Why I'm glad have a P-6860FX over a 7811FX

Actually, I just had a realization that I should have had before. 1920x1200 to 1440x900 is maintaining aspect ratio. Try it, both have a ratio of 16:10 ... So sorry but, whatever difference you're seeing is your imagination because 1440x900 at 1920 WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME at 1440 at 1440.

I should facepalm you for even making me go through all this when neither one of us did the math. Just for that, you should either concede that I was right the whole time, or you should explain right now why I'm still wrong, because even the math agrees with what I've seen in person.

 

Wow, it's not an aspect ratio thing. I've even said this several times, because people keep saying aspect ratio and I say ratio of pixels displayed to pixels available!!! Again, quoting myself.

Pleeeeeeeaaassseee, tell me you at least can grasp this much!

 

wow, you're going the wrong way. You're not trying to fit 4 colors onto one pixel, you're splitting one color onto 4 pixels. We're not trying to squeeze a 1920x1200 image onto 1440x900, we're expanding 1440x900 onto a 1920x1200 screen. "Pleeeeeaseee tell me you can grasp that much." Please tell me your entire argument hasn't been based off your own brainfart.

 

I'm not going the wrong way, you're misunderstanding me again. If you displayed an image that was 1440x900 on a 1920x1200 LCD, and displayed that image at it's native res, you'd have black bars around it. Now, if you expanded that image to cover those black bars, you'd have to be filling those bars with something, agree? Since 1920/1400 and 1200/900 do not result in even numbers, the pixel ratio is not going to be clean, this is the only place I have mentioned ratios. So as you expand up that 1440 image, it's going to fill in more pixels. Except each pixel in that original picture is just like a pixel on an LCD, it's only one color. So, to compensate, some pixels from the image will be displayed on two pixels of the LCD panel. But again, there's not enough pixels on the panel for every pixel to do this, so some pixels from the image will be displayed on one pixel of the LCD panel.... see where this is going?

 

Sorry for taking so long, I had to get my roommate to read through this because I just couldn't understand what you were trying to get at. He says that you're pointing out that for every 1 pixel on the 6860 there's 1.7 on the 7811, but that you're wrongly assuming (what do you know?) that there's only 1 pixel per color when playing... is that where you're going with this?

 

You took so long because you went and read up other threads to see what they said. They all agreed. I know, I was watching.

That's NOT what I'm saying. Set out the 6860 and 7811 entirely. They're not important, let's be general here. Each pixel on an LCD can only display one color at a time. That's what a pixel is; I'm not wrongly assuming that.

 

ok... i kinda get the point... well if it really happens that way, well, yeah probably (notice i didn't make it definite) a 1440 image or game would look better on a 1440 resolution. but the fact is, a 1440 game would definitely run smoother on a more capable video card with a 1920 screen. as compared to a less capable videocard trying to run 1280 on a 1440 screen...

matter of choice really...

 

Actually no, my roommate literally got on, clicked your name and went to view previous posts, and looked at your posts... but thanks for assuming, yet again.

So, each pixel on an lcd can only display one pixel at a time huh? , you were right the whole time then. LOL (sarcasm if you didn't notice... or assumed it to be something else).

 

Wow, nice job getting high and mighty over a typo, I meant color and fixed it before you posted. And it's interesting that he went and looked at threads such as this and this.

 

Um, as I said, he looked at your previous posts that pertained to what we're discussing. So yes, he probably did look at those threads to look at what you said. The whole purpose was to understand what you think is going on with this discussion.

And it wasn't me getting high and mighty over a typo, it was me not knowing what you were trying to say because you didn't make sense, like usual.

But now that you fixed it and I see what you were trying to say, you didn't get what I was trying to say that my roommate pointed out. I'm not talking about one pixel can only display one color. I'm saying there can be more than one pixel per color.

 

Okay, so again, please refute what I have said.

 

Wow. Instead of having me explain it for a third time, you can reread through this thread. But onto the more pertinent point, which actually in a way relates to what you just quoted there, you're assuming there's one pixel per color.. you're assuming its only one pixel trying to be stretched onto 1.7...

 

I just want to state... i like vanilla ice cream

 

A pointless argument anyway, not only does this only pertain to crysis, but 1440 looks the same regardless of two different resolutions anyway. Either way, the OP was wrong since the 7811 will give either higher FPS at 1440, or better image at native.

 

THERE IS ONLY ONE COLOR PER PIXEL AT A TIME. THAT IS HOW A MATRIX OF PIXELS WORKS TO DISPLAY AN IMAGE! OMG!

Here, I made a picture to help your fragile mind understand.



This represents a display with an aspect ratio (lol) of 16:10. It's 16 pixels wide and 10 high. We've also got a smaller picture in there, it's also 16:10 (or as close as we will ever get on this small of a scale) at 12 pixels wide and 7 high.



So we blow up that image now to fit the full screen. You are suggesting it would look like this.


Yes, that certainly would be the same.
However, if you read up on how pixels work, you will see that a pixel uses RGB to generate one visible color. Therefore, it is impossible for these half red half blue pixels to be in existence. Software then does its best to calculate which pixels should be in each color. This causes a bit of distortion. It would really look more like this: ***NOTE THAT THE UNDERLYING LIGHT BLUE IS JUST TO SHOW WHAT IT IS TRYING TO DISPLAY, NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY DISPLAYED - PICTURE FOR CLARIFICATION COMING***


***SAID IMAGE FOR CLARIFICATION - THIS IS THE FINAL RESULT***


Now of course, it's not THAT disgusting on a higher res, because it's only the edges of color blocks that get this way, but you can imagine with the gradients in games how this can go (though the gradients work for it in helping make it less visible). So yes, the distortion is there, it's just hard for most people to see.


For the sake of argument, can we call the 16x10 1920x1200 and the 10x7 1440x900, or do I have to make a grid that's 1440x900? Nah just kidding, if you can't handle the concept after this post, you're a lost cause. I understand that you can get confused so I'm not holding any of this against you, but what can I say, I just made it clear as can be. If you still don't get it, then that's really unfortunate. One day I hope you can be properly educated on the subject.

What's most humorous is this entire topic is based on your idea that a single pixel can display two different colors at the same time.


Oh... and by the way. This doesn't only apply to Crysis, it applies to anything displayed outside of native res. It's good stuff to know if you don't want to come off as an arrogant 15 year old who probably can't even appreciate the excellent webcomic in his avatar. And hopefully that concludes this thread.

 

hahahaha no, what's really humorous is that you went through all that trouble to try to show me something that I already agreed with you about. If you can show me where I said that one pixel can display two colors, I will say "hep, you were right, you are my god" and I won't post about ti again. however, you can't, because I never said that. REally though, it's funny that you went through all that trouble to show me something that I already knew... I actually laughed really hard so did my roommate when I called him over.

And yes, it only relates to crysis, because crysis is the only thing that I've had to go outside of native resolution for, and I've been using the 7811 since it was released... and thanks for making yet another assumption (that I'm 15) and proving that the simplest situation is incomprehensible to you. It's getting a little bit pathetic now.

 

Okay, we've got this difficult to understand statement here....

If you agree with that, how can you argue that the final image is not distorted?

Let us also keep in mind that regardless of whether or not this affects you anywhere but Crysis right now, it's a timeless concept that will affect you in 2 years when new games won't be running so smoothly at 1920x1200.

Again though, I'd STILL opt for the 7811...

 

you think games won't be running smoothly at the resolution that is newest and goes with the newest tech? how naive can you be, really. 1440x900 is being used less and less in gaming laptops.... you don't think that says something? by the time 1920x1200 can't be used, none of your own hardware in the 6860, regardless of the screen, will keep up, and the point will be moot.

 

No, I am saying in two years, games will be a lot more advanced. They will certainly be more demanding than Crysis, probably by far. Your laptop will lag badly if you try to play them at 1920x1200. So you'll have to scale down to a lower res, like 1440x900 (if they even play that high), and this becomes applicable to you.

 

and I'm saying that all gaming laptops will have 1920x1200 native resolutions. the older 1440 natives won't have a chance at these "advanced" games that you speak of, if mine will lag badly. to be more on topic, the 6860 won't even have a chance. and therefore the point will be moot.

 

This thread has turned into bickering and is now closed. Post have also been deleted as well. In the future, please rememeber to respect other people's opinions and remember that people have different needs and wants.