Attractiveness of lower res with settings set higher vs. higher res with settings set lower

I bought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare recently, the first computer game I've purchased in over a decade. Being primarily accustomed to very occasional console gaming, I have some questions about visuals and settings.

1) Assuming comparable frame rates, if you can set a game at a slightly lower resolution (say 1280x800) but with settings (textures, shadows, etc) set higher than with a higher resolution (1680x1050) with settings set lower (lower textures, no or less AA, etc), which approach should result in more attractive overall graphics? And is one approach more preferred by gamers?
2) If I play a game at higher res am I seeing more of what's going on than I would at a lower res? Would it mean at a higher res I would see enemies on the very most edge of the screen, but at a lower res, I'd have to move a bit in that direction to spot who's bout to frag me?

Thank you for any info.

 

I go with the Normal resolution with low settings.

As for number 2. I think you have to move a bit more BUT it also depends on the game. AFAIK COD4 does not give you that disadvantage since i tried playing COD4 at 640x480 resolution.

 

For #2: A higher resolution means that what you see is more defined (pixel by pixel), not that you can see more.

 

well it depends on which game you are playing as crysis looks great at native resolution and lower settings while just cause 2 looks alright at lower resolution and high settings.
Also it is always best to select native resolution on lcd while gaming to have best experience as on lower resolutions image quality really degrades.

 

For me it boils down to these things.
First and foremost I want as close to 30fps as possible. 24 is acceptable for some games like ARMA or Just Cause2, but for most I want at least 30fps.

Next I want to be able to enable all or almost all the effects in the game. They dont have to be maxed but I want them enabled. Smoke, shadows, hdr, ssao, etc... So I activate each of those.

Next I play with resolutions starting with Native and benchmark with FRAPS or included benchmarks to see what I get. If I am good at native then I am good to go... If not, then I lower until I have reached my goal of 24-30fps.

Last, If the game is well optimized, and I can play at native rez I will activate AA and AF to see If I can enable those... I little smoothing can go a LONG WAY!

But... most important is to OPTIMIZE YOUR NOTEBOOK! Use gamebooster and/or Bills Process Manager to clean up all your stuff that doesn't need to be running while gaming. OC a modest amount if you can within reason (at risk) for a few extra fps. Good Luck, StevenX

 

720p or 1280 x 800 (depending on screen ratio) are my absolute resolution minimums. From there, I start lowering settings. In MP online shooters, I'm a resolution , as it does give you some advantage as far as picking out detail in the distance, so I go as high in resolution as possible. If I can't get smooth framerate, the settings start going down beginning with AA if it's even enabled.

 

You should play at your screen's native resolution unless your computer can't handle it. From there I do whatever I need to do to keep my FPS above 50 at all times for shooters, with an average of about 60fps. That is for online play. When doing single player I don't mind 40fps at all, but when it gets to anything below 30fps things start getting annoying. Also when doing single player the quality of the graphics means a lot more, so that is the return for accepting lower framerates.

For strategy games and stuff like that framerates are far less important and I don't mind around 20 or so for Company of Heroes, for instance.

In terms of what settings to run, first and foremost, I bump up anti-aliasing. It is the single biggest improvement, but also makes framerates take the biggest hit. You would also be surprised how little of a performance hit you get when you bump some of the game's graphics settings, so experiment with them. Anyway, last on my list are all the fancy DX10 and DX11 effects. I only ever use those on single player and only if everything else is already maxed out, like 16x AF and 16x AA.

 

1) I always try to play at native resolution or near it over any graphical settings.

2) Higher res will let you determine what exactly that is across the map. A lower res, the guy will still be there and visible on your screen, but with a higher res - the person will be more defined. You can see a headshot clearly rather than say a blurry body in the distance.

 

Resolution first, then settings. AA off all the time unless the game is really old and there's too much spare power. AA is pointless when you have like HD resolution on a small 15" or 17" notebook screen, the pixel over distance is already so much there's little point for AA.

 

All depends on the game. Some games, like Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2, require high resolution in order to get the fidelity needed for distance shooting. Others, like Bioshock, look great at lower resolution but higher settings.

I still don't know how people get so bent out of shape if they have to run at anything but their LCD native resolution. Most games it doesn't matter really. Just keep your aspect ratio the same and it usually looks great. And typically there's one alternate resolution that it looks really good at the lower res. On my desktop monitor @ 1920x1200, I run games at 1280x800 periodically and it's really hard to tell the difference.

 

Depending on the game, sometimes changing the resolution allows you to see more. Think of it just like changing the resolution on your desktop. And i always go for native res, native res at lowest settings looks better to me then highest settings at a lesser resolution.

However, there should never be a case where you lose out because your resolution is too low.

 

I can't think of a single game that higher resolution lets you see more, unless it's a difference of aspect ratio. 16:10 or 16:9 could get more peripheral vision than a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor.

 

Back in the days of CRT monitors, most of the pro players even on 22'' monitors used to play really low resolutions like 640x480, not only for the higher fps, but there was a myth (not sure though) that related that higher density having a higher chance to miss certain area like for example the head, like a headshot having less pixels would mean less chance of having a box outside the head... that said i never cared much, i just played whatever the highest res my current desktop could handle and still give me at least 30fps, and now a days with lcd just try to play on native res with as high details as i can, then if possible AA n AF.

 

Yes, depends on game too, some games have a wide difference between low and high settings, so much that it's almost a different game. EG. Starcraft 2, it looks like crap at low settings, but at ultra settings it looks amazing.

 

How can you not tell the difference when the pixels don't line up 1:1? It's a big issue for me. It noticeably degrades the image whether on the desktop or in a game.

Hmm, idk. I used to lug my big CRT to lan parties and I can't say I ever saw that. They wouldn't do it if it didn't get them an actual advantage, because 640x480 is otherwise severely limiting, and as "pro" players they would know. Regardless, I know that wouldn't give an advantage in any modern game. Maybe Unreal was like that; it's been a while since I played it.

 

HTwingnut - I think the folks want to be able to clearly snipe on multiplayer games and therefore want maximum rez. On single player I still like my usual rundown, frames, bells and whistles, rez and then aa/af.

Later,

StevenX

 

Thank you all so much for your replies! I found them all incredibly helpful to read. I feel much more confident in how I'm approaching COD4's game settings now. And surely for future games. Rep Power for all.

So I've decided to go with my native res of 1680x1050, with most effects enabled and textures completely maxed--this for multiplayer. I happened across this Console command: \cg_fov 80. It allows me to widen my field of view from 65 degrees to 80 degrees--basically backing up the camera so I can see more on the sides. It feels nice that way; as if I might be able to spot people out of view faster. And it does not appear to have an affect on frame rate.

What does AF stand for? I've seen that abbreviation a few times, but can't figure it out.

No wonder when I turned it on (there's 2x and 4x options) I didn't see the significant difference I assumed there would be. I noticed that at a higher res it appeared to have a much greater affect on frame rate though. 2x AA at 1280x800 took no more than 5fps away.

EDIT: I broke my promise. Rep Power for some, as there's apparently a repping limit per day.

 

Anisotropic Filtering

Anisotropic filtering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have AF on max on almost every game. AA turned off.

I've been laptop gaming for 10 years now so with LCD, I've been playing at native res. Lower res looks too fuzzy usually.

 

Thank you. Now I see it in settings. It is supposed to have a dramatic affect on visuals or frame rate? In COD4, there's a slider bar for Anisotropic filtering. Whether I slide it to the left or right, I notice no affect on the frame rate and no visible visual difference.

One more question about textures. I tried out all 3 texture filtering options: Automatic, Bilinear and Trilinear. Similarly to Anisotropic filtering, I noticed no visual difference or frame rate affect--actually, the frame rate went up by roughly 3fps when on bi- or trilinear. Should there be an appreciable visual difference and a hit on frame rate? And is Trilinear the best of the 3 options?

Thank you.

 

Libertine - AA and AF do have an effect on what you see on the screen. AA smooths the edges. If you do a google search there are a lot of images that show screens with and without AA. It is not essential but in my opinion it's nice to have at least 2aa if possible. AF is filtering and the way I describe it is that it makes things like folage and plants look more full and detailed. When I activate AF I look at plants and grass and trees. Again not essential but helps the image. Hope it helps.. best wishes, StevenX

 

That's why you use the same aspect ratio. Unless you have a crappy monitor. I dunno, it looks great on my 24" Dell 2407WFP at 1280x800 if I need to drop the res down. Again, depends on the game too. Like my example before, Bioshock looks great at 1280x800 about as good as 1920x1200. But Bad Company 2 I prefer the higher res for acquiring targets at a distance.

Desktop is an entirely different story. Desktop it's all about fidelity and crispness of the text and fonts and icons, etc. But in-game when you've got a 5000 poly figure taking up 20% of your screen, it doesn't matter so much.

Console games typically run at 720p and look fine on a 1080p screen too.

 

Not really. AF means that textures don't distort and "shimmer" in the distance as they are scaled. Generally most apparent on things like buildings and roads and such, flat things you're viewing at extreme angles. This picture is a perfect example. Given modern GPU architectures, AF causes almost no performance hit and it provides a lot of benefit, so I highly recommend cranking it up.

AA makes the "jaggy" edges of models and such and smooths them out. Even at native resolution, AA has a significant effect, and if you can enable it, I would. 2xAA is a MUCH greater effect over no AA than 4xAA is over 2x. I find it hits the performance and doesn't provide much benefit to go over 2xAA, especially in the laptop realm where graphics performance is severely limited as compared to desktops.

 

Agreed, AF doesn't give much of a performance hit. I never seem to notice the difference really (though I've never really bothered fidling with it much) so I just leave it off anyway. Trillinear and billinear filtering are like the precursors from AF.

AA, on the other hand, usually makes quite a large effect on FPS, I usually never bother turning it on since I'd rather have eye candy with no AA than the other way round, besides once you actually start playing the game rather than critising the jaggies you don't notice it much (only when there is a very clear edge, the effect is worse if it's moving a little bit as the jaggies move up or down). If you have the option to use temporal AA then use it, there is no performance hit and it effecitvely doubles the AA (it alternates the sample points every other frame or something like that).

 

Thanks for directing me where to look. I'll choose a map with foliage next time I try it out.

Thanks. That's good to know, as I wasn't sure if it wasn't working since I didn't notice immediate visual differences and saw no fps hit.

Ah, so if I crank up AF, could or should I still turn on bi- or trilinear filtering? If yes, would it improve the image beyond AF by itself? If no, is it because they'd conflict with each other?

I can't do AA at my native res--brings down frame rate to about 20. I can when I lower the res, but running at higher res without AA still renders a much more attractive world. And similarily I don't notice the difference much when in movement. Though if I look up at cable lines, then it's always apparent AA would help.

 

I don't think you can use both at once, or maybe it defaults to using both if you have AF enabled, anyway there's not much harm in enabling them.

 

I can't stand the fuzziness and distortion that not playing at the native resolution brings. Of course it is the same aspect ratio rolleyes , and it isn't the displays I play on. One is a Dell a lot like yours, idk exactly what it is, and the other is a year old 55" samsung jobbie.

But it messes up the image just the same. Maybe I like "fidelity and crispness" in my games?

Well maybe "fine" isn't good enough. It would clearly look significantyl better on a 720p screen then.

 

AF makes a huge difference when you know where to look. As mentioned, they take effect on objects that are viewed at extreme angles. They can make a dirt road turn into a cobble-stone road (of course, it was the latter to begin with). They don't affect objects viewed from a flat or near-flat angle (which are most objects, especially in closed environments) though, so maybe that's why the effect is hard to notice.

 

Interesting how it's done without a performance hit.

Alright. I'll just have to play around with the settings then.

 

The performance hit depends on what you're looking at. AF isn't applied to everything and anything on screen. AF is only applied when necessary, so pretty much only on floors or long walls with details. So if you're in a long corridor with lots of details, there likely will be a more noticeable performance hit. But for most situations it's probably negligible.

Edit: I don't think AF has ever been very resource heavy. At least, not in the last few years?

 

Ah okay. I'll go check out some corridors then. Maybe stay there. I'm getting killed every 5 seconds.