Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Help! Do games take a performance hit as you up the resolution?
seeyouspacec0wboy
Member UncommonPosts: 714
WIll most newer games run better if my native resolution is 1400x900 compared to 1680x1050 on the exact same spec'd laptop?
And if so how much of a performance hit are we talking?
Also, if I dropped the game resolution below its native resolution (say from 1680x1050 to 1400x900) would the game look bad?
Thanks : )
Originally posted by Scagweed22
is it the graphics? the repetativenesses? i mean what is the point? you could be so much more productive in real life
Real life brings repetition and pointlessness too. The only thing real life offers is Great graphics. Its kinda expensive too and way to dependent on the cash shop. Totally pay to win as well. No thank you. Ill stick to my games.
Comments
I think it depends, but for me, resolution doesn't make much of a difference. Though yes, you'd think that lowering the rez would increase performance. If you lower it from 1680 to 1400, you'll notice things are blurrier and (of course) bigger. The native resolution is the most clear. I played some games at 1400 only because the "best options" suggested it, and it's not that bad (since it's only one step down from 1680). Still, try to stick with the native rez when possible.
At 1400x900 your GPU is rendering 1,260,000 different pixels
At 1680x1050 your GPU is rendering 1,764,000 different pixels
So thats about a 28-29% difference.
Whether or not the game would look bad depends upon how particular you are on your graphic preferences. The only thing I can say for sure is that running at higher resolutions will always look better than running at lower resolutions. Although in the specific example you gave, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to tell a significant difference.
it's not a 28%-29% difference exactly. it more like a difference of 504000. it really depends on the complexity of the process used to make those pixels, and how adding more pixels changes the equation. it is entirely possible that the increase in rendering time for that many more pixels is linear once the program has done all the other rendering math...in that case the difference would be exctly 504000 cycles on your gpu(s) and you might not even notice it.
TLDR: the only person who can tell you how much difference it will make is someone who has tried it
Right, in the overall scheme of things its not going to result in exactly a 28-29% difference in performance. The card just has to render 28-29% more pixels.
But if I was going to guess at it, thats what I'd guess.
Its more then a 28~29% difference. You also have to factor in frame buffer effects that need to stay in memory. Personally I don't like running games outside native resolution on LCDs. What happens is you get an inbetween pixel and it blurs. I personally don't like bluring images through anti-aliasing and the like, but find Field of Vision is acceptable blurring. Some amount playing at a resolution below native as a cheap method to get anti-aliasing in a game.
Thanks guys, some good insight here.
My dilemma is this: I am buying a new Macbook Pro (not for a gaming machine obviously, I have my reasons, but I of course would love to be able to game on it as well as possible) and I am stressing out on whether or not to buy the standard resolution screen (1400x900) or the "high resolution" screen (1600x1050). Both machines are spec'd the exact same otherwise. I imagine the high res screen will look better and I will have a bit more screen real estate, although fonts may be a bit hard to read. Also I would think that I would see a drop in FPS on this resolution.
The configuration is:
2.66ghz i7 processor
Nvidia 330m GT (512mb)
4GB DDR3 RAM
So what would you guys suggest? And please, no mac flamewars
As I said, I am not out to buy a gaming machine with this purchase, but gaming will happen on it.
Thanks!
Originally posted by Scagweed22
is it the graphics? the repetativenesses? i mean what is the point? you could be so much more productive in real life
Real life brings repetition and pointlessness too. The only thing real life offers is Great graphics. Its kinda expensive too and way to dependent on the cash shop. Totally pay to win as well. No thank you. Ill stick to my games.
you should run your games at native resolution. And yes, generally speaking bumping up the resolution will decrease performance.
Running outside of native resolution usually results in very poor graphics in games.
Id suggest getting the bigger screen and running it at native.
The nVidia 330m is a bad video card that is nothing more then a marketing ploy. The entire nVidia 3xx line is a poor performing line. Not even nVidia wanted to release the line but had to because of OEM demands. I really don't know how anyone could justify spending $1700 on a laptop that uses a nVidia 330m.
The new Macbook Pros are having some heat issues. If there is any possible way to switch to something else, I would. You could get an ASUS with much better specs for $1200.
"Those who dislike things based only on the fact that they are popular are just as shallow and superficial as those who only like them for the same reason."