What is the benefit of playing games at 1920x1080?

By cool.dx.rip
Mar 19, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. Guys, I have a RES about 1368X768.a frnd of me is doing fun on me cause he is saying that very soon I will have a powerful gpu but don't have a decent RES.monitor so I can't utilize it well.can u tell me what is the advantage of it?What I find out that it's have a bigger screen. This RES. have become standard of testing games.

    Thanksssssssss[​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
  2. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,384   +607

    - It's bigger.
    - More pixels, so you can see more stuff at once.
    - It's native resolution for BluRays etc.
    cool.dx.rip likes this.
  3. TS-56336

    TS-56336 TechSpot Booster Posts: 571   +98

    It's MIND BLOWING experience. :D
  4. ETF Soldier

    ETF Soldier TechSpot Booster Posts: 279   +39

    1920*1080 is what is considered 'TrueHD' as apposed to 'HDReady' which is around the likes of 1368*768 (It can vary slightly), in terms of gaming, it creates a bigger picture, it allows for native streaming to TrueHD TVs and for graphics *****s it just makes the game a lot better. Most games are starting to come into this set of TrueHD resolutions but your screen doesn't need to be to enjoy the benefits as mine is 1650*1080, and there's virtually no difference between them, but the games' resolution can not go beyond the capabilities of your monitor. :)
    cool.dx.rip likes this.
  5. soldier1969

    soldier1969 TechSpot Booster Posts: 244   +43

    Why limit yourself to that old res of 1080 when there is much better out if you can afford it. 2560 x 1600 on a 30 inch display is to die for.
  6. ETF Soldier

    ETF Soldier TechSpot Booster Posts: 279   +39

    Well that goes for anything doesn't it?
    "Why have good if you can afford better"

    In this case, 1080p is stretching the limits for people to tell the difference with their eyes, especially as 40% of the worlds population do not have 20/20 vision. There's also the factor of "Will the TV die before high res content becomes commonplace. I'm sure you've heard of 4K TV's being the future, available to buy now, but you wont find a 4K TV channel for about 5 years, and even then it will only be a premium service, they only have about 3 HD channels on Freeview HD right now anyway. Decades will pass before resolutions like that become common.
  7. soldier1969

    soldier1969 TechSpot Booster Posts: 244   +43

    ^^ I do understand all of that. But I see so many that think 1080p is the limit in gaming or otherwise. The title was gaming at 1080p not watching tv at 1080p. I'm an early adopter of tech I admit. I'm in the top 1% of the handful that game at my res I know. Not everyday joe can afford $1200 for a display to game on. But I'm just saying there is better available as I mentioned. Yes 4K is coming and won't have any content for a while. Just that there are other options out there if you look right now thats better than the standard 1920 x 1080 so many are stuck on for gaming.
    cool.dx.rip likes this.
  8. ETF Soldier

    ETF Soldier TechSpot Booster Posts: 279   +39

    Sorry, I forgot it was just about gaming XD
  9. jobeard

    jobeard TS Ambassador Posts: 13,285   +281

    Don't forget 1080p is television and has nothing to do with computer monitors and the resolutions they support. :)
    cliffordcooley and ETF Soldier like this.
  10. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,384   +607

    You don't think there's a reason they're stuck on 1080p? $150-300 for a standard 24 inch 1080p. $400 for a 120Hz one. $1200-1700 (Dell's 1600p) is actually more towards the price range of a mid-end home TV. Looking at the demographics of USA tells you that people aren't gonna spend this money on their PC monitors, let alone if they're running $500 s**t-boxes.

    Also, the OP is on a budget, as I know from his previous threads.
    cool.dx.rip likes this.
  11. cool.dx.rip

    cool.dx.rip Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 53

    hey how do u know?link pls?
     
  12. Blkfx1

    Blkfx1 TechSpot Addict Posts: 879   +170

    I would take OP liking his comment as proof enough :p
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  13. cool.dx.rip

    cool.dx.rip Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 53

    like u also;)
  14. Jaidge

    Jaidge Newcomer, in training

    You just need to see for yourself. Look at a game in 1368x768 then look at the same game running on the same PC at 1920x1080. The difference is huge. Everything looks sharper, you can see more details and the game looks like it is supposed to.

    Many people are moving on to 2560x1600 these days, because they have a lot of money and very, very powerful GPUs in their system. However most games are not designed for this res, many will look silly, the HUD won't look right, the graphics engine is likely to fall over etc.

    Most games these days are designed for the console first, and that means TV resolution of 1080p. The PC port invariably tends to be tuned to this res as well.

    With Xbox One and PS4 both being Mid-range gaming PCs in a box, and both having a standard res of 1080p, this trend looks set to continue for years to come.

    Don't waste money on a 2560x1600 setup for gaming unless you have a lot of money to burn, it's not worth it IMO.
    cool.dx.rip and ETF Soldier like this.
  15. BMfan

    BMfan TechSpot Guru Posts: 470   +47


    Actually about 80 to 90% of current console games only play at 720p even the newest release of God of War,which even for 720 looks very good.

    I find that text is better with 1080.
    LNCPapa and cool.dx.rip like this.
  16. cool.dx.rip

    cool.dx.rip Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 53

  17. BMfan

    BMfan TechSpot Guru Posts: 470   +47

    To run 4k smooth and at full detail on say something like Metro you would probably need to sli two Titans for the best results and have a PC that can handle everything properly,like actually running the sli at 16 x16 speeds.
  18. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,384   +607

    You'd need x4 Titans to even come close to playable framerates.

    Oh, and Xbox 360 doesn't even run at 1080p, it's 720p upscaled.
    ETF Soldier likes this.
     
  19. cool.dx.rip

    cool.dx.rip Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 53

    Confused 2 or 4 titans?
    how about rams and pro?
  20. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41



    2560x1600 os over rated for gaming. Its just a lot of pixels to brag about. Something that nice is great for productivity work.
    St1ckM4n likes this.
  21. BMfan

    BMfan TechSpot Guru Posts: 470   +47

    You would most likely need 3 Titans minimum for 4k.
    Just watched a youtube clip where the set up was 3 titans,a 3970X not sure on the rest of the spec's but even with all that he was only averaging about 40 fps in Tomb raider.
  22. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,397   +830

    That's no longer true nowadays. All the newest monitors are being pushed toward the now universal Hi-Def standard of 1920 X 1080p (@60Hz). As it turns out "1080P" accidentally is a perfect match for computers, since they have a native 60Hz refresh rate.

    Which I think is a pity, because I really don't like 16:9 aspect for computer/imaging work.

    I'm still clinging to 16:10 @1920x1200 for as long as I can get it.

    The older standard for 22" monitors, (16:10 @1680x1050), is also a good one for gaming. With the beefier cards you can run duals, and even the triple "Eye-finity" arrangement
  23. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,384   +607

    captaincranky : I think jobeard's point was to do with the 'P' designation, which stands for progressive scan, which has nothing to do with modern computing.

    I know that 1080p and 1920x1080 pixels is almost synonymous these days, but technically they're not the same. :p

    Oh, and +1 for 16:10!
    cool.dx.rip likes this.
  24. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,397   +830

    Well, yes it does, or at least a lot more than you might think. "Progressive scan", means that the whole screen is redrawn with every frame. With 1080p the entire screen is redrawn 60 times per second.

    A computer monitor's native "refresh rate" redraws the entire screen @60Hz.

    Which is just a fancy way of saying, "60 times a second".

    What actually has nothing in common with modern computing, are the "I", or "interlaced" scan types and designations of old.

    So, computers were always "p-scan". The "p" suffix had to be tacked onto TV nomenclature to separate it from the old NTSC (now "480i"), 29.97 FPS standard, which was an interlaced scan. (only half a screen is drawn with each pass). Note, that before "progressive scan" was introduced to the TV, that "I", or "interlaced" scan was understood. (At least to TV repairmen and other in the field). Broadcast TV was "640 x 480" resolution, period.

    Note that broadcast TV networks and channels have a choice of two different maximum resolution classes, either 720p, or 1080i.
    cool.dx.rip and St1ckM4n like this.
  25. St1ckM4n

    St1ckM4n TechSpot Evangelist Posts: 3,384   +607

    Good post sir, I was in fact aware of the I designation too. Either way, I think that's cleared it up for anyone else reading. :D


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.