UNSOLVED
- I have the same concern, which is keeping me from purchasing a 2001 fp. I'm sure that at the native resolution of 1600 x 1200, the games look great, including first person shooters. However, what about non-native resolutions in games? I will not be able to run some games (read: most) at that high of a resolution and maintain acceptable frame-rates. I can run most games fine at 1024 x 768 or even 1280 x 1024 (depending on the game). Even with today's faster computers, games like Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Painkiller will be hardpressed with the 1600 x 1200 resolution. So, my basic question is this: in games, how does an LCD compare to a CRT when using non-native resolutions?
Joe Average
179 Posts
301
0
Posted April 12th, 2004 18:00
Non native resolutions definitly look blury when compared to native resolution. CRTs have the advantage there for sure. However, one thing to consider is at 1600 x 1200 anti aliasing is not esential like it is at 1024 x 768. So, some fps is gained at 1600 x 1200 since you can turn A.A. off and not notice the jaggies!Joe Average
179 Posts
301
0
Posted April 12th, 2004 19:00
Sounds like a very similar machine to mine. Are you overclocking your processor? My processor is 2.4 Ghz native, but I'm overclocking it to 2.9 Ghz without any errors. This O.C. gives me an extra 5 to 10 fps when it really counts.Hi Joe. Yeah, I have a game based on the Quake 3 engine (Jedi Academy) and it runs pretty smooth at 1600 x 1200 on my machine (p4 2.53 ghz, 512 ram, G4ti4200 w/64 mb). However, this engine is being phased out for newer, more capable graphics engines and I don't think my machine can handle that high of a resolution for the new(er) games, even with all the eye-candy turned off.
- I have not played any games on a LCD at a non-native resolution. I would assume that the quality loss would be about the same as when you view a windows environment at a non-native resolution, which, IMO is not worth the money. This reason alone has caused me to avoid purchasing a LCD monitor, which is a shame because they are so beautiful within windows when rendering text and graphics at the native resolution (any my eyes are not getting any better as I get older!).
You are going to find the 2001 is awesome for 90 percent of all games out there but for those awesome first person shooters you will find that some ghosting may appear when you hit over 100 FPS that is a common problem on 17" or larger LCD's but in most cases this is not a problem. but in 1 year it will be most gaming companies are going to games hitting the 200 fps than we might have some troubles
Mat- do you yave a 2001 fp? I would like your opinion on first person shooters with this monitor at non-native resolutions. Joe has commented that the racing simulator games he plays look a little "fuzzy" at the non-native resolutions. How about first person shooters? I can only imagine that the texture-fills are a bit "fuzzy" as well.
Just out of curiosity, can you set up a dual monitor desktop where the games play on the CRT, but when you drop back to windows, it shows in the LCD? And, if that is possible, can you change the resolution of the CRT while keeping the native resolution of the LCD static?
Joe Average
179 Posts
151
0
Posted April 14th, 2004 14:00
That ghosting comes from the Samsung's much slower pixel response time. If you can you should game on the Dell. It has a much faster pixel response time. Samsung = 25 ms, Dell = 16 ms.
Joe Average
179 Posts
301
0
Posted April 12th, 2004 09:00