Difference between 1024 by 768 and 1600 by 1200

[Roland Deschain]

Got a new computer so can finally max some settings.

I'm currently playing Halo and I was playing around with the setting. I was switching between resolutions and noticed that when you get to 1600 by 1200 the framerate seems to drop more often (especially in the in-door levels).

But I can't really see a difference between 1024 by 768 and higher resolutions. I even took the same screenshot between the resolutions and looked at them and still no describable difference. Plus on 1024 by 768 I can rev up the refresh rate up to 120, whereas on 1600 by 1200 it only goes to 75.

Can anybody explain this to me, ie: why is it worth to bump up your resolution to 1600 by 1200 if 1024 by 768 does the trick.

Thanks.

 

[Tarkus]

the resolution is higher, maybe the icons will appear smaller in your screen at 1600x1200, but that really depends on the size of your screen... since mine is 15'', i can't play anything higher than 1024x768 cause everything appears too damn small..

EDIT- the resolution being higher, the fps being smaller ^^

 

[VeZ]

yea i dont see a difference between the 2 also...i think people just want to uhh...brag that they can go that high of a resolution?

 

[Dynasty]

kk np. everytime you increase the res, you compact the triangles of the graphics. this means the graphics card has to work harder as there are more pixels on the screen. Lowering the resolution effectively 'zooms in' and reduces the amount of triangles the GC has to draw/process. if you thump it up to 1600 x 1200, you are at pretty much the max res (depending on your card and monitor). therefore the triangles are completely compact, so the GC has to draw them ALL, which slows down the FPS. basically, more triangles on the screen = lower frame rates.

yo havent specified your comp specs so i cant actually work out if its your GC that is the problem. Sounds like your card is the reason for the slowdown you experience. dont worry tho, NOBODY should even want to run on 1600 x 1200. 1280 x 1024 is the max you should want, in terms of looks and smooth performance...but everything really boils down to your CPU, RAM and GC.

hope this little essay helps

 

[Murray_H]

A lot more pixels are visible at 1600x1200, therefore more have to be rendered which gives a large performance hit

 

[Dynasty]

rofl i could've just said what murray_h said instead.

 

[Asus]

With a higher resolution, there is more information to make up the picture.
I turn up my resolution because I don't like seeing a blocky image.
Running at 1280x960, I get a very sharp picture and good framerate along with 85Hertz refresh rate.

If you can't tell the difference then there is no point. That goes for anything.

 

[Dynasty]

well tbh asus, your pc spec is pretty damn good so no wonder you can pump up the res

 

[Roland Deschain]

The funny thing about halo is that I can pump everything to the max and it will run about 60 fps every time. But there are cetair areas in the game (about 5 so far and I'm almost done) where it suddenly and for no reason drops. There are no huge number of enemies the space is pretty small, but for some reason suddenly the mouse control gets kinda leggy. For somebody watching there would be no difference, since nothing lags.

 

[hyenolie]

if u wanna see difference in games, do this

open CS menu, dont start any games tought, jus ht epicture of hte 2 guys holding guns.

at 11x7 ull see the picture has not set in well, theres lines in some places on the face and the hands,


now go to 16x12, or 4:3 ration, now look at the picture. totaly different move visible and real life.

this also works for 800x600 since its also 4:3. but graphics arnt that good at this res. so there is actualy a visible difference if u ask me,

i bet asus can elaborate on this issue regarding 4:3.

the pics down there are the same, i had to crop the 16x12, because of the 100k restriction, but u can clearly see the hand and the facial differences.

nv its kind of hard to tell, ull have to do it yourselve, save both screens in paint, and cycle through them u can see the differenc.e

this upload ****ed up the quality of both pikcs they almost look the same now.

 

[Roland Deschain]

I know, using the original HL1 engine it's kinda easy to see the difference (since your energy and ammunition gauge is smaller), but in new games like Halo and FarCry the difference in visuals is so small comapered to the difference in frame rate that I wonder if it's not wiser to turn up anti-alising and keep a medium resolution.

 

[blahblahblah]

I know, using the original HL1 engine it's kinda easy to see the difference (since your energy and ammunition gauge is smaller), but in new games like Halo and FarCry the difference in visuals is so small comapered to the difference in frame rate that I wonder if it's not wiser to turn up anti-alising and keep a medium resolution.

It really depends on the game. A game like Halo doesn't support AA, so turning up your resolution maybe a smarter idea. But a game like Far Cry, turning up AA maybe a better idea than turning up the resolution. It really depends on each game.

 

[hyenolie]

hey blablabla, i think ur sig needs to be "what's the diff between a secratry and a vampire."

i thikn secratary sounds better there lol instead of an accountant.

 

[blahblahblah]

I'm an accounting major in college.

Cause of your comment, I'm going to change my accounting joke to something even more corny. hehe

 

[hyenolie]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA omfg hats ****ing hilarious.

"when they can all swim" hahahahah

 

[Pressure]

if u wanna see difference in games, do this

open CS menu, dont start any games tought, jus ht epicture of hte 2 guys holding guns.

at 11x7 ull see the picture has not set in well, theres lines in some places on the face and the hands,


now go to 16x12, or 4:3 ration, now look at the picture. totaly different move visible and real life.

this also works for 800x600 since its also 4:3. but graphics arnt that good at this res. so there is actualy a visible difference if u ask me,

i bet asus can elaborate on this issue regarding 4:3.

the pics down there are the same, i had to crop the 16x12, because of the 100k restriction, but u can clearly see the hand and the facial differences.

nv its kind of hard to tell, ull have to do it yourselve, save both screens in paint, and cycle through them u can see the differenc.e

this upload ****ed up the quality of both pikcs they almost look the same now.

You have to run the game to see the difference. Tell me if I'm wrong but doesn't the background picture get worse when you make it larger like 1600x1200. Try playing the game and see if you can tell the difference.

 

[hyenolie]

dont get me wronge, u do drop fps, definitly, its quality for fps, obviously the more triangles u have the better circle u get, thats whats droping the fps,

so no at 4:3 u get better graphics, just like asus said, u have more triangles on the screen that make the images look better,

im just answering that guys questoin, when u go higher res u get better quality. and i tried showing that with the steam CS picture, but i guess it didnt work out,

u can try it yourself.