I'm curious especially how many of you at 1600x1200 (or more? :eek: )with FSAA modes enabled. To my way of thinking, the pixels at those resolutions are already small enough that the anti-aliasing really isn't needed. Thoughts?
Printable View
I'm curious especially how many of you at 1600x1200 (or more? :eek: )with FSAA modes enabled. To my way of thinking, the pixels at those resolutions are already small enough that the anti-aliasing really isn't needed. Thoughts?
I usually run everything at 1600x1200x32 with 2X FSAA enabled. Games do look sweet I guess.
i run 1600x1200 16bit almost extensivly. not many games i play make enough difference between 32 or 16 to warrant the hit that comes under volumeous calculations in 32bit, or 1280x1024 when some games have text to small to read at 1600x1200 on a 19" screen.
Everything on my computer is run at 1024/768, including games.
I find it the best resolution for a 17".
I also would never get anything over a 17" just because I don't see much of a point in it. They just get too big to even really keep on your desk (consume too much room, have to keep it too close to the keyboard, etc.)
Also, the 19"'s are too heavy to carry around to LAN games and all. :)
with my current desk and computer room setup, my 19 monitor sits roughly 3ft away from me. I have the desk pulled from the wall about 16 inches, and the monitors ***-end can freely hang off the back of the desk, same with my 17 monitors on my lab bench and corner counter-top. I would like really to buy a 21" screen, I think that would be the optimal and a screen I could keep for a couple years and be happy with. a 19" was great for the first 6 months, but I stare on at one everyday at work as well, so coming home dosent have that same wow factor anymore.
I agree with you on the 1024 x 768 resolution and the fact that 19" are infact too heavy to carry around. However I feel 19" causes less strain. Then again I've used a 15" for 6 years and I was glad to get rid of it.Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
Everything on my computer is run at 1024/768, including games.
I find it the best resolution for a 17".
I also would never get anything over a 17" just because I don't see much of a point in it. They just get too big to even really keep on your desk (consume too much room, have to keep it too close to the keyboard, etc.)
Also, the 19"'s are too heavy to carry around to LAN games and all. :)
I am happy when my games run smoothly at 1280x1024x32...Quote:
Originally posted by Momaw
I'm curious especially how many of you at 1600x1200 (or more? :eek: )with FSAA modes enabled. To my way of thinking, the pixels at those resolutions are already small enough that the anti-aliasing really isn't needed. Thoughts?
I'd likely go even higher on resolution with a 19".Quote:
Originally posted by Indus
I agree with you on the 1024 x 768 resolution and the fact that 19" are infact too heavy to carry around. However I feel 19" causes less strain. Then again I've used a 15" for 6 years and I was glad to get rid of it.
I've really given this some thought, and I'm going to get a new 17" after I'm done with my computer upgrades. (2.2a when prices drop and 512 stick of Samsung DDR333)
I'm figuring I'll get a decent (something in the $200 range) 17" monitor. Hopefully something that can get over an 85hz refresh rate at 1024 x 768, and be done with monitors for a very long time. :)
1024x768, all the time. I don't touch the FSAA since my rig is a little too weak for that :rolleyes:
Usually 1152x864x16 or 1280x1024x16, depending on the game. I value a high framerate above everything else. Besides even on a 19" monitor at 1152 the jaggies aren't so bad if you are running around in CS or UT all the time. The 50-60 fps is the most important thing to me tho :)
Is your 1.8 a willy? If not why do you need a 2.2A?Quote:
Originally posted by CrawlingEye
I'd likely go even higher on resolution with a 19".
I've really given this some thought, and I'm going to get a new 17" after I'm done with my computer upgrades. (2.2a when prices drop and 512 stick of Samsung DDR333)
I'm figuring I'll get a decent (something in the $200 range) 17" monitor. Hopefully something that can get over an 85hz refresh rate at 1024 x 768, and be done with monitors for a very long time. :)
Also if your monitor is fine.. just wait a few years for the LCD's to become better. That's what I'm doing. Although I don't game that much, I'm still looking forward to LCD's with refresh rates of today's CRT's. ;)
1024x768 4x fsaa max level of ansiotropy :D
1024x768x32 and 4xAA with all eye candy on MAX.
I usually run at 800x600x32. Any higher and I have to squint to read text on my 17" screen. I am running a KYROII with a PIII800 with nothing overclocked. Might go to 768x1024x32 if I overclock this thing. But frankly I like things at 800x600.
1024 x 768, no FSAA although I could if i want but what the hell...