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

[EastCoasthandle]

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.

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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

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.

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.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

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.

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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

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 with 1080 is showing a wider FOV then at 1200? I don't know and thus why I asked.

i guess i am confused about what you think the implications will be? are you more concerned about poor reviews or gpu demand?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

i guess i am confused about what you think the implications will be? are you more concerned about poor reviews or gpu demand?

I'm just naturally curious about it.

 

[ctrain]

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

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.

 

[eidairaman1]

gimme 1920x1200 or give me death!!!

 

[erocker]

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

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.

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.

 

[eidairaman1]

reason 1920x1200 runs a little slower is the amt of pixels that have to be rendered

 

[wahdangun]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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%.

 

[Sir_Foggy]

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.

 

[qubit]

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.

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.