Is it weird that I game at 1280x800?

I have a Sony VAIO VGN-SZ330P, and while it's only got an nVidia 7400 Go, it can play some newer games at very decent settings, such as CoH. Since I've become a part of this website, and recently purchased a new ASUS W90, something has become very clear to me. I'm gaming at pretty low resolutions. 1280x800, in my opinion, has always looked pretty darn good.

What should I expect with this fantastic new laptop that can jack resolution all the way up to 1920x1200? I guess it's a good thing, going in with my expectations so low, that I can play games like Crysis and be quite pleased .

 

Gaming at native is always the best idea.
At 1920x1200, everything will look sharp and more detailed. I know the jump from my older HP 1440x900 to 1920x1200 was big...

 

You can expect much better picture, clearer if I may say, more view. But then again with bigger resolution you get les FPS.

 

I used to play at 1280x800, as that's all my old desktop monitor would do. Recently upgraded to a monitor that supported the higher res... oh, my gosh, was it easy to get used to the big picture! Lots of real estate to look at for my strategy games (I can see more of the map on the screen), and the action games looked great! For me, there wasn't any going back!

There is a price. Depending on how you have the system set up and the physical size of your display, you may find some of the text more difficult to read on the 1920x1200. I counter this by adjusting the size of the text on my desktop, by occasionally zooming in on websites while browsing, and (if possible) in games, but sometimes it can be an issue. Just so you know, there is always a downside. Still, I was very happy with the higher res!

 

This topic always comes up. I run most of my games at 1280x800 on my 1920x1200 monitor both notebook and desktop. It looks nearly as crisp as at native resolution. So many people are bent on running at native resolution and I don't know why?

Are people so bent on running at 1080p when the movie only has 480p or 720p?

If you're looking at a desktop and text for extended periods, running at a lower resolution is troublesome. But for gaming, where it's a scaled 3D world, it really doesn't matter much. Just maintain the same aspect ratio, use your video cards scaling feature, and you're good to go!

 

Depending on which game you play, it can either better utilitize the space by showing you more, or it can just look sharper all together.

Usually with big resolutions like 1920x1200, it's standard on a 24" monitor. The default resolution for 1280x800 is standard on a 15" monitor I believe. So right there you can tell where the biggest increase is going to come from... just having a big screen to play on

If we are only talking laptop LCD's, then 1920x1200 on a 17" will look sharp because of such high pixel density on the screen.

 

Isn't that why people buy DVD players with upconverters? And why people like Blu-Ray so much?

I won't spend time arguing with which is better, native resolution or not. I will say that for the majority of people, they can notice the difference in sharpness. But if you don't mind a lower resolution, then be all means go for it, it means higher FPS or more settings cranked for you.

 

I think the resolution needs to match the monitor size. To me, 1680x1050 is almost a bit much on a 15.4" screen, and 1900x1200 is big time overkill on a 17" screen. To me, those resolutions belong on desktop monitors of 19"-27" not on small laptops where you have no chance in hell of reading a letter the size of a pepper on fly poop. I don't care how "crisp" it is. I do prefer native resolutions if at all possible, but I usually shrink it down if my GPU is struggling on a certain game.

 

If you want the speed then don't move!!! Like they said, if you get used to the picture it will be harder to go back down if FPS warrants it. Right now you don't know what you're missing so in your mind it's all good.

 

still better than console resolution 720p (1280x720)

 

umm, both the xbox 360 and ps3 can output 1080P (1920x1080) via HDMI.

if your talking about wii's resolution...well no one is supposed to compare wii, its like comparing a mansion to a hobo's little cardboard house...

 

Thanks for the heads-up folks. I like a good mix of sharpness, and readability. I imagine I'll be running one notch down from the native 1920x1200, but I may get used to it. If it makes the difference in playing a game on Super High, and perhaps, Medium, I'll definitely keep it on Super High, .

 

But most of us who play an Xbox or PS3 are on a 50" monitor, not 17" like some laptop gamers.

 

Yes, but most Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games run at 1280x720 or around that resolution and then are upscaled/stretched to a 1080P HDTV, just like running a PC game at 1280x800 and stretching it on a 1920x1200 monitor.

 

I have yet to see a notebook where gaming at 1920x1200 seems even remotely useful.

1280x800 for 15" or smaller

1440x900 for 17"

1680x1050 for anything bigger

Those seem to be basically the point where you start not really noticing any different anyway.

 

No game will "show you more" by running at a higher resolution. It just has to display the same space but with more pixels. A lot of it has to do with the resolution of the textures too.

About consoles, most games are designed for 480p or 720p resolutions, so 1080p is doing the same thing as upscaling the image to fit the larger pixels.

 

FPS games maybe not, but there are at least more than a few strategy games that benefit from a higher resolution. I know it's a really really old example, but Age of Empires 2 was best at 1280x1024. It didn't stretch, it just showed more at higher resolutions. Which is obviously an advantage.

And like I said, even if it displays the same, a higher resolution will always look sharper.

 

1200p in 17inch has more and best detail than 1200p in 50 inch.
Thats a way too difference as well as console's gpus are weak.
IF its PS4 then it will be a different story but also Intel is designing the new gpu for ps4 and it is also starting its footstep in PC gpus following 2010 I guess. There will be 3 competitors then Intel,Nvidia and Ati. Lets see who will win the battle.

 

Yeah, i was thinking civ IV when I posted earlier about seeing more of the map. I know, since it's turn based, it's not as big of a deal, but i always liked it.

For the RTS's that this applies to, I can see where it would be an advantage - less time spent scrolling around the map. Still, I think it boils down to what your personal preferences are.

 

It's a W90 with an 18.4" display, you shouldn't need to scale anything back.

 

i use 1440 and i love it . i can comfortablly max out any game and still have a nice view.

 

All glory to the W9-HYPNOTOAD... OH SHI-

 

Some say that the downsampling made by the monitor when you play at lower resolutions than native, it has a sort of Antialising effect. Not calculated, but actually, I like the fact that the game looks more like a movie (a bit blurry, without the FPS cost of making it 3D blurry, which my card can't do). For instance, sometimes I play HL2 at 1280x768, although I run it fine at 1680x1050. HL2 though, does not have the blur 3D effect.

 

Go play Duke Nukem Forever... It'll make your system CRAWL!

 

I always play at 1360X768 (my 32' HDTV resolution). It lets me keep most eye candy activated.

For me FPS and eye candy comes first than pure screen resolution.

 

I know ill be gaming at 1280 x 800 too once i get that little netbook/13" to carry around with me that 1280 will be utilized in full(of course with a 9400m with netbook and 4570 for notebooks...along those lines)

 

Netbook FTW! Yay! I'm waiting for Asus to provide their next kick- netbook similar to the N10J except with a 1366x768 screen and dual-core option.

 

Lol i guess we are waiting for similar things eh?

 

umm just so you know, many games can natively support 1080p ever since 2007, before then, stories were different.

As for the OP, i think that on your W90, 1680x1050 is the best of both worlds. I love high resolution though, so if it were me, i would go FULL HD, super clarity, super space. Love playing in FULL HD, it is the shiznit.

 

Isn't w90 have resolution of 1920x1080 ?

 

Yep. 16:9 "golden aspect" ratio.

 

Yes. You're weird.

 

So where can I configure an Asus W90?

 

http://www.xoticpc.com/asus-w90vpa1-order-p-2562.html

 

Personally i'll play a game at a resolution that allows the best performance to graphics ratio. If cranking it up to 1920x1200 gets me a playable FPS then so be it, if not i'll lower it tell I get that.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I'm happy because the new DOX drivers let me play Crysis at 1366x768 on Medium and my minimum FPS is never below 30.

 

Freakin Crysis. Game is ridiculous on requirements...

 

Yea, but for once it's finally running good on my system while still having decent resolution and settings. Before DOX released his new drivers, the minimum framerate fluctuated too much.

 

Why would that be weird? 1024x768 used to be great. Before that it was 800x600 and 640x480.

I know people who play fall out 3 at 640x480.

 

I know people who play Fallout 3 at 640x480 as well, but it's not exactly by choice, it's because of their lame video card

It's playable, no doubt, but it's in no way better or even comparable to a higher resolution like even 1440x900.

 

I used to play games at 640x480.


...five years ago on my Palmpilot.

 

Isn't the W90 running Crossfired 4870s? If that's the case, I'd be pretty comfortable maxing out the resolution. I seriously doubt anything soon is going to push it so hard you can't at least run at native without AA.

 

What machines do they have for crying out loud? I can play fallout 3 at 1024x600 on my N10J netbook with the Atom. Those are similar specs to a higher end system in 2003.

 

i dont understand why you would start a thread..." is it weird i games @ whatever res". Do you enjoy the res you game on? Is it ok for you? If so who cares what other's opinions of what res you play on ?

/fail thread.

 

He has a Core2 at around 1.6 or 1.8 ghz, 2 gigs of ram, and an X1400 Ati video card. It's a dell Inspiron he bought about 4 years ago.

Wasn't even high end back then. It was mediocre.

And I'd say that although it's playable, it's still probably still not more than 20-30 FPS average. And that's all lowest settings.

 

Of course I enjoy the games...otherwise I wouldn't play them. I was just interested in 1) what other people gamed at; 2) what most people were gaming at nowadays; and 3) if I was missing something by gaming at that resolution.

Now, here's the kicker, why would someone like yourself, come and post in this thread? Clearly it's a thread of lowly caliber, and you would only be ruining your stellar reputation as a poster on the Internet by being here.

/looolollol

 

SnS, you will owe it to your notebook to game at 1080p.

 

Oh don't worry, I've got all sorts of games on order, asperimentations shall be had.