Widescreen Thread V2.0, All widescreen discussions here
|
|
 Sep 9 2007, 02:04 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003  
|
Gaming at 22" WS native resolution would be comparable to what normal resolution (non-WS)? As in the power needed (what card).
Say Bioshock settings everything high with the game's default 4x AF @ 1024x768 vs 1680x1050. 22" would have lesser fps right? So should I change the WS resolution to get the 'smoothness' back? Or just stick with it and lower the graphics settings? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 9 2007, 03:50 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
8600gt would have trouble keeping framerates up?
Even now at 1024 I also feel sluggish. Since 19" same resolution as 22", so no point considering 19" too. |
|
|
Sep 9 2007, 06:10 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
or play at lower 16:10 resolutions.
|
|
|
Sep 10 2007, 12:16 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
QUOTE(akachester @ Sep 9 2007, 08:51 PM) Would playing at that scale help in generating better framerate? It should right? For example playing at 800x600 would give better framerates compared to 1024x768 |
|
|
Sep 10 2007, 12:52 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
If you have time. visit a shop to check it out. Nothing beats personally seeing how images appear on the lcd yourself. I'm also undecided between 19, 20 or 22". Got to take into consideration budget, gfx card and how I feel abt the lcd.
|
|
|
Sep 10 2007, 04:05 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Jan 2003
|
maybe he meant its worth getting if the price drops to 6xx
|
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0439sec
 0.39
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 7th December 2025 - 04:36 PM |
Quote