WUXGA and gaming

Is there a huge decrease in performance when gaming on a WUXGA? and will the image quality be worse if I game on a non-native resolution?

 

1920x1200 is a LOT of pixels (2.3 million). Gaming at 1280x1024, by comparison, is only 1.3 million pixels...almost HALF.

It therefore takes a lot of power to game at the native WUXGA resolution. You will probably find yourself decreasing the resolution to 1680x1050 or lower to get good framerates on most modern games, unless you have some extremely expensive video cards in SLI setup or whatever.

Dropping a panel below its native resolution doesn't look as good, but in games I don't think it's quite as noticeable since things are moving so much.

 

I'm just worried that it will look like crap, I hear that it becomes pixiliated. I do plan on playing games at 1680x1050 or even lower on a WUXGA, is there a link to which it compares the image qualities?

 

Well, thanks to drivers, you can pick whether to scale or letterbox your downsizing if you go High-Res.

I'm of the thinking, the higher res the better because of exactly that.

And if you have enough leeway on low res to turn on AA, you can just up the res for the same performance hit. In other words, it allows a more customizable experience.

 

WUXGA is great for gaming... if you have a mid to high-end videocard.

When you play at full screen there is no need to turn on AA.

WUXGA is even better for workspace and movie watching (1080p )

 

Yeah, with that many pixels, things look REALLY sharp. You will definitely have to turn either resolution down a small bit or lighten up on the Anti Aliasing to keep FPS up, but it is pretty spectacular gaming on a 1920x1200 screen. I hope you have a mid-high level video card though, a 8400GS isn't going to run that many pixels so well.

Personally, I find a 17" screen looks best a WSXGA (1680x1050, I think), but my eyes aren't 20/20 so maybe I'm just biased.

Screens respond differently to scaling down resolution. Most LCDs don't do so well on the desktop at anything other than native resolution, this is not always the case for games though.

 

Would you consider the 256MB geforce 8600M GT
to be a mid range card or a high end card?

 

8600M GT should be considered a top of the mid-range cards.

The GPU Guide shows the vidoecards in order.
- the Performance and High-End cards are the ones to have if you want to game comfortably with a high resolution.

 

I strongly recommend you look at the guide "Resolution in Relation to Gaming and GPU's".

 

My laptop specs as follows:

17'' WUXGA (although I do wish it was WSXGA+ but it cost $100 more and a 2 week delay)
Santa Rosa T7300 2.0Ghz
4 GB/667mhz
Go 7950GTX 512mb/DDR3
160GB @ 7200 RPM.

would I have to scale down the res if I plan on playing future games on relatively high settings such as
company of heroes: OF
Crysis
Bioshock
World in Conflict
Medieval 2 total war

 

bbos, thats extremely high-end...

you should not worry about any performance issues for any resolution.

 

I'll sleep easy tonight, thanks.

 

It'll probly play them all on high, no sweat. The question is AA or HDR. If you disable those two, most people can play a lot of things.

But a 7950... that should handle new games on moderately high resolutions for quite some time, probably even with some AA.

 

I have a WUXGA screen, and I find it fantastic for gaming. Sure, I can't usually play on native resolution, but I don't think that's such a big deal. I usually play at 1680x1050 or 1440x900 and it looks amazing.

WUXGA screens are better quality overall, higher contrast ratios, better dot-pitch, increased brightness.

With a card like the Go 7950GTX, you should be able to play most games at 1920x1200 with maximum settings. The only exceptions are games like Crysis and Bioshock. I can't say for sure (since they haven't been released) but you should be able to run them at a slightly lower resolution, and maxed out as well.

 

So even though you don't play at the native res, the image quality is still pretty sharp at 1680x 1050 right? cause I will most likely be using the WUXGA at that resolution.

 

I still dont know why people dont play at native resolution... if the resolution is not pixel perfect... ugly stretches and blurs occur...

Might as well play in window mode instead.

Just keep the game play at native resolution, and bring down the image quality settings as bit if your videocard cannot handle it that well. A 7900GS should play well at native resolution with Mid/High settings.

 

"if the resolution is not pixel perfect... ugly stretches and blurs occur...

Sure, I can't usually play on native resolution, but I don't think that's such a big deal. I usually play at 1680x1050 or 1440x900 and it looks amazing."

i just want to mention that those ugly stretches and blurs are drastically reduced by the high dpi of the 1920x1200 monitors.q

 

A lot of people complain that you can't get the same experience out of higher resolutions as you can with lower because of the fact that it prolly wont handle AA and what not on top of it.

but as someone said earlier in this thread, and to which I agree to totally, if you can play the game at 1920x1200 you won't notice a need for AA and what not as it makes things look just as good or better.

From personal experience.

 

I have a 20" 1680x1050 LCD on my desktop at the moment (before my new laptop comes ), and the blurring isn't really noticeable at all when running out of native resolution in games. For desktop use it's not good, particularly when trying to read text, but in a game with motion and images, you can't even tell that you're running out of native resolution.

On a smaller, 17" screen with a higher resolution (and thus, an increased number of pixels-per-inch), running out of native res in games would be even less noticeable. (or at least, that's what I'm hoping - I'll see for sure in a few days when I get my 17" lappy).