Native resolution

2007-12-08 00:41:22

#1

T.Pike: 99 Problems . . .; +187|6760|Pennsyltucky

I'm looking at buying myself a 20" LCD for Christmas.

While looking at monitors at newegg I came accross something.

On a review someone complained about the clarity. Someone else said that LCDs only look right in their "Native Resolution".

For this monitor it was something like 1640x1024.

My graphics card (ATI X600 256 PCI-E) doesn't show that resolution available in the drop-box under settings.

Was what the poster said about running in native resolutions true?

If I want to get a bigger monitor will I have to get a better graphics card?

Anyone know if BF2 & COD4 support that resolution?

2007-12-08 00:49:50

#2

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7132

It's true, LCDs do only look right in their native resolution. When I first read it I wasn't sure, but I lowered my resolution and sure enough, things looked pretty blurry and crappy.

I'm pretty sure your graphics card could handle that resolution, but just to be sure you should look up your card's specs. Depending on how high your graphics card can go, you may or may not have to upgrade it to fit the monitor.

And I don't know if BF2 can or can't handle it, I've only seen it go as high as 1280x1024 since that's the highest resolution I can have.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2007-12-08 00:51:02)

2007-12-08 00:51:55

#3

chuyskywalker: Admin; +2,439|7325|"Frisco"

LCD's work best, and "clearly" at their native resolution. CRT's can shift resolutions easily and cleanly because they are firing a beam at a surface. An LCD is made up of millions of tiny, individual (literally) pixels. Ask the google about how LCD's work and why they are different to under stand more.

Yes, lots of games can run at odd resolutions, but it's a risk. They may run, but you can't guarantee that they will run nicely. I would recommend sticking to a 4:3 or 5:4 resolution. Widescreen is a possibility, but as I said, you take that risk. Research the widescreen aspect of the games you are wanting to play.

2007-12-08 01:11:21

#4

T.Pike: 99 Problems . . .; +187|6760|Pennsyltucky

Thanks guys. I'll hit up "How stuff works".

I've noticed some real cheap (under $150) PCI-E cards with 512 DDR2.

Figure around $350 for card & monitor? Sound about right? A worthwhile upgrade?

System:

Dell Dimension 5150
Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz w/ HT
260 Gig HD
3 Gigs RAM

2007-12-08 01:15:48

#5

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7132

A good cheap videocard I was about to get was the Radeon X1950 Pro, for $135. Pretty decent card for the price. But if you can afford it, I highly recommend the Radeon HD 3850. I've been reading loads and loads of reviews and tests on it and it's very good for a mid-range card, and almost performs as well as certain high-end cards (8800 GT). The best part is that it's only $180 for the 256 DDR3 version and $200 for the 512. But I guess you can always upgrade later; personally I prefer spending a little more so I can put off upgrading.

Good to see you're looking at the 512 versions of cards, though. All that money towards a new monitor and card will be useless if it doesn't have enough memory to handle high resolutions.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2007-12-08 01:17:49)

2007-12-08 02:07:33

#6

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6675|Winland

Quick answer to the question: Your card can handle that resolution. It just won't show it because WIndows won't show resolutions that your current monitor won't support. Hell, even the Radeon 9600SE 128MB goes to 1680x1050, 2048x1536 and 3200x1200 (LOL WUT resolutions).

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2007-12-08 02:17:54

#7

Mitch92uK: aka [DBS]Mitch92uK; +192|6713|United Kingdom

T.Pike wrote:
Thanks guys. I'll hit up "How stuff works".

I've noticed some real cheap (under $150) PCI-E cards with 512 DDR2.

Figure around $350 for card & monitor? Sound about right? A worthwhile upgrade?

System:

Dell Dimension 5150
Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz w/ HT
260 Gig HD
3 Gigs RAM

I run a P4 3Ghz, 1.5GB RAM and a 512mb 7900GS, 1440x900 on a widescreen 19' monitor and play cod4 perfect with like 90FPS

https://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5/shot0002or5.jpg

getting bitched @ for bunny-hopping as usual

I could probably bump up some gfx settings ....

Last edited by mitch212k_2 (2007-12-08 02:21:37)

2007-12-08 02:37:01

#8

elbekko: Your lord and master; +36|6879|Leuven, Belgium

BF2 handles 1600x1200 just fine, and I guess higher resolutions too.

2007-12-08 02:48:17

#9

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|7027|EUtopia | Austria

mitch212k_2 wrote:
I run a P4 3Ghz, 1.5GB RAM and a 512mb 7900GS, 1440x900 on a widescreen 19' monitor and play cod4 perfect with like 90FPS

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5/shot0002or5.jpg

getting bitched @ for bunny-hopping as usual

I could probably bump up some gfx settings ....

I'm running a P4 3Ghz, 2GB of RAM and a 640Mb 8800GTS on 1280x1024 and I can NOT run the game maxed out at 90 fps. What I get is between 50 and 70, depending on how concerned my CPU is with the viewing distance

2007-12-08 02:50:25

#10

Mitch92uK: aka [DBS]Mitch92uK; +192|6713|United Kingdom

Stormscythe wrote:
mitch212k_2 wrote:
I run a P4 3Ghz, 1.5GB RAM and a 512mb 7900GS, 1440x900 on a widescreen 19' monitor and play cod4 perfect with like 90FPS

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5/shot0002or5.jpg

getting bitched @ for bunny-hopping as usual

I could probably bump up some gfx settings ....
I'm running a P4 3Ghz, 2GB of RAM and a 640Mb 8800GTS on 1280x1024 and I can NOT run the game maxed out at 90 fps. What I get is between 50 and 70, depending on how concerned my CPU is with the viewing distance

Perfectly true, which is why i don't run it maxed out ...
and don't recall saying i did :p

If it was maxed out how could i ...

mitch212k_2 wrote:
I could probably bump up some gfx settings ....

Last edited by mitch212k_2 (2007-12-08 02:51:01)

2007-12-08 03:03:29

#11

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|7027|EUtopia | Austria

Ye sure, I just wanted to make clear that he'll never be able to run CoD4 maxed out with 90fps on a P4 3GHz.
Erm, whatever

For BF2 it's alright ^^

2007-12-08 03:07:14

#12

Mitch92uK: aka [DBS]Mitch92uK; +192|6713|United Kingdom

COD4 runs better than bf2 for me

2007-12-08 03:21:19

#13

T.Pike: 99 Problems . . .; +187|6760|Pennsyltucky

COD4 seems to run better than BF2 - BF2 mostly on Medium/high except shadows & lighting off.

COD4 set to automatic settings 1024x768 looks great.

I have no issues running either game, really don't need to upgrade.

Just getting a little jealous of everyone else with killer graphics.

2007-12-08 03:23:22

#14

Mitch92uK: aka [DBS]Mitch92uK; +192|6713|United Kingdom

not too long before (if they haven't already) our CPU's become a bottleneck too

BF2S Forums Native resolution

T.Pike wrote:

mitch212k_2 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

mitch212k_2 wrote:

mitch212k_2 wrote:

Board footer