Tech Report: Ultra-high-resolution Gaming ...
- Thread starter Jawed
- Start date
Bigus Dickus said:My 22" Iiyama has done quite well with ultra high resolutions for the past 5 years. Too bad my video card sucks... photos and CAD are nice at 2048, but gaming has to stay below 1280.
Even with a better GPU, the forementioned effects will likely be not any different on that one. It comes down to available video bandwidth and dot pitch size amongst other factors.
There were 995DF models in the past I think which have been phased out. The 997MB has a different tube and has only a 250MHz video bandwidth, which makes high resolutions due to low refresh rates less feasable.
http://monitor.samsung.de/article.asp?artid=DD74D67A-9516-4F22-87BD-151A1CD734BF&show=specs
http://monitor.samsung.de/article.asp?artid=869FFA74-D1F0-4522-B5CD-9B608B834905&show=specs
Once you see games at 1600x1200 with 4x fsaa, you tend to notice aliasing much more.RejZoR said:
BF2 at 1600x1200 still has much aliasing, and for racing game fans like my self, since they're slower games, you can notice aliasing alot more.
If you can afford it, it's not insane.
Btw, does the dell 24" lcd have better blacks then the 2001fp?
My brother has one and I was astonished how bad the blacks were.
I'm stil a crt fan, since lcds still can't touch the blacks or color accuracy of crts.
Karma Police
Regular
lol. He only has 20 posts, so he's probably doing what most should guys do, and actually using the search button!
Aparrently there's still interest in this thread. You answered it didn't you.
And if they are going to review high res gaming don't you think it would make sense to benchmark the HD resolutions.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know we weren't allowed to post in one month old threads.
Congrats on being the beyond3d forum COP.
And if they are going to review high res gaming don't you think it would make sense to benchmark the HD resolutions.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know we weren't allowed to post in one month old threads.
Congrats on being the beyond3d forum COP.
I had answered because you had!skilzygw said:
Where did I say that you weren't allowed to? I was merely commenting on the fact that you were late in adding your comments to the discuss, especially considering that you had posted elsewhere on the site in the time between the last post and yours.
Well it is kinda my job!
Seriously though, there's no need to get upset about this.Thing is, I don't use CRTs anymore, plus I'm not sure whether the old CRT that I did have would let me set such a resolution.Time said:
radeonic2 said:
I thought I'd reply to this, because it's something which greatly surprised me the first time I noticed it: I have a damn nice iiyama HM903DT 19 inch CRT, and a pretty cheap Samsung 710N TN-panel LCD screen running dual screen right next to each other. Now TN panels are not very good technology, particularly not good at deep blacks, the Samsung doesn't even have DVI, etc.... However, that's not the point I want to make.
In the evenings, the blacks on the LCD look vaguely grey. It's depressing to watch the nice deep blacks on the CRT and how much worse they are on the LCD. So if you are a night-time user, a CRT is better.
However (and this is the big thing), everything is different during the day. When there is full ambient daylight, the same tests show that the CRT, with its phosphoric layer, is far less deep black than my not-particularly-good LCD.
Things get better for LCD when you switch to VA panels, such as the one in the Dell 24 inch. So if you are mostly a daytime LCD user, you actually end up with a much better result than CRT people.
For this reason, many many people are switching over, particularly when Dell is pratically giving away the 20+ inch screens at prices which look absurd compared to what you could buy for the money last year. Hence the need to cater to native LCD resolutions like 1680x1050 (20 inch widescreens) and 1920x1280 (23/24 inch widescreens).
Hope that has cleared things up
Blazkowicz
Legend
radeonic2 said:
maybe you can do 1920x1440 60Hz for that.
I read a little bit about the different kinds of lcds a while ago, forgot most of it thoughskazz said:I thought I'd reply to this, because it's something which greatly surprised me the first time I noticed it: I have a damn nice iiyama HM903DT 19 inch CRT, and a pretty cheap Samsung 710N TN-panel LCD screen running dual screen right next to each other. Now TN panels are not very good technology, particularly not good at deep blacks, the Samsung doesn't even have DVI, etc.... However, that's not the point I want to make.
In the evenings, the blacks on the LCD look vaguely grey. It's depressing to watch the nice deep blacks on the CRT and how much worse they are on the LCD. So if you are a night-time user, a CRT is better.
However (and this is the big thing), everything is different during the day. When there is full ambient daylight, the same tests show that the CRT, with its phosphoric layer, is far less deep black than my not-particularly-good LCD.
Things get better for LCD when you switch to VA panels, such as the one in the Dell 24 inch. So if you are mostly a daytime LCD user, you actually end up with a much better result than CRT people.
For this reason, many many people are switching over, particularly when Dell is pratically giving away the 20+ inch screens at prices which look absurd compared to what you could buy for the money last year. Hence the need to cater to native LCD resolutions like 1680x1050 (20 inch widescreens) and 1920x1280 (23/24 inch widescreens).
Hope that has cleared things up
I prefer total darkness actually and would use it mostly at night when school starts in a few weeks, atm I use it as soon as I get up to when I get tired
I do admit the lcds have a nice look to them for whites, but as someone who watchs movies on his pc at night, I need those deep blacks.
My sister used to live with a rich guy that had a 42" 1080i plasma and the blacks even during the day were quite gray.
What I read about the different kind of lcds about how you said the blacks for them as well as some of them being much less accurate for the listed responce time.
60 hz= headache.Blazkowicz_ said:
I was just thinkin maybe there's some software that can scale it or something.
my sonys play at 2048/1536 85z, which is what i use in Live For Speed2 and Ghostrecon, all quakes,UTs ect.. then i go down to 1900/1400 for othergames, ofcourse the new games keep in the 1600/1200, or even my desktop res of 1280/1024. this is always at 6xaa and 16xaf. My frames can hit 20 or less at a low point spike, but im used to that, no choppys at all. A 21in CRT is the only crt to have.Alstrong said:
