Do you sometimes lower the resolution to increase the quality?

[Throckmorton]

Absolutely no scaling. Scaling so you can run AA is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. You're basically applying a blur to the edges, and then blurring the whole image once again.

I run windowed mode if I need a lower res than 1920x1080. I like 1280x1024 because I still get most of the vertical resolution, but it takes much less power to run.

 

[apoppin]

Well if you run at a lower resolution than your native LCD's, you can also leave off AA
:biggrin:

Some gamers have image scalers built into their display. You can then play with the black bars surrounding your game at a lower resolution. The only issue that i have with the scalers, is that they add to the blur of a fast paced shooter.
^_^

 

[railven]

Lower settings before Resolution, and correct me if I'm wrong - but wouldn't you need more AA at lower resolutions to dissolve jaggies?

Experimenting with Batman: AC, I ran it at 800x600 and it looked like a PSX game haha. Just flat textures on jagged polygons. I had a good laugh.

 

[agent_jaws]

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.

Pretty much this. I'd rather not play the game at all if I can't play it at a level which I would enjoy, and it doesn't hurt me to wait. Better to save the money now and upgrade the gpu later. Sort of like:

I could buy 5 new release titles for $300.

or

I could buy 5 older titles for $100 and a new gpu to enjoy them with.

Last time I had to drop my resolution/quality on a game to be playable was playing WoW on a laptop with integrated graphics. I dropped the settings to low and got way low frames (10-20 sometimes, never much over 20). Dropped resolution one level and picked up about 10 frames, but it looked weak so I went back to native res and took the framerate hit.

 

[ocre]

It depends on the LCD. My older LCD sucked at reduced resolutions. It looked terrible. I only played games in windowed mode to not have it scale. I hated having to do it but the several games to me looked much better in high running in window mode.

Recently i played a game for a few weeks before i noticed it was running at like 1680x 1050 full screen. I turned up to 1080 and never seen the difference. Also i tried DA 2 in 1680 when the dx11 was fudged up. I really couldnt tell it much at all. I was glad when it was fixed, but i didnt notice the bad up scaled look up used to hate.

I think now most ppl are here are playing at very high settings anyway. They highest barely make a difference. We are all spoiled, lol.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I drop the resolution if I have to. never lower than 1680x1050 though. Only had to do it for one game since I got this monitor though. I've been content with the performance at native 1920x1200 for the most part.

 

[Majcric]

Native for me

 

[Deleted member 4644]

OK, I voted now. As I said, I do sometimes "black bar" my display by turning off the internal scaler. I would never "stretch" the image.

This thread has sorta inspired me to get a 1080p screen for gaming.. maybe 24"

 

[happy medium]

It depends on the LCD.

And game. My laptop scales great with some games, my TV sucks.

 

[nitromullet]

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:

I have not once considered switching to my old Dell 2005FPW (1680x1050) when having difficulty pushing native res on my NEC PA271W (2560x1440). It's as if the old monitor just doesn't exist to me...

 

[sandorski]

When i had a CRT I did, but since getting my LCD everything is run at 1080p.

 

[WMD]

I will keep at native if i can drop some settings that improve fps without much difference in IQ. I will only drop resolution if lowering settings means no shadows, AA or ambient occlusion.

 

[pw38]

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.

Because people are cheap know-it-alls and society is lazy in general. They like to feel comforted that they made a good decision without investing in something they feel isn't worth the money even without understanding the underlying value in the product they're passing up. People like to settle without actually acknowledging as much for fear they will look stupid and to cover for the fact that they either don't want to or can't understand what they're settling for. We're a 'good enough' society. I do it. Everyone does it in one way or another.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

running an LCD out of its native resolution looks too terrible for me to even consider running an alternative

 

[Rifter]

You would pretty much have to be a complete idiot to reduce res below native on a LCD before trying reducing settings. Non native res on a LCD looks like pure crap.

 

[pandemonium]

Heh, I guess I'm an odd man out since I never lower res on my CRT (don't have an LCD). This is just due to me being standardized on 1600x1200. I'll run windowed if I run a lower res. Also, run windowed if dual or triple boxing.

Most of the time I dislike basic AA since it just gives a blur to the overall picture quality, so I rarely need to bother with lowering IQ. I also hate bloom effects for the same reason, so by default I'm not taxing my hardware. If it's not crisp and clear I don't wants it.

 

[Skurge]

I had an issue with the witcher 2 a while back that meant the res was stuck 1024x768 on 24inch 1080p display. It didn't matter what settings I turned on and, I even turned on 24x Edge Detect AA. The game still looked like utter crap and I could barely see further than a few

Yes, I know 1024x768 is extreme, but so is using 'low' settings. So I would much rather play on lowest settings at native res, then on the highest settings at the lowest res.

 

[yours truly]

I feel a little naive for saying yes. On BF3 I do. All other games I leave at 1920x1200 but for some reason I prefer 1080p for Battlefield. Everything seems a little bigger and I don't notice much of difference. I feel slightly closer to action I suppose. It's a habit I picked up from my CS days.

1200p looks sharper and crisper but smaller at the same time.

I was quite content until I read this thread.

Should I switch back to native resolution for Battlefield then?

 

[Pacman4]

Because people are cheap know-it-alls and society is lazy in general..

True, but at some point you'd think they'd learn their lesson, especially as the GPU is so important to IQ and smoothness in gaming, both important factors, well unless someone has settled for a horrid console.

 

[toyota]

I feel a little naive for saying yes. On BF3 I do. All other games I leave at 1920x1200 but for some reason I prefer 1080p for Battlefield. Everything seems a little bigger and I don't notice much of difference. I feel slightly closer to action I suppose. It's a habit I picked up from my CS days.

1200p looks sharper and crisper but smaller at the same time.

I was quite content until I read this thread.

Should I switch back to native resolution for Battlefield then?

well you can go to your scaling options and have it run small black bars for 1920x1080 which is a 16:9 aspect ratio because your native aspect ratio is 16:10 for 1920x1200. 16:9 is normally better for games because you get a little better fov.

 

[yours truly]

well you can go to your scaling options and have it run small black bars for 1920x1080 which is a 16:9 aspect ratio because your native aspect ratio is 16:10 for 1920x1200. 16:9 is normally better for games because you get a little better fov.

Thanks.

Do you think 16:9 (1080p) would look ok on a 30" monitor too?

I was thinking about getting a U3011 and downscale my games to 1080 but RobertR1 said games looked bad on his 3008fpw at this resolution.

I would love to get a bigger monitor for my day-to-day stuff but gaming at it's native resolution would kill my framerates.

 

[toyota]

Thanks.

Do you think 16:9 (1080p) would look ok on a 30" monitor too?

I was thinking about getting a U3011 and downscale my games to 1080 but RobertR1 said games looked bad on his 3008fpw at this resolution.

I would love to get a bigger monitor for my day-to-day stuff but gaming at it's native resolution would kill my framerates.

2560x1440 with small black bars on a 2560x1600 screen should look the same as 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen. just 1920x1080 scaled on a 2560x1600 screen though would have huge black borders all the way around it.

 

[yours truly]

ah ok that makes sense.

I'll hold fire and stick with what I got.. for the time being.

Thanks =)

 

[PingSpike]

When I had a CRT monitor I wouldn't hesitate to lower the resolution...it was the first thing I did when looking performance...all the way down to 800x600 or whatever made sense. Its not as clear of a choice with a LCD though. But I don't care much about AA and in the past haven't been a huge fan of HDR so I often don't run those anyway.

Edit: I should note that I've actually thought about getting a 1366x768 LCD TV for my main screen so that I could run native res at high settings with no scaling and a cheaper video card. Its not a great solution for anything but games though.

The OTHER option I've considered is buying a VERY HIGH resolution monitor and then running games at half x and y resolution to ensure perfect scaling. I'm not sure how cost effective that would be though.

 

[carnage10]

Being on a CRT, i am happy to sacrifice resolution for buttery smooth gameplay and better textures/shadows/effects etc. If i cant get over 50fps i will drop from 2048x1536 to a minimum of 1600x1200 before i start dropping settings instead.

I only have two mandatory requirements when it comes to settings that must be enabled regardless of the game..

1. 16x AF
2. V-Sync ON