Gaming Resolutions

A bit off-topic as this isn't actually ABOUT gaming per se, but I've been noticing a strange trend.

I've been a gamer since the old Apple II days, and when the IBM/PC came out I was ecstatic. The first games were understandably primitive, but they just kept getting better and better. Back then, 16 colors and 320x200 was already a pretty good set up.

Back in the days of Quake (1), Command & Conquer, Heroes of Might & Magic; we all strove for the highest resolutions and greatest color depth possible - in other words, image quality was paramount. Back then, we were happy with 25 or so frames per second. I remember getting my first OpenGL-compliant card and daring to run Quake at 1152x864!

However, I'm noticing a trend in a lot of forums these days, where everyone is either recommending, or even proclaiming that they are happily gaming along at 1280x800 or, even worse, 1024x768! I must have skipped out on a few years of intensive gaming when I went to college, but shouldn't we (logically) be striving for higher quality gaming at high native resolutions? I'm talking, WSXGA+ (1680x1050) or even WUXGA (1920x1200)! Has something dramatically changed in the way GPUs are being designed now, that many people are recommending disabling all forms of anti-aliasing or running games at FAR less than native resolutions?

 

i think there 2 things to look at and i say them in short:
1) if we talk about notebooks then yes most notebooks gpu's arent designed to play at WSXGA or WUXGA. Even te fastest (no sli) notebooks of the moment wont run a few games smooth at WSXGA or WUXGA. (i.e. dirt and possibly bioshock) That's why i did bought a 1440*900 screen those days.

2) when we talk about desktops: i think lots of people did bought a tft monitor in the last 3 years which can handle only 1280*1024 or 1440*900.
I dont know if people of now want 20inch tft monitors (maybe not because they are too big), but then the standard gaming resolution could change to 1680*1050

 

So, because people (at least, on these forums) have made or are making the transition to mobile gaming, they've decided to give up (in a matter of speaking) the hope that they can play their brand new games at the highest level of detail possible? The trade off being, of course, mobility and performance versus being tethered to your desk BUT getting performance AND quality?

 

Well some people *cough* me *cough* start university soon and will have to spend the next few years in a tiny room in which there is no space for a desktop. My point being that some people are moving to mobile gaming because they have to not because they want to.

 

Keep in mind that you're also on a notebook forum. So for that reason most people here have notebooks, and the one who play games are limited because of it. I'm sure we all have personal reasons as to why we have a notebook instead of a desktop computer.
So I guess you can say that people trade gaming quality for partability.

 

The minute you put gaming and notebook in the same sentence you MUST start making some concessions.

Today's high-end GPUs that make the most of today's very detailed games are extremely powerful processors that require large supplies of power and create a great deal of heat as a byproduct.
In order to keep them from melting themselves they also require a lot of space and make a lot of noise due to absolutely requiring large and active heatsinks.

Notebook computers are based upon the idea of making computing mobile.
The idea is to take the computer with you and thus the computer itself should be relatively easy to move around and comfortable to use.

Now add one of today's mid-high-end GPUs to the laptop and you have a pile of problems of which heat and power requirements are among the most prevalent.

We need to cool not only TWO processor cores but a GPU (and two GPUs in some cases) - Heatsinks add either size (more surface area to remove heat) or more noise (higher-speed fans to push heat away from the processors and GPUs)

We need to make sure the computer can actually be used for a reasonable amount of time on a battery charge as well. (note less power consuption also reduces heat issues in most cases)

Most important to note is that laptops need to be comfortable too...
If you sit down in a library and turn on your laptop and the librarian asks you to leave due to your GPU fans making too much noise we have a problem...
Also, heaven forbid you can actually use your laptop on your LAP.
(there are indeed high-end laptops that you can cook eggs on after gaming on them for 15 minutes)

Gaming is a heat-intensive activity for any computer, but the tighter a space we pack that heat, the worse it gets for the computer AND the user.

Because of these challenges, cpu and gpu makers have pulled some horsepower from mobile GPUs and CPUs to accomodate less power and heat.

This means a laptop gamer must make sacrifices in detail or resolution as the current generation of desktop gamers do not have the limitations the laptop users must deal with and the game producers are building for the expectation of desktops.

 

'Sides, when you start to get into limitations of the size of the pixels, higher res means BIGGER monitors. Although a 3840 x 2400 res would be great, lots of people don't really want the 30" or whatever sized screen that would require - desktop or laptop (especially laptop).

 

It's still 96/120dpi. I'll get a high resolution display when 300dpi displays are common.

For now, a higher resolution is not a good idea. Sure, things in the distance are more crisp, but you'll need a faster computer to keep your view of the game world smooth. Everything in Windows shrinks, and webpages (most of which are designed for 1024x768) are tiny as well.

For my uses now, XGA/720p/1MP is fine.

 

Hi,

I've got a 1440x900 screen, but I play newer games like FEAR in 1280x800, as it doesn't look much worse then 1440x900, but gives me more performance.

But in general, I try to go for the highest resolution which will run a game smooth and rather reduce AA or AF level than resolution.

I also agree wht the others said. Notebooks just aren't that powerfull than good desktop hardware. A friend of mine for example bought a good gaming desktop by January 2006, which reaches something around 5500 3DMarks 06. My notebook,which is newer and also not bad equipped, "only" makes 3850 3D Marks...

But I think, a 1280x800 resolution or something like that is fine for gaming on a 17"-display, looks good to me.

Greets

 

I think 1280x800 is more than adequate, especially for "on-the-go" gaming.

While I'd love to have the same performance as my gaming desktop PC (Core 2 Duo E6850, 8800 GTS 640MB, 4GB DDR2, Raptor 150GB) truth is, it isn't going to happen. We are fortunate that technology advances quickly enough that the hardware more advanced technology of roughly 1.5 years ago is mainstream in laptops today.

Additionally, games aren't developed with the top end hardware in mind either, at least not as their main demographic. They want to appeal to that customer that has "average" hardware which is typically cutting edge 1-1.5 years ago. Which is usually the technology used to alpha test the software anyways.

 

I do 1440 x 900 at most, because it seems most games are designed to run best at xga-wxga; you do get more real estate, but everything gets too small the finer the resolution.

 

I was wanting to play Oblivion at higher resolutions if i got an G2S-A1

oh well.

 

If you look at my sig, you'll see the extreme of the spectrum of what most consider to even be a 'laptop'. I'm moving into my dorm at college tomorrow, and I needed something with the gumption of a desktop in a portable platform. Heavy CAD & Modeling work is done best on something thats meant to handle it.

As far as resolutions go... I play every game I own at 1920x1200 at 45+ FPS maxed settings, except Bioshock (which is due to both crappy drivers availability and being incompatible with SLi). There gets to be a point where more and more 3dMarks don't mean much. If its got playable FPS on demanding titles at its native res, then I vote that its a good machine. Most gaming laptops are designed with that in mind.

A person can have nearly anything they want in any sort of form factor if they put enough dough into it. A gaming laptop is generally extremely cost prohibitive, while a similarly performing desktop will be a fraction its cost.

Now that I think back on it, I couldve gotten a killer gaming rig AND an ultraportable laptop for the same as what I spent on my back breaking monster. But I didnt, because of the feasibility and portability of the entire thing going back and forth to college and dorms. Not to mention, most people won't even give my laptop a second look- its ugliness is its own theft deterrent. How are the thieves to know that its a crazy performer?

Another thing is the convenience. One backpack, containing the laptop, keyboard, mouse, ethernet cable, and power supply are all I need for a hardcore LAN party. No separate monitors or 40+ pound towers.

So yes, its a tradeoff with concessions, but for the most part... I can and do live with them. If you buy smart, you can avoid many pitfalls of the stereotypes.

 

Yeah, I guess I *was* asking for that. My bad.

 

But are most notebook gamers who make these compromises really happy? Controversial question, I know, and I'm not looking to get flamed - but when you purchase a laptop for school or work, and you expect to be able to play games on it as well, are you "genuinely happy" that you can play it at 1024x768, or are you "content enough" that you can? I guess, what I'm asking is, have standards of gaming visuals gone down for mobile gamers, or is it always a conscious compromise? As in, "I may only get 1280, but at least it's smooth, and I can take my computer with me where I go"?

 

I'd say most gamers who have notebooks are happy. I don't really think that many hardcore gamers would get a notebook in the first place (if you're that hardcore about games then you'd stick with the power of a desktop).
I play a few games (I don't play as much as I once did) and I'm very happy with the performance I'm getting. But really when you think about it, are desktop gamers really happy? Look at how fast computers get outdated, you buy a computer and not too long after you already can't play new games on the highest settings. I bought my notebook and I can play most of the games I want on the highest settings so I'm very happy. If I was that worried about my gaming performance I'd be buying a new computer for every game that I couldn't play on high settings.
So I am happy with my notebook since it is portable and could play all the games I wanted (when I bought it) on high settings.

There's also a money compromise when it comes to most people and buying a computer. If I had more money I would have bought a Sager 5760 instead of a 5750. Lots of people just can't afford the high end stuff. So I guess lots aren't happy with the fact that they had to sacrifice power because they just couldn't afford it (I think that that's more of an issue than the portability vs power trade off).

 

Hi,

that sounds as if on a notebook you could only run games in VGA graphics with 256 colors -

To be serious: I would not say that a 1280 resolution is low, especially not for 17".
It's nice to have hardware which can handle games in very high resolutions, but for the most occasional gamers I'd say 1280x800 or even lower is just fine.

Seems you are a high-end gamer, I think most people here aren't, and just play some games after work or so, and for that, I wouldn't spend a fortune for the newest hardware, only to get higher playable resolutions.

I also would not say people have lower standards today - in contrary: All that eye-candy new games feature, like HDR, AF, AA, bloom effects... are very demanding for the hardware, so most people with midrange hardware have to go for lower resolutions to get smooth framerates with all the gimmicks on.

Greets

 

...OR get a Falcon / Alienware / Zepto / Sager / Voodoo, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, the whole "upgrade catchup" was something that irked me in my earlier days of PC gaming; days when Moore's Law was all too-often quoted - mostly to my chagrin - and in response to why I can't seem to run Magic Carpet on all settings maxed out, even though my system is FIVE years past its release. Those were the days when it seemed like I was upgrading RAM or my hard drive or my sound card every six to eight months... But I digress.

I guess in the end, money is always a deciding factor. Granted, I've been reading MOSTLY Dell forum posts (since my system is a Dell), but in the end most people will want a laptop that they can use for school, or work, or whatever else... AND be able to bash out a few games every once in a while. It just seems a bit strange to me that people keep obsessing over the video cards in their systems, even IF they can get much better gaming performance out of other (boutique or otherwise) manufacturers. I guess that's what's known as "fighting for the bottom rung"? To want to squeeze the best performance out of something that's not expected to deliver... but be able to stick within your brand, build, image and price preferences.

I know I'M doing that. I mean, who do I think I am, running Company of Heroes on a Latitude, right?

 

Hi Tobi,

Like I said, I had gotten used to the trend of bigger, better, faster in the world of desktop gaming. I'll admit, the last time I was a hardcore HARDCORE gamer was in the late 90's. After that, I went on to college, moved to a laptop (which was ALL for schoolwork) and resigned my gaming to the console variety. When I got back into it, a few years ago, it still seemed like the trend was for higher resolutions, more detail and high performance. I'll also admit that before I moved to a notebook fulltime, I had never really considered mobile gaming. So, yes, I'm a bit of an ignoramus on that one.

I'm not really a high-end, hardcore gamer. Most of these days, I spend playing with photography, video, music and writing. However, I have enough of a gamer's bone in my body to want to be able to play games at the most ridiculous amount of detail possible.

Still, I must say, 1280x800 would seem a bit low for me. I like my visuals razor-sharp, even if, sometimes, I must sacrifice a few frames here and there. I guess at worst, I'd be okay with 1440 or (heaven willing) 1680. But running games with details and textures turned down AND playing them at low resolutions... sort of makes me wonder where all this technology has been heading.

I don't mean to sound ignorant - I'm aware that there are companies that are putting out desktops with Quad-SLI GPUs and there are many manufacturers out there with extreme resolutions on their panels. But I guess...

Maybe I was expecting more of the industry. I thought that, perhaps, in my absence many MANY great technological marvels and leaps of innovation had taken place. Maybe I'm just a tiny bit disappointed at the state of mainstream mobile gaming.

Is it just a sign of a young and immature market? Is mobile gaming still at the point of "yet-to-explode"? Are there enough people out there who are making the move to be on portables exclusively and seriously want to game as well? The mobile computing market has exploded dramatically in the last 3 years, with many companies posting serious growth in their notebook divisions. Are more and more gamers set to move into this space, or are they content enough with their towers, minitowers and SFFPCs? Is mobile gaming on the verge of going mainstream enough that boutique manufacturers such as Voodoo and Alienware will no longer be the only place to get your serious performance fixes? And at decent prices, at that?

In other words, I wonder if and when we'll get to a point where mobile gaming will be as competitive as desktop gaming - in terms of performance and pricing.

Cheers.

 

With the possible exception, of course, of id Software. Hahaha!!!

 

I really would like mobile gaming to catch up with desktop performance, but as it seems now it will never happen. If it hasn´t happened yet it probably won´t happen soon. Given the amount of heat these desktop cards output and how huge they are today, talking specifically about the 8800GTX.

But still the 7950GTX is just like a 7900GT in desktop performance. Nvidia will probably not release a full 8800m anyway, it will probably be real crippled

Now like me I own two laptops, one gaming laptop a XPS M170 the former with a 7800GTX which runs games pretty good even today. But I had to buy a desktop gaming rig too since I knew my laptop wouldn´t last long with todays games.

So while it´s nice to have a portable gaming machine, it´s nice to have a killer gaming rig which can max all graphics and resolution without a hassle.

The best thing would be if all laptop manufacturers could come to a standard for gaming laptops that would allow easy upgrade of the GPU and CPU also a new cooling solution would be nice.

I think if laptops become upgradable I could see them approach desktops faster.

But now the only outcome if you want to game is to get a desktop rig which is easy upgradable and not too expensive either to upgrade. Not to talk about how easy it is to clock the desktops.