1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Discussion in 'Games' started by EastCoasthandle, Jun 1, 2010.

  1. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Not to my point of view asking the question doesn't make it moot:
    "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?"

    I don't see how different resolutions are not related to pixel density (if that's what you meant) although not my thought in why I asked.
     
  2. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,422 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,240
    because all of the reviews will be the same in this manner. so it doesnt matter if 1080 is more demanding for some titles over 1200 because you will see it in all of the reviews except for the ones that are done by morons. so really this thread should be about avoiding moron reviewers.
     
  3. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    I'm just not that black and white about it. There maybe some, little or no difference between 1080 and 1200 when the FOV is used improperly. Regardless I think it's worth asking. I do know that changing the camera angle yourself (pushing it back) can have an effect on frame rates. But does that translate to what we see when 1080 is showing a wider FOV then at 1200? I don't know and thus why I asked.
     
  4. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,422 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,240
    i guess i am confused about what you think the implications will be? are you more concerned about poor reviews or gpu demand?
     
  5. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    I'm just naturally curious about it.
     
  6. ctrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    393 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    72
    because what is offscreen (and thus culled because it's out of the view frustums bounds) at 1200 might actually be visible with the wider aspect ratio.

    maybe a couple people are shooting at the edge of the screen. in a traditional rendering, you'd end up drawing the characters, then another geometry pass again for the dynamic light from the muzzle flash, then another for the resulting shadow. all of a sudden your gpu has 50k more triangles or whatever to deal with along with other load.

    you're drawing less pixels, which is good if you were fill rate bound, but you're probably drawing other stuff now as well.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2010
  7. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,399 (4.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,457
    gimme 1920x1200 or give me death!!!
     
  8. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,654 (13.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,046
    [​IMG]
     
    qubit and Zehnsucht say thanks.
  9. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,541 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    938
    This sums it all up, as if it wasn't summed up previously. A game programmed as you'd expect would be more demanding at 1200p. The ones with a 1080p fov on a 1200p res will run faster than on 1080p. This always happens in all these monitor debates, nobody gets what other people are saying, everyone skims posts, and it just drags on for 2 dozen pointless pages. The ultimate point ends up being it's just personal preference.
     
  10. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,399 (4.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,457
    reason 1920x1200 runs a little slower is the amt of pixels that have to be rendered
     
  11. wahdangun

    wahdangun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,512 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    114
    Location:
    indonesia ku tercinta
    i think its not about pixel density, but amount of polygon that being rendered.

    and thats why if you crank up the draw distance to the max in GTA your FPS will be drop, regardless of resolution, because the whole town was rendered, regardless being viewed in FOV or not
     
  12. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    13,557 (6.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,494
    Location:
    IA, USA
    As stated many times already in this thread, the 10% increase in pixel count is going to cause more strain than a minor tweak in field of view. There may be exceptions but as a general rule of thumb, 1920x1200 will be harder on the system than 1920x1080.


    erocker's comparison almost perfectly mirrors the 10% by giving a 8.9% reduction in FPS. The minor change in FOV may account for only 1.1% when the 230,400 extra pixels accounts for 10%.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2010
    qubit says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. Sir_Foggy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    24 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Intersting debate and it relates to my current conundrum...

    I'd like to go for a 2ms 1080p 24 inch LCD but they all seem to run at 60hz max...

    Is there anything really good that delivers true 2 ms at 75hz for 300$ or less?

    I've read reviews for big brand name monitors with these specs and price range that still exhibit funky problems like ghosting and shit.

    You'd think that such a fast response rate would outdo my AOC 22 inch 5ms.

    And yet I've never noticed any ghosting or blurry trails from it and it performs rock solidl no matter what I throw at it running in 960x600@75 hz:)

    But I'd like to go bigger and get something with even better colors and such and run it in 720p for desktop use and 1080p for gaming/bluray:)

    It has to be a definite step up and not too expensive though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2010
  14. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Firstly, ALL LCD monitors show significant streaking and ghosting, regardless of how good they are (and some are much worse than others) even if you think you haven't seen it. To prove it, just pan sideways in a game on the LCD and then compare it to a CRT. This effect will then become blindingly obvious and it looks dreadful, badly smearing the picture and blotting out detail.

    Unfortunately, CRTs are no longer available to buy, so the next best thing to improve animation quality, is to get a 120Hz capable monitor. These are the ones developed to work with nvidia's 3D Vision glasses and I had one a while back.

    Even if your system can't output a framerate as fast as 120Hz, the animation will still look smoother and clearer, because there will be less ghosting and blurring generated by the LCD monitor. Unfortunately, these are still expensive and there aren't many models to choose from.

    My current monitor is the iiyama ProLite E2607WS-1 26" 1920x1200 monitor with TN display panel. You can play fast moving FPS games on this just fine, despite it being just 60Hz capable* and it has a very nice picture when on the desktop and in-game.

    *It will accept a 75Hz signal, but it then translates that to a 60Hz signal which causes significant juddering, so you never want to feed it 75Hz video.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page