browsing, photoshopping, gaming or watching movies more and make your mind up on a 16:9 or 3:4 monitor
I find that 16:10 fills up my visible space better than 16:9, but that's IMO I suppose.
Until recently I was using 800x600 so go figure
How exactly you get more detail if you subsequently also have higher diagonal? You're just making image bigger, not more detailed. Because you're not increasing the pixel density. And pixel density is what is actually increasing visual detail.
Also if i'm not fully utilizing my HD6950, that means i can live with it easily till DX12 arrives and even past that point since DX12 games won't arrive immediately. Most of you will have to buy another DX11 card in order to even get properly playable games.
Basically i feel like i'm using a console. Whatever i throw at it works as intended. High framerate, max detail. No compromises for minimal cost. It's really a budget gamer's heaven.
I'll eventually go to 1920x1080 or whatever it will be at that point, but you'll all probably be at 2560x1920 or something at that point. And i don't mind that. It works great for me.
My lappy is 1366x768, but my desktop is 2560x1600
I hate when I am away from home and try to play at 1366x768
What is 1600*1200 rare these days? :S
Personally i thought 1280x1024 would be the most popular because its the cheapest to produce and they use it a lot commercially
I agree, I would have expect that to be the most popular, im also surprised at how low 1920x1080 ranks...
damn that new ipad must have a HELLUVA gpu!
Probably workstations for them corporate drones.
My laptop have a 17" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. And is a disaster. Even if I keep my DPI to almost 200%, Win 7 still fracks things up. Everything is scaled badly, the java/flash/active x site and apps don't scale well with high DPI, not to say that they actually don't scale at all, so I need to use a microscope to read text and stuff; etc, etc. Imagine is sharp, but not that sharp compared to my friends laptop which works at 1366x769, and everything is PERFECTLY scaled and sized.
So bigger resolution doesn't necessary means better quality, ESPECIALLY for Microsoft OSes...
Enjoy trolling? Are you playng Crysis of BF3 on your tablet?? Hmm??
Well I wont argue about your res, if your happy with it, what else matters? And sure enough, pushing fewer pixels means there no need for top notch GPUs or the need to upgrade frequently. I dont think Id go so far as to laugh at others though. If you have a higher res, there is always the option to run lower/windowed (where appropriate). And actually, with the res you are running, Ive no idea why you even have a 6950OC it doesnt know what its doing in there!
Yup, I know that feeling! Ive 3 of them (only game on 1 - pass on hassle of multi screen, BEZEL, lack of support and the need to spend an awful lot on GPUs) and you just cant express how much work space someone with one 1080p monitor is missing ^_^!
Although speaking of gaming, I havent bought any games really in over a year since Id have to tone down res's and settings. I personally dont even want to see them in that state... Roll on new build in a few weeks =]
and lets bring back pixel doubling in games as well (F.E.A.R. on a GMA950 anyone?)
Agreed... for some reason the extra 120px seems better.
I got a KDS Avitron that does that res pretty well. I'm not using it atm though, it uses a whopping 200watts, while my current display is only using 35w Though I do miss the higher res.
I can see the need for higher res in games, but everything else not so much, at least not until Windows gets better with DPI settings and scaling. I don't really need the space for the icons, i found an alternative to filling up the desktop. I'll post a vid a little later.
It's better for web pages that are properly formatted. It sucks having to scroll to the right to see an entire image or post.
here's a little trick to clear the desktop icons
after you get everything set up, right click the desktop and go to view then take the check off of "show desktop icons".
i can make a better "how to" video if anyone needs it.
no, neither is 99% of the general public
Those 19'' LCDs must be selling like hotcakes. They also are the reason the VGA port is still around.
I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular". Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens. Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format. I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens. I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.
The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...
Good thing you can get a 1080p monitor from Newegg for ~$100.
Sure...if you live in North America. The fortunate elitist in me first reacted to this title like "Hah is this from 1998?" but it's kind of important to remember this is not a freaking Steam survey but rather general world-wide use and on not just desktop computers.
What does a nice 1080P display generally cost in, say, Bangladesh?
Though I would also like to point out that if you're a gamer and you have the system power than at least 1080P widescreen is a no-brainer.
Separate names with a comma.