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

[AsRock]

Well i think that there might be a difference but does depend on game. As with 1200 you would see more sky than you would with 1080 but with 1080 you would see more buildings and less sky meaning more power requirements ?. Although it depend on the game.

Or am i thinking of this wrong ?.

 

[dir_d]

You should just see more sky and more floor. The horizontal FOV should be the same for 1200p and 1080p. Some newer games are not taking in account for more vertical FOV so the 1080p image is being stretched to 1200p therefore cutting off the edges on the 1920 side. To fix this you should switch to 16:9 mode and there should be black bars on the top and bottom of your screen.

 

[a_ump]

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.

but wouldn't a larger FOV mean more objects on screen which would then equal more work for the system? or lower FPS?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Well i think that there might be a difference but does depend on game. As with 1200 you would see more sky than you would with 1080 but with 1080 you would see more buildings and less sky meaning more power requirements ?. Although it depend on the game.

Or am i thinking of this wrong ?.

1920x1200 = more sky
1920x1080 = less sky (nothing else)
That's the only difference between 1200 and 1080. No one is suppose to get more buildings as they are both at 1920.

 

[Agility]

1920x1200 = more sky
1920x1080 = less sky (nothing else)
That's the only difference between 1200 and 1080. No one is suppose to get more buildings as they are both at 1920.

That is correct. For games that has more wider view, you'll certainly lack the top and bottom part of it. This is due to the fact that the camera angle is just pushed backwards so you can see more. But the pixel of 1080 reduces the amount you can see from top and bottom. Thus if you were to compare with 1920X1200, you might be able to see the same top and bottom but a wider FOV in 1920X1080.

 

[AsRock]

1920x1200 = more sky
1920x1080 = less sky (nothing else)
That's the only difference between 1200 and 1080. No one is suppose to get more buildings as they are both at 1920.

But going buy your 2 pics you see more on top with 1200 and more of the right side with 1080

 

[Easy Rhino]

i dont think it is as complicated as people are making it.

if the game settings are exactly the same except for resolution then 1920x1200 will be more graphically demanding because the gpu has to draw and render images for a larger area.

 

[entropy13]

But going buy your 2 pics you see more on top with 1200 and more of the right side with 1080

The thing on the right side has "moved", that black Decepticon's holding it. Only seeing more on top was correct.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

That is correct. For games that has more wider view, you'll certainly lack the top and bottom part of it. This is due to the fact that the camera angle is just pushed backwards so you can see more. But the pixel of 1080 reduces the amount you can see from top and bottom. Thus if you were to compare with 1920X1200, you might be able to see the same top and bottom but a wider FOV in 1920X1080.

This makes sense. So what is happening in games showing the incorrect FOV at 1080 the camera angle is pushed backwards so that the vertical matches that of 1920x1200. By doing so you increase the horizontal view as a "side effect" of making the vertical FOV of 1920x1080 the same as 1920x1200. This is why the vertical FOV in the pics in the OP are the same yet the horizontal is wider.

What this means is that veritcal view (camera angle) at 1920x1080 (pics in the OP) should be shorter. IE: The camera angle needs to be pushed forward. But this is all a guess though.

So in hindsight that's what the OP was all about. Does pushing the camera view back at 1080 creates more demand for the GPU?

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

This is simple math

1080p = 2.1 million Pixels

1200p = 2.3 million Pixels

Therefore 1920 * 1200 is more demanding but am I just stating the obvious?

 

[Easy Rhino]

1080p = 2.1 million Pixels

1200p = 2.3 million Pixels

Therefore 1920 * 1200 is more demanding but am I just stating the obvious?

exactly i have been trying to point this out but people don't seem to care

 

[EastCoasthandle]

1080p = 2.1 million Pixels

1200p = 2.3 million Pixels

Therefore 1920 * 1200 is more demanding but am I just stating the obvious?

Your simplifying this a tad bit here. But a picture is worth a 1000 words


@ default 1080


@ 1080 but made wider (by moving the camera angle back)

As you can see there is a 6 FPS difference using the same resolution by moving the camera back. This is what we were discussing earlier about "pushing the camera back". Sure it will reduce frame rates. Now if this was a more demanding game for current gen video cards I would tend to believe that the frame rate difference would be much higher. But keep in mind this camera change is user controlled not default difference between 1080 with a wider horizontal FOV vs 1200 as found in the OP.

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

But its not about resolution then at all

Your simplifying this a tad bit here. But a picture is worth a 1000 words

[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_CoDWaW1080.jpg[/URL]
@ default 1080

[url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_CoDWaW1080wider.jpg[/URL]
@ 1080 but made wider (by moving the camera angle back)

As you can see there is a 6 FPS difference using the same resolution by moving the camera back. This is what we were discussing earlier about "pushing the camera back". Sure it will reduce frame rates. Now if this was a more demanding game for current gen video cards I would tend to believe that that frame rate difference would be much higher.

So it is merely about how to "film" a scene and look at it in a way so that you see more stuff. Couldn't that just be done at any resolution and in fact resolution is not even that important as simply how the "director" or developer wants you to see the action. Sure if you pan out in an RTS and see more units the frame rate will drop if your system is not able to process the data as fast.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

So it is merely about how to "film" a scene and look at it in a way so that you see more stuff. Couldn't that just be done at any resolution and in fact resolution is not even that important as simply how the "director" or developer wants you to see the action. Sure if you pan out in an RTS and see more units the frame rate will drop if your system is not able to process the data as fast.

lol, your post makes no sense here. Like I said, if you change the camera angle to a incorrect FOV you can alter the frame rates even though the resolution didn't change. So to put it in more prospective, 1920x1200 is more graphically demanding then 1920x1080. However, if the camera angle is pushed back to show more on the screen that too will have an effect in frame rate as shown in the previous post.

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Thats What I Just Said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol, your post makes no sense here. Like I said, if you change the camera angle to a incorrect FOV you can alter the frame rates even though the resolution didn't change. So to put it in more prospective, 1920x1200 is more graphically demanding then 1920x1080. However, if the camera angle is pushed back to show more on the screen that too will have an effect in frame rate as shown in the previous post.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

No it's not what you said,

Sure if you pan out in an RTS and see more units the frame rate will drop if your system is not able to process the data as fast.

Your implying that the issue is PC dependant. I'm not saying that. LOL


Oh wait there is also:

1080p = 2.1 million Pixels

1200p = 2.3 million Pixels

Therefore 1920 * 1200 is more demanding but am I just stating the obvious?

This is what you said which is why I posted those screen shots for you which is to avoid a long dragged out debate about it. The photos clearly show reduction in frame rate when the camera angle is pushed back. Anything else?

 

[W1zzard]

why dont you guys run some benchmarks?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

why dont you guys run some benchmarks?

I did a while back but no longer have them (already uninstall the game). There is a difference in frame rates when you mess with the camera angle. But honestly don't believe it would make a difference for someone who's argumentative.

As for what developers are doing I honestly don't know which is why I ask. It's possible what developers are doing maybe different then what the end user can do.

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

We are talking about the same thing

No it's not what you said,

Your implying that the issue is PC dependant. I'm not saying that. LOL


Oh wait there is also:

This is what you said which is why I posted those screen shots for you which is to avoid a long dragged out debate about it. The photos clearly show reduction in frame rate when the camera angle is pushed back. Anything else?

You said

"However, if the camera angle is pushed back"

I said

"Sure if you pan out in an RTS and see more units the frame rate will drop"

We talking about the same thing. That is why I made the movie direction reference. It is the same thing as what goes on in many RTS games. When you zoom in reducing the FOV you get higher frame rates and when you zoom out increasing the field of view you get lower frame rates. It aint about resolution it is about whats visible on the screen and the ability to handle that does change with a variety of platforms in attempting to implement increasing the FOV.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Snip.

I've already explained why our posts differ in the post you quoted. That is why I said our posts are not saying the same thing. However, if you are implying that you recant your comment about frame rates depending on what PC you have and that resolution alone doesn't determine frame rates then I understand (as your post seems to imply).

 

[erocker]

why dont you guys run some benchmarks?

Good idea.


Any particular games/apps you guys want me to run? I can do 1920x1080 and 1920x1200


*I can do Battleforge (It's free) and SupCom. My Fallout 3 collector's ed. is now ith TheMailMan's hands and I miss it very much.

Here's a list of everything I have on Steam:

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I can think of a few

Good idea.


Any particular games/apps you guys want me to run? I can do 1920x1080 and 1920x1200

Battleforge, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander to name a few. Maybe Fallout 3 would be good for a FRAPs run.

 

[Easy Rhino]

i can't believe people are still discussing this. all things being equal 1920x1200 is more graphically demanding. if the developers however force a FOV change in 1920x1080 when the game was made for 1920x1200 then it is possible.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

If there are going to be user results we would have to use games that are known to use the incorrect FOV between 1080 and 1200.

 

[Easy Rhino]

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?

isn't this a moot point? if the reviewer does not make a mistake then all of the reviews will look similiar and we will have a good picture of the cards performance. if the reviewer did make a mistake then it has nothing to do with pixel resolution.