What is the ideal resolution for gaming?

[thehacker]

What is the ideal resoltuion for gaming?
For:
1. Screen resolution 1024x768 ??? monitor 17"
2. For screen resol. 800x600 ??? monitor 15"
3. for screen resol. 1280x1024 ??? monitor 19"


And what should be preferred first, high FPS or higher resolution??


And what is EXTRA in higher resolution? More graphics and clarity or anything like this??

 

[Nodsu]

Ideal is what you want and what your computer can do. If the thing is unable to do over 5 FPS at 1280x1024, then obviouly this isn't the ideal resolution. For some, eye candy is more important than responsiveness and vice versa.

Just try different settings and see what you like. Also, different 3D quality settings have a big impact on performance, not just the resolution.

 

[snacks]

Framerate is more important than resolution. Resolution can make a game look considerably nicer, but it doesn't matter if you can hardly play the game.

The best resolution is the highest you can set it but still have the game run well.

Certain graphical details can also affect performance, but a resolution that's too high can take a major effect on FPS.
A game with high graphical settings but medium resolution will probably look better than a game with high resolution, but lower graphical settings.

 

[M0R0NI]

The thing for me has always been Framerate as when you are in a good game who looks at those minor details anyway. Most of the time I am looking for an advantage on the enemy not and the detail of the wall.

 

[mopar man]

I always thought that if you had a higher resolution, then you could see more? If so, I'd prefer absolutely no medium/high details with the HIGHEST resolution possible.

I personally play on 1280, with everything set to low. sometimes 1024.

 

[Cinders]

Higher screen resolution gives the game or utility more pixels to draw the picture with. More pixels usually means better picture quality or higher possible detail and fewer frame rates. I play at 1280X1024 screen resolution and set the detail level at a point where the frame rates don't drop below 30fps in high stress areas (graphically demanding areas) if possible. For instance I have Crysis set at 1280X1024 and the detail level set at high for now. I haven't run into anything that causes me to notice lower frame rates yet as I have just started the game. I've tried the built-in stress tests and was very disappointed with Ice <---- I think the stress test is called ice. Frame rates start out OK but, but then they end up in the single digits during all the explosions with building pieces and snow flying everywhere. I don't have any problems with any of the other games I've installed, so I just set the screen resolution to 1280X1024 and the detail level to high. Crysis and Bioshock are the only DX10 games I have, but I don't have any problems with Bioshock.

 

[Nodsu]

I always thought that if you had a higher resolution, then you could see more?

Do you need to see "more"? Does it matter if the buttons on the shirt of the enemy are visible or not? Just shoot at the blurry blob! And I don't think there are any games that require you to aim at pixel-sized enemies.

 

[mopar man]

I meant more stuff as in you could see a larger area of the view. Such as in C&C Generals the higher resolutions cause everything to get a little smaller... kinda...

The Command bar gets smaller allowing more picture to be shown.

 

[SNGX1275]

Yeh in C&C3 I got used to playing it at 1680x1050, and then I had to drop lower (when I got Vista) and it became almost unplayable for me. I needed to see the extra stuff on screen.

I'd say ideal resolution is the highest resolution you can run without unacceptably low framerates/video quality. And for every person the defination of unacceptable changes.

I can't imagine anyone having a 19" monitor and saying they enjoy their game more at 800x600 than at 1280x1024 (provided they could run with same details and at acceptable framerates). So why is this even a question, is there really any time when you wouldn't choose the highest resolution you could get by with?

 

[aznn3rd]

The resolution doesn't make a really big difference. I played Bioshock at 800 x 600 (21'' monitor) and Bioshock at 1024 x 768 and can't really see too much of a difference.

 

[jtickner1]

Yes it does. If you play it at something like 1280x1024, 1400x900 or 1600x1200 you will notice a difference

Why on earth would you use a res of 800x600 on a 21" monitor? be it wide or not. Maybe if you were sitting a kilometer away from it, but other than that it would just look horrible

 

[thehacker]

Yeah. So, there should be a balance between FPS and resolution.

But what is the acceptable framerate? For me I think 25-30FPS is good.

As I am unable to get more than 35FPS at 800x600 at High(not maximum) details for Carbon. My Graphics card sucks.

I have overclcoked it to Core: 250 to 310Mhz Memory: 333 to 456Mhz. Then I m getting these framerates. At default, everything is terrible......

 

[aznn3rd]

Yes it does. If you play it at something like 1280x1024, 1400x900 or 1600x1200 you will notice a difference

Why on earth would you use a res of 800x600 on a 21" monitor? be it wide or not. Maybe if you were sitting a kilometer away from it, but other than that it would just look horrible

Because I play the game on max settings and the only resolution that i can get 15+ FPS is 800 x 600. I tried it on higher resolutions but it didn't look any different, but that could just be because it lagged so much that it was almost like watching a slide show.

 

[jtickner1]

Well how about you try running stuff at a medium resolution and a medium level of detail. Has the best look imo if you can't get everything on high