Just got my Dell 2007WFP

[Moloch]

im gonna laugh when you have to play games at non native res and you find the image isn't quite what you expected
contrast is an issue for any type of gaming that involves low light situations.
btw backlight bleeding= puke.
- for all lcd fanatics

 

[MulciberXP]

im gonna laugh when you have to play games at non native res and you find the image isn't quite what you expected
contrast is an issue for any type of gaming that involves low light situations.
btw backlight bleeding= puke.
- for all lcd fanatics

why would i play games at non native resolution? all the games I've ran so far have no problem running at native res, and they all look great.

 

[Moloch]

why would i play games at non native resolution? all the games I've ran so far have no problem running at native res, and they all look great.

well if you have a lcd with a 1600x1200 native res you'll find not all games run well.. like oblivion for example unless you use a milti GPU solution.
They "look great" yes.. sure... to you, but scaling is never good,
You always lose something.
What a wierd question

 

[ANova]

well if you have a lcd with a 1600x1200 native res you'll find not all games run well.. like oblivion for example unless you use a milti GPU solution.
They "look great" yes.. sure... to you, but scaling is never good,
You always lose something.
What a wierd question

Most people who can afford to spend $800 on a large LCD with a resolution of 1600x1200 or higher typically also can afford a high end video card.

 

[MulciberXP]

well if you have a lcd with a 1600x1200 native res you'll find not all games run well.. like oblivion for example unless you use a milti GPU solution.

ok you've managed to name ONE game that doesnt run well on my system at native resolution, which is 1680x1050. And as it happens, I dont play Oblivion, I find the game boring.

They "look great" yes.. sure... to you, but scaling is never good,
You always lose something.

and like I just said, which you would have seen had you read my post objectively rather than blindly leaping headlong into an unfounded rebuttle for its own sake (which is based on your quite ridiculous bias on the subject), I haven't had the need to play any game at anything other than my native resolution. This would preclude my seeing or being bothered by any form scaling....

 

[Moloch]

ok you've managed to name ONE game that doesnt run well on my system at native resolution, which is 1680x1050. And as it happens, I dont play Oblivion, I find the game boring.



and like I just said, which you would have seen had you read my post objectively rather than blindly leaping headlong into an unfounded rebuttle for its own sake (which is based on your quite ridiculous bias on the subject), I haven't had the need to play any game at anything other than my native resolution. This would preclude my seeing or being bothered by any form scaling....

I "only" have a 7800GT so theres more than one that wont run on mine with 4x fsaa

I'm biased.. towards things that offer overall better quality and at a cheaper cost.
I've repeatedly said ill go on the lcd bandwagon when LED backlit lcds are out and affordable.. and the scaling is improved so atleast to match crts.
If you don't think non native IQ is important because you have 1900XT or G71 thats find and dandy but I am willin to spend about 300.. not 400+ for a GPU and while you might think scaling quality is fine, I am more picky.. which should be obvious since I prefer crts.

Most people who can afford to spend $800 on a large LCD with a resolution of 1600x1200 or higher typically also can afford a high end video card.

800usd?
right....
You can get a 2005FP for in the 300$ range.
While not 1600x1200 it's close enough.. and is also wide aspect which can present a problem for some games.
btw a 7800GT is highend and I used to run most games at 1280x960 so I could higher high levels of fsaa.

 

[MulciberXP]

I "only" have a 7800GT so theres more than one that wont run on mine with 4x fsaa

talk about grasping at straws. a minute ago you were talking about 1600x1200, now you're talking about 1600x1200 at 4x AA. I guess you have to keep your arguement "nimble" when you're a fanatic.

while you might think scaling quality is fine, I am more picky.. which should be obvious since I prefer crts.

Im really sick of this. This is the second time you've implied that I'm somehow happy with the image quality at scaled resolutions, when I have made no such claim. Infact, you just quoted me saying that that was not the case! You're "opinion" isn't just based on "quality and cost". I specifically called it bias because it's affecting your congnitive and reasoning functions to an extent that you're unable to even read what I'm saying to you in plain english.

Well....or maybe the text on your CRT is too blurry to read

 

[Blazkowicz]

talk about grasping at straws. a minute ago you were talking about 1600x1200, now you're talking about 1600x1200 at 4x AA. I guess you have to keep your arguement "nimble" when you're a fanatic.

people buy super expensive cards here to play without AA? (even a 7800GT is expensive, by the way). even on my geforce 4 I find myself using always on 2x AA because no AA is intolerable.

and 4x AA is much better (except on my geforce 4 where it's ordered grid, but my voodoo5 did good, rotated grid 4x). 1024 4x looks better than 1280 2x for instance. The quality is so much better with AA that it's best to drop resolution one notch and increase AA.

 

[Sxotty]

people buy super expensive cards here to play without AA? (even a 7800GT is expensive, by the way). even on my geforce 4 I find myself using always on 2x AA because no AA is intolerable.

Yes, I really don't care about AA that much, I prefer to have high resolutions every time and always have.

Mulciber, so can you run your 7800gt at say 840*525? Then you could dodge the problems of scaling on the monitor. The reason I ask is I have a 2005fpw myself and I want to quit buying ridiculously expensive video cards. I have a x800 right now, and the next thing might well be a used 7800gt, or prefereably a x1900xt, but they are too expensive still.

 

[ANova]

800usd?
right....
You can get a 2005FP for in the 300$ range.
While not 1600x1200 it's close enough.. and is also wide aspect which can present a problem for some games.
btw a 7800GT is highend and I used to run most games at 1280x960 so I could higher high levels of fsaa.

LOL, $300? I don't think so. Maybe a used one from ebay but I've never seen them lower than about $400 which is still $100 more than a decent graphics card like the X1800 XT. Native resolution looks better than some AA on an LCD, both would be nice but I can certainly live without one or the other. My X850 XT allows me to play every game at native resolution (1280x1024), and most with AA. An X1800 XT or 7900 GT or higher would not have any problems playing todays games at 1680x1050.

 

[MulciberXP]

Mulciber, so can you run your 7800gt at say 840*525? Then you could dodge the problems of scaling on the monitor. The reason I ask is I have a 2005fpw myself and I want to quit buying ridiculously expensive video cards. I have a x800 right now, and the next thing might well be a used 7800gt, or prefereably a x1900xt, but they are too expensive still.

That's not quite what I was saying. Running at any res other than your native one will cause scaling, regardless of the ratio. What I meant was that every game I've played so far since I got my monitor has allowed me to, at the very least, manually input my resolution, 1680x1050. To do this, yes I do indeed sacrifice AA in some cases (very few). But what radionic keeps implying (or I should say, the words he keeps erroneously putting into my mouth to validate his own ridiculously bias stance) was that to play games on my monitor, I'm somehow forced to play at non-native resolutions and thus suffer the horrific effects of scaling. This, so far, has not been the case. Nobody in their right mind would upscale their resolution just to turn on AA.

To me, the sacrifice of AA was far outweighed by the gains of an LCD, because I spend 80% of my computer time at my desktop, not in games. CRTs, by their very nature, simply can't hold a candle to LCDs in terms of crispness and uniform geometry.

Besides, my old 19" ViewSonic P95f+ is sitting right here next to me. If for some reason I wanted to launch some archaic game that didn't support my native resolution, such as Starcraft, I can luckily just switch to multimonitor mode and load it up a scant inch to my right.

 

[Sxotty]

That's not quite what I was saying. Running at any res other than your native one will cause scaling, regardless of the ratio.

I was under the impression that if the division was exactly 1/2 there would be no scaling. It would instead be as though you had bought a monitor with 1/4 of the resolution (1/2)^2

That means a block of four pixels would be adressed as one pixel. That is what I think anyway. If this is not the case let me know why if you happen to know.

 

[MulciberXP]

Im certainly no expert on LCDs, but it's deffinitely not the case with mine. I just manually added that resolution to my registry and flipped it on and it deffinitely looks hideous. In fact, I get a sharper image when running at 800x600 *shrug*

 

[hoom]

I was under the impression that if the division was exactly 1/2 there would be no scaling. It would instead be as though you had bought a monitor with 1/4 of the resolution (1/2)^2

Thats still scaling though.
Its just that a 1/2 scale gives the most tidy result since there is a 2:1 match up between resolution pixels & display pixels.
Anything else you wind up trying to display some of your resolution pixels across 1 or more display pixels = blur/other aliasing.

 

[Moloch]

talk about grasping at straws. a minute ago you were talking about 1600x1200, now you're talking about 1600x1200 at 4x AA. I guess you have to keep your arguement "nimble" when you're a fanatic.

that was an honest mistake on my part..
fsaa is always standard for me unless game uses (real) hdr.

[Im really sick of this. This is the second time you've implied that I'm somehow happy with the image quality at scaled resolutions, when I have made no such claim. Infact, you just quoted me saying that that was not the case! You're "opinion" isn't just based on "quality and cost". I specifically called it bias because it's affecting your congnitive and reasoning functions to an extent that you're unable to even read what I'm saying to you in plain english.

Well....or maybe the text on your CRT is too blurry to read

oops.
I just read your post too fast.

LOL, $300? I don't think so. Maybe a used one from ebay but I've never seen them lower than about $400 which is still $100 more than a decent graphics card like the X1800 XT. Native resolution looks better than some AA on an LCD, both would be nice but I can certainly live without one or the other. My X850 XT allows me to play every game at native resolution (1280x1024), and most with AA. An X1800 XT or 7900 GT or higher would not have any problems playing todays games at 1680x1050.

dell coupons newbie
...
No crap native res looks better.
Thats why I dont like lcds- non native res impacts quality.
Btw oblivion= todays game and a 7900GT won't cut it at 1680x1050.
very popular too.

 

[Sxotty]

Im certainly no expert on LCDs, but it's deffinitely not the case with mine. I just manually added that resolution to my registry and flipped it on and it deffinitely looks hideous. In fact, I get a sharper image when running at 800x600 *shrug*

That is sad, perhaps either
A) The timings were not right somehow
B) There is some ridiculous screw up

I am interested in what other people get if they try it...

 

[EasyRaider]

I don't quite understand all the fuss about rescaling. I've been playing Hitman: Contracts at 1280x960, and when switching scaling (effectively to 1400x1050) on and off, it was really hard to see any differences whatsoever. I noticed text was slightly worse defined, but still easily readable, and that was pretty much it. Aliasing (AA off) is much worse to my eyes, and other typical uglyness (seen in nearly all 3D games) like insufficiently tesselated geometry and poor shadowing worse still.

I guess there are differences in scaling quality between LCDs. My NEC 20WGX2 seems to do a decent job.

However, Windows is another story. Black text on white background shows a very clear difference.

 

[ANova]

dell coupons newbie
...
No crap native res looks better.
Thats why I dont like lcds- non native res impacts quality.
Btw oblivion= todays game and a 7900GT won't cut it at 1680x1050.
very popular too.

I know about the coupons buddy, still have not seen it go any lower than about $400 and until you show me otherwise, too bad. Right now the 2007wfp is going for $530 and they don't even carry the 2005 anymore.

You keep saying this but the funny thing is, I have an LCD, you don't. I know what they're like at non native resolutions and they're hardly as bad as you make them out, especially the higher resolution displays.

 

[Moloch]

I know about the coupons buddy, still have not seen it go any lower than about $400 and until you show me otherwise, too bad. Right now the 2007wfp is going for $530 and they don't even carry the 2005 anymore.

You keep saying this but the funny thing is, I have an LCD, you don't. I know what they're like at non native resolutions and they're hardly as bad as you make them out, especially the higher resolution displays.

in the teens of april there was a coupon for 3XX http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?start=40&catid=18&threadid=600837

 

[Pete]

The one post in that thread with a price indicated ~$365 + $30 tax, so not quite $300.

This one's closer. It's recommended, too.

Between a $310 20" LCD and a $240 X1800XT or $300 X1900XT, prices aren't bad for a pretty good gaming/HT PC.