Do you sometimes lower the resolution to increase the quality?

[taltamir]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32631476&postcount=18

Simple question, do you ever lower the resolution of a game from your LCDs native resolution in order you increase graphics quality (adding AA, ambient occlusion, texture size, shadows, or whatever).

 

[nickbits]

No

 

[JBT]

I had done this a few years ago occasionally. I wouldn't do this anymore though.

 

[taltamir]

I had done this a few years ago occasionally. I wouldn't do this anymore though.

what changed?

 

[toyota]

I will certainly reduce some settings before dropping below native res on an LCD. the highest settings available mean nothing if I have to play at a lower than native res where its blurry and needs even more AA anyway.

also if I cant play comfortably with at least somewhat decent settings at my native res then its time for a new gpu anyway.

 

[badb0y]

Nope, always lower settings. If I have to resort to lower the resolution I don't play the game until I buy a better GPU/CPU etc.

 

[watek]

No, I prefer native res 100% and low settings. Most of the games out now low settings do not look that bad at all anyways.

 

[greenhawk]

I will certainly reduce some settings before dropping below native res on an LCD. the highest settings available mean nothing if I have to play at a lower than native res where its blurry and needs even more AA anyway.

+1

With a CRT it was not a issue, with LCD, it is. Getting bluring due to non-supported resolutions is not worth it when upping details (which are most likly lost).

Though my current screen does support resolutions that are not the default, they are even multiples of that max res. But at a glance when I opened the box, they are very low resolutions that I could not up the detail enough to compensate for them.

 

[taltamir]

I will certainly reduce some settings before dropping below native res on an LCD. the highest settings available mean nothing if I have to play at a lower than native res where its blurry and needs even more AA anyway.

Less AA, it needs less AA because the blur not more AA. And you might actually be able to enable AA once you drop resolution.

Question here, how many of you actually test it out in every game individually before choosing the native res at lower setting? Or if not in every case, how many games have you tested it out in before settling on said policy.

With a CRT it was not a issue, with LCD, it is.

True

Getting bluring due to non-supported resolutions is not worth it when upping details (which are most likly lost).

Going from simple shadows to complex shadows, upping the textures, or adding Anisotropic Filtering, etc are most certainly is not lost in the stretching.

 

[toyota]

so now you think we have never tried to lower the res? we choose not to play like that because we have tried it and know how it looks. I told you the average person would rather lower some settings than to drop below native res on on an LCD and so for you are the only person who disagrees.

 

[taltamir]

so now you think we have never tried to lower the res?

No, I explicitly stated that I am asking if you try it in multiple games rather then just going off your previous experiences.

My own stated policy was, for a while, to always reduce quality settings before resolution. But recent testing showed me that in some games (not even a majority, just some) I get better results on my hardware if doing it the other way around.

I made it perfectly clear what I am asking. The average person, out of a set of 8 (quite a small sample, need more votes) would rather always lower settings than resolution; so you seem to be right about that. I thought more people would choose on a game by game basis. Also apparently I should have included a "I would rather buy a new video card" option since half the people who votes for option 1 said so in their post. Also, just because that is what the average person would rather do doesn't mean I am the only one who deviates from the norm here.

 

[toyota]

No, I explicitly stated that I am asking if you try it in multiple games rather then just going off your previous experiences.

well I rarely have the need to anymore but when using my gtx260 I tried several games on lower resolutions and it was abysmal looking. I certainly would play Metro 2033 on medium at 1920x1080 before I would play it on very high at just 1280x720 on that same monitor. again when it comes to a point where I cant use decent settings at all on my native res then I will get a new gpu.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Yes actually. I have a 30" so sometimes what I do is turn off the internal scaler, and reduce resolution. End result is something that looks more like a 22" screen and is still beautiful.

 

[exar333]

Seems silly to lower the resolution. Either get a lower-res panel or get the proper GPU to drive it at native res. Adjust quality as you like...

 

[taltamir]

well I rarely have the need to anymore but when using my gtx260 I tried several games on lower resolutions and it was abysmal looking. I certainly would play Metro 2033 on medium at 1920x1080 before I would play it on very high at just 1280x720 on that same monitor. again when it comes to a point where I cant use decent settings at all on my native res then I will get a new gpu.

what if you couldn't afford a new GPU and it was a choice between medium and low (which can be far more noticeable then medium to high)

Seems silly to lower the resolution. Either get a lower-res panel or get the proper GPU to drive it at native res. Adjust quality as you like...

seriously I think we are not at 2/3 of the people who voted for 1 clarified in their post "buy a faster GPU"... The difference from high to ultra is far less significant than the difference from low to medium and the difference from higher res to lower res. So if your policy is to buy a new GPU it is only natural you will vote for that.

That being said, even without those votes it is still a significant majority for option A.

 

[toyota]

what if you couldn't afford a new GPU and it was a choice between medium and low (which can be far more noticeable then medium to high)

I would choose low at my native res but now you are starting to change things up a bit from what I originally said to you. I told you I would lower some settings before I lower my res below native on an LCD. as you can see the average person here also feels the same way so for.

 

[taltamir]

Yes actually. I have a 30" so sometimes what I do is turn off the internal scaler, and reduce resolution. End result is something that looks more like a 22" screen and is still beautiful.

are you going to vote?

I would choose low at my native res but now you are starting to change things up a bit

No, now I am asking for a clarification that should be obvious. The poll did not include a "buy a faster GPU" option and yet it was fundamental for over 2/3rds of the users, including your own response.

you can see the average person here also feels the same way so for.

Yes, I conceded that point already.
Although I am currently arguing caveats. Even if you somehow ignore those who have the "buy a faster GPU" there is still a majority... just not such an overwhelming majority.

 

[toyota]

are you going to vote?

campaign hard because so far you are the only one that has voted to lower the res.

 

[taltamir]

campaign hard because so far you are the only one that has voted to lower res.

I think he might have voted for the wrong one by accident. He explicitly stated he does option B but its not showing his vote. instead option A went up by one (might be coincidence as someone else mgiht have voted and not posted).

 

[toyota]

I think he might have voted for the wrong one by accident. He explicitly stated he does option B but its not showing his vote. instead option A went up by one.

yeah that is very possible based on his comment but still you are going to find yourself in the minority by a long shot. if it works for you then great but I told you the average person on here would rather lower some settings than drop below native res on an LCD.

 

[apoppin]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32631476&postcount=18

Simple question, do you ever lower the resolution of a game from your LCDs native resolution in order you increase graphics quality (adding AA, ambient occlusion, texture size, shadows, or whatever).

Simple answer. i rarely lower my LCD's native resolution (2560x1600) but i will change displays to play demanding games.

i have 1x 2560x1600, 1 x 1920x1200, 6 x 1920x1080, and 1 x 1680x1050 displays.
:whiste:

 

[taltamir]

Simple answer. i rarely lower my LCD's native resolution (2560x1600) but i will change displays to play demanding games.

i have 1x 2560x1600, 1 x 1920x1200, 6 x 1920x1080, and 1 x 1680x1050 displays.
:whiste:

ok, wow that was unexpected. If you have multiple displays to switch from that does sound like the best of both worlds, as you don't have to choose between stretch blur and lower settings

yeah that is very possible based on his comment but still you are going to find yourself in the minority by a long shot. if it works for you then great but I told you the average person on here would rather lower some settings than drop below native res on an LCD.

sure, turns out I am a weirdo, who knew
But 10:2 is not as bad as 11:1

 

[Pacman4]

Even a lowly 4850 played Metro 2033 on 1080p with ingame settings adjustments and looked fantastic at times.
There's way too many people who refuse to buy affordable GFX for some reason, always looking to buy cheap as chips crap and then having a headache over IQ.

 

[jacktesterson]

Native Res wins everytime in my book

 

[BD231]

There's no way in hell the Witcer 2 would run at 1900x1200 smooth on settings that didn't make the game look like sh t with one GTX 460. If there are no draw distance options you have no choice but t drop res, which looks fine IMO, as long as you're not to close to the monitor.