PDA

View Full Version : Resolution Question??



mashkis
11-03-2004, 02:37 PM
This might be a stupid question but does it make a difference in the performance of the game if you run the desktop at 1600 x 1200 resolution but the game at 1024 x 780 resolution?

Should both of them be the same?

mashkis
11-03-2004, 02:37 PM
This might be a stupid question but does it make a difference in the performance of the game if you run the desktop at 1600 x 1200 resolution but the game at 1024 x 780 resolution?

Should both of them be the same?

Von_Zero
11-03-2004, 03:19 PM
i haven't noticed any difference in performance, except that only when you hit alt+tab it takes a little bit (very little) longer to load the game again...

ednew
11-03-2004, 03:30 PM
If the desk top and game at set to different resolutions, the monitor refresh rate will default to 60mhz, it will cost you fps if you have vsync enabled.

Karkadann
11-03-2004, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ednew:
If the desk top and game at set to different resolutions, the monitor refresh rate will default to 60mhz, it will cost you fps if you have vsync enabled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That can be bypassed if you use Rage3D Tweak (if you are using an ATI card, not sure if there is anything similar for NVidia) - you can set your refresh rates to whatever you like (if you do so, make sure the monitor can handle it!)

My desktop runs at 1280x1024 and I run the game at 1024x768 since I am running 4xFSAA and 8xAnisotropic filtering, but 60Hz is hard on the eyes, so I have set 1024x768 to run at 85Hz - much prettier

Simjock
11-03-2004, 10:25 PM
The less pixels on screen, the less work your CPU and V-card have to do. 800x600 will be faster than 1024x768 becasue it takes less memory.

Every knows a digital picures take more memory the larger it is, same with video images.

Karkadann
11-03-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simjock:
The less pixels on screen, the less work your CPU and V-card have to do. 800x600 will be faster than 1024x768 becasue it takes less memory.

Every knows a digital picures take more memory the larger it is, same with video images. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true, but that may not be noticeable if your CPU RAM and video card can handle it

I have a high end PC (built it myself - it is what I do) so that's not as much an issue - I get basically the same performance in 1024x768 as I would in 800x600

For the tiny performance drop, but the bigger 'real estate' allowed, I prefer to run it in 1024x768

It depends on the speed your motherboard can handle, as far as how much it can chuck data back and forth - it also depends on how much RAM you have, how good/fast your RAM is, how fast your CPU is, how much RAM you have on your video card, whether or not you have onboard sound, whether you are using PCI (god forbid) or AGP, and what is the max speed of AGP your motherboard and video card can handle, although in most cases it won't be as noticeable unless you are using a 256MB card instead of a 128MB card

how's that for OT ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Simjock
11-03-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karkadann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simjock:
The less pixels on screen, the less work your CPU and V-card have to do. 800x600 will be faster than 1024x768 becasue it takes less memory.

Every knows a digital picures take more memory the larger it is, same with video images. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true, but that may not be noticeable if your CPU RAM and video card can handle it

I have a high end PC (built it myself - it is what I do) so that's not as much an issue - I get basically the same performance in 1024x768 as I would in 800x600

For the tiny performance drop, but the bigger 'real estate' allowed, I prefer to run it in 1024x768

It depends on the speed your motherboard can handle, as far as how much it can chuck data back and forth - it also depends on how much RAM you have, how good/fast your RAM is, how fast your CPU is, how much RAM you have on your video card, whether or not you have onboard sound, whether you are using PCI (god forbid) or AGP, and what is the max speed of AGP your motherboard and video card can handle, although in most cases it won't be as noticeable unless you are using a 256MB card instead of a 128MB card

how's that for OT ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Single player I use 1024. Online I go 800x600. It helps with latency.

Karkadann
11-04-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simjock:
Single player I use 1024. Online I go 800x600. It helps with latency. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting

Is your NIC onboard?

I can't see how it would make a difference unless it is because at 1024 you are seeing things further away than you are with 800x600, so more objects need to be drawn, or if your NIC was overloading your motherboard (and unless you have a lower end machine or a lower end video card, that shouldn't make a difference)

I played an MMORPG until recently and played in very high resolution - it made no difference in latency if I played higher res or lower

Of course, there isn't the same amount of movement as you get in a sim when you are moving at high speed - and then we have the enemy firing at you, and vice versa - and that info has to be sent back and forth - trajectories and all that - still, that doesn't change in how it is displayed in the video - but it may be terrain, how much is loaded online vs offline

curious indeed

EURO_Snoopy
11-04-2004, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karkadann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ednew:
If the desk top and game at set to different resolutions, the monitor refresh rate will default to 60mhz, it will cost you fps if you have vsync enabled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That can be bypassed if you use Rage3D Tweak (if you are using an ATI card, not sure if there is anything similar for NVidia) - you can set your refresh rates to whatever you like (if you do so, make sure the monitor can handle it!)

My desktop runs at 1280x1024 and I run the game at 1024x768 since I am running 4xFSAA and 8xAnisotropic filtering, but 60Hz is hard on the eyes, so I have set 1024x768 to run at 85Hz - much prettier <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RefreshForce (http://www.pagehosting.co.uk/rf/) fixes the frame rate problem on all graphics cards

Karkadann
11-04-2004, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:

http://www.pagehosting.co.uk/rf/ fixes the frame rate problem on all graphics cards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool

I use rage3d tweak to overclock my card, and use a dual setup (TV via S-Video) and so forth, so I need rage3d but for anyone who doesn't, that's a great link (and for those who use NVidia or other (are there any other left out there? LoL))

mashkis
11-04-2004, 06:41 AM
Thanks for the response. So, what I am hearing is that unless I download one of these other products, the refresh rate will fall to 60hz when I go between two resolutions. Is this a correct understanding??

ddsflyer
11-04-2004, 11:26 AM
Yes. I prefer ReForce myself and this only applies to OpenGl if you have an Nvidia card because you can force the refresh rate higher with the Nvidia tools in Direct3D. With an ATI card you have to use ReForce or some other for both ports.