Anyone else a low resolution gamer?

[Phil1977]

I upgraded to a Full HD monitor a while ago but wasn't that happy with it. While the higher resolution is great for work, I found the reduction in FPS quite noticeable and I didn't want to upgrade the video card.

My gaming setup is an i5 2400, 8GB, 120GB SSD, GTX660, Acer 18.5" and Logitech Z506.

The Acer monitor is quite old, not even LED backlight. But it's glossy and the colours are very crisp with great black levels and no "blotchy" spots as my larger Full HD screen had.

It has VGA and DVI and happily takes 75Hz at the native resolution of 1366 x 768 which makes input more responsive with Vsync enabled.

The main benefit of my setup is incredibly high FPS on a budget.

A quick benchmark with Alien vs Predator:

Default settings:

Using Default Video Settings:

Resolution: 1024 x 768
Texture Quality: 2
Shadow Quality: 3
Anisotropic Filtering: 16
SSAO: ON
Vertical Sync: OFF
DX11 Tessellation: ON
DX11 Advanced Shadows: ON
DX11 MSAA Samples: 1


Benchmark Summary:

Number of frames: 14805
Average Frame Time: 7.1ms
Average FPS: 141.3

Max settings with 4x AA:

Resolution: 1366 x 768
Texture Quality: 3
Shadow Quality: 3
Anisotropic Filtering: 16
SSAO: ON
Vertical Sync: OFF
DX11 Tessellation: ON
DX11 Advanced Shadows: ON
DX11 MSAA Samples: 4


Benchmark Summary:

Number of frames: 7480
Average Frame Time: 14.0ms
Average FPS: 71.5

 

[lehtv]

GTX 660 should play games fine on 1080p if you're willing to lower the image quality a little. 1080p with medium settings is in my opinion (and I predict most people agree) much better than, say, 1366x768 at maximum settings.

Also, you don't have to use MSAA to get AA. Try SweetFX SMAA.

 

[PlanetJosh]

According to the DPI Calculator in the link below you have 85 DPI with the 1366 x 768 resolution on the 18.5" screen. That's a fairly nice DPI. And you can get 92 DPI if you're willing to play at 1440 x 900 on your monitor which is only 2 DPI lower than playing at 1920 x 1080 on a 23.5" monitor. Now if the 1440 res affects your fps too much.. not sure.

Oh Edit: Sorry, forgot it looks like you'd have to get another monitor to go 1440 x 900?

I hope I'm not placing too much importance on DPI but it does add more detail to the graphics as you go up per inch at least according to opinions and theories and hopefully facts.

As for my 18.5" Samsung monitor I had a few years ago I really liked that screen for games.

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

-------------------------------------------------------------
i7 Quad 3820 3.6ghz || Radeon 7950 3gb || Win 7 Pro
Asus P9 X79 || DDR3 8gb || WD HD 1tb || Onboard Sound
Cooler Master 650W || 27” Samsung Lcd || Thermaltake Case

 

[Erenhardt]

I have 19' ASUS VB191T 1280x1024 (5:4) and hd7770. I can max most, if not all of my games. Only thing bothering me is aspect ratio. I can't see most of thing other people see until I come closer, lower field of view (LoL, PoE). In dead space I couldn't see my hp bar (the led thing on back of your character) because of square field of view.
I'm afraid of upgrading to fullHD, because I don't have funds for new GPU and 7770 will be struggling.

 

[toyota]

18.5 16:9 screen is just so physically small. it looks like a little toy and does not give me anywhere near the immersion that a larger screen can give.

 

[toyota]

According to the DPI Calculator in the link below you have 85 DPI with the 1366 x 768 resolution on the 18.5" screen. That's a fairly nice DPI. And you can get 92 DPI if you're willing to play at 1440 x 900 on your monitor which is only 2 DPI lower than playing at 1920 x 1080 on a 23.5" monitor. Now if the 1440 res affects your fps too much.. not sure.

I hope I'm not placing too much importance on DPI but it does add more detail to the graphics as you go up per inch at least according to opinions and theories and hopefully facts.

As for my 18.5" Samsung monitor I had a few years ago I really liked that screen for games.

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

? 1366x768 is going to be the native and max res on an 18.5 inch screen. also 1366x768 is 16:9 and 1440x900 is 16:10 so it would make no sense to use that anyway.

I have 19' ASUS VB191T 1280x1024 (5:4) and hd7770. I can max most, if not all of my games. Only thing bothering me is aspect ratio. I can't see most of thing other people see until I come closer, lower field of view (LoL, PoE). In dead space I couldn't see my hp bar (the led thing on back of your character) because of square field of view.
I'm afraid of upgrading to fullHD, because I don't have funds for new GPU and 7770 will be struggling.

yeah 5:4 is horrible for modern games as you literally miss out on 1/3 of the games intended fov. games like Dead Space would make me throw up trying to play on that aspect ratio.

 

[Stuka87]

I don't think I could take playing on a screen that small these days. 10 years ago I gamed on a 19" CRT. But after owning 20"+ displays for the last 8 or so years, going smaller would suck. I like being able to sit back farther.

Sure it is cheaper to game on a low res screen, but it has huge trade offs besides actual screen size.

 

[toyota]

I don't think I could take playing on a screen that small these days. 10 years ago I gamed on a 19" CRT. But after owning 20"+ displays for the last 8 or so years, going smaller would suck. I like being able to sit back farther.

Sure it is cheaper to game on a low res screen, but it has huge trade offs besides actual screen size.

a 19 inch CRT would be much larger height wise than a 20 inch LCD.

here is a 22 inch (21.5 actual) 16:9 screen next to just a 17 inch(16 actual) crt



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Stuka87]

a 19 inch CRT would be much larger height wise than a 20 inch LCD.

here is a 22 inch (21.5 actual) 16:9 screen next to just a 17 inch(16 actual) crt



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Yeah, it would be a bit taller. But less overall real estate. I use a 23" 1080P display now and greatly prefer it to the old CRT's that are now just taking up space.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

I don't have the luxury of owning a 1080p monitor. However I do play on a window (for now) since my new rig is having problems

 

[Phil1977]

Thanks for the input guys!

Yes the screen is smaller, but I also move it closer to the front. What I find in games is that I see more of the entire scene. I did game on a 27" which is in my home office now, but I simply found myself panning and scanning around.

The performance is a nice bonus. At 75Hz Vsync is a lot better with less mouse input lag and achieving a constant 75fps is not hard to achieve on this machine. The "next step up" is a 120Hz screen and they all come in Full HD. And to achieve constantly above 120Hz you need a massively overclocked CPU, extreme cooling and expensive SLI configuration.

The smoothness of this setup is what I love the most. No hickups, no slowdowns, just butter smooth

I also prefer AA over resolution, always have.

 

[moonbogg]

I think once you adapt to it, it doesn't matter much what size monitor you game with. Its still fun.

 

[skipsneeky2]

As much as i love my u2412m and its 1200p resolution,i would prefer playing native 1280x1024 on my 17'' gateway 4:3 before i drop the native resolution of my u2412m to 1680x1050 or below as dpi on my 17'' i believe is a hairline better then the u2412m.

Have considered giving the wife my u2412m for her tower and going with something like a 19'' 1366x768 just for the insane fps my 7850 would give me as with 1200p,it can lack the fps i require sometimes and it would be cheaper to go with a 19'' monitor then wanting to buy some $400 gpu.

 

[Kenmitch]

My son is playing @ 1024 x 768 currently using his TV. Sold him my not so old rig which I was using on my TV @ 1080p just fine. Guess my IPS panel TV is far superior to his. His looks like.arse.at.1080p.

 

[PlanetJosh]

? 1366x768 is going to be the native and max res on an 18.5 inch screen. also 1366x768 is 16:9 and 1440x900 is 16:10 so it would make no sense to use that anyway.

Yeah I had to correct my post. It would take a new monitor for the 16:10 which aint gonna happen as you said.

 

[FalseChristian]

I'm using a 22" LCD monitor at 1680x1050 and with 4x AA games look pretty good.

 

[Shmee]

I thought low resolution was for console peasants

 

[frozentundra123456]

I have 19' ASUS VB191T 1280x1024 (5:4) and hd7770. I can max most, if not all of my games. Only thing bothering me is aspect ratio. I can't see most of thing other people see until I come closer, lower field of view (LoL, PoE). In dead space I couldn't see my hp bar (the led thing on back of your character) because of square field of view.
I'm afraid of upgrading to fullHD, because I don't have funds for new GPU and 7770 will be struggling.

I have a 7770 with a 1080p monitor. I wouldn't say that it struggles exactly, but you do have to make some compromises. Most games I can run on high, a few at medium. I will admit that I am happy with 35 to 40 fps, and am not into the most recent graphically intense shooters like FC3 and Crysis 3 though.

Overall though, I think you would be satisfied with your card at 1080, unless you insist on 60 fps . No offense intended, but I can't imagine gaming at 5:4 aspect ratio.

 

[looper]

I may become a 'low resolution PC gamer' this Fall when Battlefield 4 appears. Within the next several months I will prob get an nVidia 770 or 780 and a TN panel 120hz Asus or BenQ 24" or 27" for LightBoost steroid speed in FPS games. I currently play at 1920x1200 for BF3.

If I hate the color/clarity/contrast semi-degradation of the new TN monitor compared to my current IPS Dell U2410, then I'll give the Boss the new monitor, pretending it is my Xmas gift to her....

 

[tviceman]

I upgraded to a 1440p Korean monitor last year, but there are times I miss running at 1200p native because of the performance benefits. My future upgrade plans for 20nm GPU's has me seriously considering going SLI / crossfire with a pair of midrange cards.

Then again, if Nvidia and AMD can beat Titan by 15-25% for under $600, I'll probably reconsider and get 1 card just for the sake of quieter operation and less gaming issues.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I upgraded to a 1440p Korean monitor last year, but there are times I miss running at 1200p native because of the performance benefits. My future upgrade plans for 20nm GPU's has me seriously considering going SLI / crossfire with a pair of midrange cards.

Then again, if Nvidia and AMD can beat Titan by 15-25% for under $600, I'll probably reconsider and get 1 card just for the sake of quieter operation and less gaming issues.

I would love to have a 1440p panel for productivity, but it just requires too much horsepower for me for gaming. Partly that is because I am older and sort of mediocre despite playing a lot. I also don't play online much, so I don't want to invest too much in hardware. If you have the skill and resources for it though, have fun.

 

[tential]

I would love to have a 1440p panel for productivity, but it just requires too much horsepower for me for gaming. Partly that is because I am older and sort of mediocre despite playing a lot. I also don't play online much, so I don't want to invest too much in hardware. If you have the skill and resources for it though, have fun.

Why not just scale the resolution down when gaming....

I can't play low resolution though. 70 inch television and low resolution don't go together. I can't even play Xbox 360 without getting very annoyed. I would sell the thing since it's pretty useless at this point, but Halo 4 is fun every now and then.

 

[jacktesterson]

I play on a 50" Plasma TV all the time, at 1360x768 on a couch - 7-8 feet back. I love it. My "desktop" in sig is actually a HTPC that sits in my TV Stand. I spent a ton of Money on my Plasma in 2008 and still love its picture quality, even if its not Full HD. (720p/1080i set).

I actually play majority of my games here - as I prefer Single Player type games too - Using a 360 Controller.

My house is wired so I have a DVI Cable, Audio and USB Extension Cable run into a bedroom in the walls to a Dell U2412M Monitor - So I can game, use my PC at a Portable desk if needed.. at 1920x1200. (Although this is rare, I actually use my Laptops more for this unless they are not powerful enough, but my E4310 runs Age of Empires 2 HD fine) I use this for occasional mouse/keyboard games, and has a tiny bedroom TV.


Gaming is gaming- I still enjoy it at 1360x768 and will for probably at least 2 more years before I buy a new TV. (Waiting to see what OLED comes too)


I'd probably be a console gamer if I didn't also like building PC's

 

[tential]

I play on a 50" Plasma TV all the time, at 1360x768 on a couch - 7-8 feet back. I love it. My "desktop" in sig is actually a HTPC that sits in my TV Stand. I spent a ton of Money on my Plasma in 2008 and still love its picture quality, even if its not Full HD. (720p/1080i set).

I actually play majority of my games here - as I prefer Single Player type games too - Using a 360 Controller.

My house is wired so I have a DVI Cable, Audio and USB Extension Cable run into a bedroom in the walls to a Dell U2412M Monitor - So I can game, use my PC at a Portable desk if needed.. at 1920x1200. (Although this is rare, I actually use my Laptops more for this unless they are not powerful enough, but my E4310 runs Age of Empires 2 HD fine) I use this for occasional mouse/keyboard games, and has a tiny bedroom TV.


Gaming is gaming- I still enjoy it at 1360x768 and will for probably at least 2 more years before I buy a new TV. (Waiting to see what OLED comes too)


I'd probably be a console gamer if I didn't also like building PC's

I find that surprising that you're ok with that resolution. My setup is similar, 70 inch TV, HTPC next to it, 1080p screen, xbox 360 controller. If I use my actual xbox 360 though it's just underwhelming. I stick to a lot of single player on that setup though. I don't think I can compete in the PC crowd using an xbox 360 controller. I'll find out with BF4.

I still game on my laptop a LOT though, and I'm excited to get a new Haswell laptop or the next iteration when my laptop truly craps out. It's getting close to that point though. League of Legends is starting to not run sometimes. Heat is a huge issue, and I've used a duster and when I open it up, I don't even see much dust in the laptop. Propping the laptop up though so there is more air underneath helps a lot.

 

[PingSpike]

Back in the days of CRT monitors if my hardware couldn't run at an acceptable framerate resolution was the setting I always bumped down. I've never been to big of a fan of AA either and its traditionally seemed to have way to much performance cost. AF always made a noticeable difference to me and the performance cost was small in comparison to AA. I put higher resolution textures, shadows, grass, water effects, etc WAY above resolution and AA. I have no desire to see a high resolution view of pixelated muddy texture covered barren hills and forests with crap water effects and banal lighting.

Then LCDs became the thing and now running non native resolution is a thing you have to worry about. This and aspect ratio ass pains actually bothered me far more than the black levels everyone was always complaining about.

Anyway, the solution to the "I want a high resolution monitor for productivity but still want to play lower resolution games I decent frame rates with my cheap GPU" problem is to buy a high resolution monitor and run your games at dimension resolutions to get perfect scaling. So you get a 1440p monitor and run your games at 720p. No interpolation problems, 1 pixel fills 4 and a card that can run any game at 720p should be a bargain.

The only reason this is a pain in the ass is the rise of the craptop and HD TV resolutions means there aren't a lot of high affordable high resolution monitors. In a lot of ways we've been going backwards in LCDs the last few years IMO. There's only a handful of resolutions out there used in the affordable monitor space and the situation is even worse if you're looking for an affordable laptop. I half expect them to come out with a 16:5 aspect ratio or something like that so they can screw us even more in the total glass to diagonal measurement area.