Which is a better resolution???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mute

    #31
    Re: Which is a better resolution???

    Originally posted by [HQN]Shadow
    Could someone explain how 1024x768 at 60Hz is bad? I've always used that as my resolution (yes I'm using a CRT monitor) and it had never hurt my eyes, I never see any flickering. It looks perfectly fine and no different from any other monitor I've looked at.
    Exact same thing I've been wondering reading all these posts - I use 1024x768 at 60hz and never had any experience with eye strain or headaches.

    Comment

    • heycarnut

      #32
      Re: Which is a better resolution???

      Whatever combination of video settings and resolution that gives you the image quality you want with acceptable framerates is the 'best'.
      FPS that is consistently 60 or above will be fine - few if any humans can perceive a difference beyond this.
      60Hz refresh rate for a CRT is fine too, so long as you're not playing near
      fluorescent lighting. These have an impulse output characteristic, and so does a CRT, and having refresh rates at or near the output rate of the bulb can cause visual strobing. This is why CRT monitors are typically run at higher refresh rates, not because a 60Hz refresh rate is in and of itself bad. Some people can detect CRT flickering at rates up to 85Hz.
      LCD monitors operate on a sample-and-hold principle, and do not have this issue - they really don't have a refreah rate as such, though they report, with few exceptions, a 60Hz rate to the O/S for compatibility.
      You are 'true' FPS limited by your monitor refresh rate in any case.

      Don't be too concerned with ultimate frame rate or refresh rate, so long as both are at or above 60 (and arguably 85Hz for CRT refresh), as again, few if any humans can perceive a difference. Remeber, Euro TV PAL standard is only 25 frames/sec (25 x2 Fields/sec), and you don't hear the masses whining about it.
      Possible flamers - please study visual perception, persistence, and temporal rate conversion before posting boneheaded retorts.

      You might want to check out my earlier post :

      Akses VIRUS88 sebagai agen Slot88 resmi dan terpercaya 2026 dengan game gacor terbaru, proses praktis, promo harian menarik, serta layanan online 24 jam.


      and review the video settings section - it might (or might not!) be of use
      to you.

      Regards,
      R

      Comment

      • heycarnut

        #33
        Re: Which is a better resolution???

        See my thread response for an explanation of why you're not having issues with this.

        R

        Comment

        • amish marauder

          #34
          Re: Which is a better resolution???

          ooooh I won't vote cuz I'd choose neither.

          1024x768 at 85Hz for me plz

          Comment

          • CaptainPuffy

            #35
            Re: Which is a better resolution???

            I have a dell 19 inch widescreen LCD TV runnin @ 75hz on 1024X768 in game

            Comment

            • Shad_Blunt

              #36
              Re: Which is a better resolution???

              800x600 75Hz or 1024x768 60Hz
              which one has better graphics?
              Since you don't specify between LCD or CRT it's a hard question to answer. For LCD, as others have stated, 60Hz is fine at high resolutions. But for CRT, given the choices, I will assume you have a 15" Monitor, in which case 800x600 would probably be the better choice since going any higher is going to give you diminished returns on graphical quality. More pixels on a smaller monitor does not increase visual quality, it just makes them harder to see and you aren't going to gain anything by jacking up the res on such a small screen. But, OTOH, 8x6 hardly taxes most new video cards these days and will allow you to increase visual quality through AA and AF settings if your card can handle it.

              Right now I have her set to 1024X768 at 60hz...no problems. Would my FPS go up if I plugged in my CRT screen?
              I run my at 800 x 600 with refresh rate at 170, or 1024 x 768 with refresh rate at 140! Is this ok or does it add to delay with refresh rate that high?
              No, unless V-sync *Vertical Image Synchronization* is on, your video cards FPS is wholly independent of Refresh rate.

              Think of it like this: Refresh rate is basically your monitors own Frames per Second output. When a video cards frames go above this rate it inserts partial frames per refresh cycle. This results in horizontal "tearing" of the image. Tearing is best described as seeing lines across your screen where the images do not line up, and is best experienced when spinning your character around in a game. On the other hand, when your cards FPS go below the refresh rate all you get is duplicate video frames being displayed during multiple refresh cycles.

              Now this sounds like an argument to have V-sync turned on, and with HIGH *over 100Hz-140Hz* refresh rates this usually works out well. But for people playing at higher resolutions with lower refresh rates there is actually a disadvantage to this because it lowers your games FPS overall. This is because all current and previous Video cards are brute force renderers. Much like a car trying to go through a mudhole, a car can go through a mudhole better at 100Mph vs. 60Mph. When a graphics card gets to a part of a game where the frames drop(mudhole), its better to have higher frames overall to help it pull through this part.

              Let's just say you are running BF2 with a 60Hz refresh on your CRT monitor, on a quality video card, with BF2's default video FPS cap of 100.

              With V-sync on you would never see over 60 frames per second, have NO "tearing", but when you get to a graphically intense portion of the game, your frames might dip down to 20FPS region causing stutter and gaming lag.

              With V-sync off you never see frames over 100FPS, experience visual "tearing" sometimes, but when you get to the graphically intense portion, your frames would only dip down to the 60FPS region, which still makes the game very playable.

              With a refresh over 100Hz on BF2, you can have V-Sync ON, never experience "tearing", nor videocard induced gaming Lag.

              HTH.

              Comment

              • Blak_Phoenix

                #37
                Re: Which is a better resolution???

                Don't take this the wrong way Blak_Pheonix_MB but I'm with Krypp596 and have a 9600 with everything on low/medium at 800x600 and 75Hz. If I go over those settings it will stutter.

                I know you have a 10% OC on the 9550 but I'd like to see some screenshots of those settings in action.
                Sure, ill take some tonight and put them up for you.

                Comment

                • F-1

                  #38
                  Re: Which is a better resolution???

                  You do not have another option?
                  I run 1280x960@60

                  Comment

                  • tk471138

                    #39
                    Re: Which is a better resolution???

                    wow only one way to find out my self thats alot of information right their might as well try it, but i never experienced any problems with 1024 res at 60 Hz

                    Comment

                    • heycarnut

                      #40
                      Re: Which is a better resolution???

                      Originally posted by Shad_Blunt
                      ...More pixels on a smaller monitor does not increase visual quality, it just makes them harder to see and you aren't going to gain anything by jacking up the res on such a small screen....

                      1)...Now this sounds like an argument to have V-sync turned on, and with HIGH *over 100Hz-140Hz* refresh rates this usually works out well. But for people playing at higher resolutions with lower refresh rates there is actually a disadvantage to this because it lowers your games FPS overall....

                      2)...With a refresh over 100Hz on BF2, you can have V-Sync ON, never experience "tearing", nor videocard induced gaming Lag...

                      HTH.
                      That is a good point about high resolutions on tiny monitors, but you've got the VSYNC issue a bit backwards - a common mistake.

                      1)Untrue - in fact, VSYNC is a bigger problem with high refresh rates.
                      If your monitor is say 60Hz refresh, you will never have VSYNC frame
                      rate cuts so long as the card maintains >=60 frames/sec rendering.
                      Having VSYNC on with a high (CRT say, 100-140+), you willl have
                      frame rate cuts anytime the rendering rate drops below that - and
                      few cards around can render at 100+ FPS consistently under
                      any settings and resolutions other than very low.

                      2) See 1) for why this is incorrect, other than the tearing elimination,
                      obviously.

                      Hope this clarifies things for everyone.

                      R

                      Comment

                      • DeathFromAbove

                        #41
                        Re: Which is a better resolution???

                        1024x768 at 72 Hz here...

                        Comment

                        • pickled pizza

                          #42
                          Re: Which is a better resolution???

                          I run at 1024/768 at 85 hz. I used to run it at 65hz a few years ago and didn't get what the big deal was until I changed it. Now it's mildly uncomfortable to run at 70-75 hz, and I get really queasy just looking at a 60-65 hz screen for a few seconds.

                          Comment

                          • Raxor

                            #43
                            Re: Which is a better resolution???

                            i just run at 1600 1200 stretched
                            until dice support widescreen with proper FOV ill play like that...

                            Comment

                            • FiveO

                              #44
                              Re: Which is a better resolution???

                              1280x1024 on my dual 19" Samsung LCD's (930b's).

                              2nd monitor runs TS and the BF2CC.

                              7800GT video card (overclocked slightly) with 2gb of RAM and an AMD 3800+ dual core processor.


                              Runs very smoothly.

                              Comment

                              • Blak_Phoenix

                                #45
                                Re: Which is a better resolution???

                                Could someone explain how 1024x768 at 60Hz is bad? I've always used that as my resolution (yes I'm using a CRT monitor) and it had never hurt my eyes, I never see any flickering. It looks perfectly fine and no different from any other monitor I've looked at.
                                60 is the lowest that you would want to go. You may find that after long periods of looking at the screen that your syes hurt when you close them or you feel a bit wierd. This is because at 60hz your eyes can get strained. Above 70hz is good, above 80 is great.

                                Comment

                                Working...