I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
<DontSendMeEmail (AT) Never (DOT) ok> wrote:

Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
desktop.
Higher resolution makes most things too small.
Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font sizes.
By doing that, things look a lot better.
Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on the
eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.

The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
For something bigger, go higher.
For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
(My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21" CRT
at 1600x1200.)

Games are different.
There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time of
the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware acceleration
as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you have
to experiment with to see which looks best to you.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

"Coffee Lover" <DontSendMeEmail (AT) Never (DOT) ok> wrote

Its desktop resolution, not game resolution ..which could be different. Then
it depends on what card and system you have.

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400, Coffee Lover
<DontSendMeEmail (AT) Never (DOT) ok> wrote:

Usually no, sometimes yes.

Try being specific with hardware details and use, and you
might get a specific answer.



Not normally. Old integrated video or gaming matters more.

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird <hummingbird (AT) 2die4 (DOT) com>
wrote:

If you have an LCD monitor, you should really really *REALLY* use
"native resolution" on the thing. Anything else is crappy and a fairly
bad compromise in quality. That's completely *unlike* CRT monitors that
can change resolutions without compromising any quality except the
difference in resolution itself ... which depends a lot more on the
dot-pitch capabilities of the monitor than actual resolution selected.

An LCD or plasma-panel have exactly so many pixels; no more, and no
less. If you pick a lower resolution; then the screen has to juggle
things and sometimes smear one line across two, and others one-for-one;
often making fine details look really crappy. Rarely indeed do the
resolutions come out *exactly* two-to-one; which is the best compromise
possible.

A CRT, on the other hand, just changes the sweep speeds to *exactly*
match whatever display resolution you set ... Presuming the monitor does
support that mode.

Setting any other resolution for desktop or games than native resolution
on an LCD panel is really a BIG mistake ... and hard on the eyes, too.

Oh, some games *won't* work in full native resolution (800x600 being the
limit for some older types); but that's becoming quite rare these days.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Coffee Lover <DontSendMeEmail (AT) Never (DOT) ok> wrote

I see there are (as of yet) no programmers in this thread!
[ assume byte == 8 bits ]

Think about what the poor ol' CPU has to do (assuming your video card/MB has
no extra performance features).

640x480x4(bytes (32bits)) == 307200 x4 == 1228800.
..... and it has to do that 60 times a second to be flicker free:
times 60Hz == 73728000 bytes per second.

1280x1024 == 1310720x4 == 5242880
times 60Hz == 314572800 bytes per second.

How could it not affect preformance?

Now, the hardware guys in this NG know that newer video cards/MBs have some
special features that speed things up. That's why thay say, "it depends".

That help any?
--
Bob R
POVrookie

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "BobR"
<removeBadBobR (AT) worldnet (DOT) att.net> wrote:

You're assuming (and we all know what ass-u-me does) that the processor
has to update every pixel on every display-cycle.

Even with full-motion full-scree video, that's not true.
Most of the load is handled by special hardware on the video-board;
specially designed to do just such things.

When nothing or very little changes on the screen, there's essentially
NO load on the processor at all!

Your desktop can be two-billion by two-billion pixels; and as long as
the display and video-card are rated to that resolution, it puts *NO*
load on the processor at all during most things that happen. Filling
out screens of data with text or the graphics available on websites
takes about nothing of the processors capabilities.

About the only thing that DOES heavily use both a processor and
video-card at higher resolutions, are video-games.

THERE, (in games) you pretty much have to TRY your board/card
combination and find out how much resolution you can set the card to and
still have reasonably decent response-time or without the movements
getting jerky. The higher the resolution you can pick, the better the
game generally looks.

That's WHY ultimate gamers pick both high-end or even multiple
processors, and video boards with multi-megapixel throughput, along with
heavy on-board processor power to do the fancy shading and stuff so the
main motherboard processor doesn't have to.

THERE, it's usually far more the video-board abilities that determine
whether a game runs smoothly at high resolution than anything else.

That, of course, makes the high price of such boards worth it to those
people who spend large portions of their time playing such games.

But for the *desktop*, it don't take shit essentially from the processor
at the highest resolution you can set the board/display combination.

What makes the difference *there* is clarity.

in the world, which board and processor and memory you have.

For the desktop though, high and low resolution run at about the same
speed. Low resolution looks crappy though; and High resolution can make
some things too small to see easily. So, you sometimes have to change
font-sizes and icon sizes if you go high-resolution on the desktop. But
doing-so DOES make a big difference in how easy things are on the eye.

Geesh.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:40:34 -0400, kony <spam (AT) spam (DOT) com> , A non
coffee lover Said:

OS-Windows XP.Home SP2 5.1.2600
Motherboard-Asus A8S-X BIOS 08/26/05 VER: 08.00.10 SiS 756 AMD Hammer
CPU-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice S939 Step DH-E6
Monitor- LG L1933TR-SF LCD 19"
Video Card-NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS(256 MB) NV41GS
Memory-Corsair VS1GB400C3 1GB(PC3200 DDR SDRAM)
Hard Drive-Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS Perpendicular
Recording Technology 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
DVD-SAMSUNG IDE Model SH-S182M/BEBE 18X DVD±R DVD Burner 12X DVD-RAM
Write, LightScribe

"hummingbird" <hummingbird (AT) 2die4 (DOT) com> wrote

Run the monitor at its native resolution and see what you've been missing.