Mine's 1280x1024, also the native resolution of my monitor.....plus my GPU doesn't suck really bad now so I can increase it from 1024x768 and still get playable speeds xD
What is your preferred gaming resolution?
gamefreak94
41 - 60 of 157 Posts
Joined
·
2,828 Posts
1280x960
Joined
·
456 Posts
1280x1024 @ 100Hz, which is native for me.
Joined
·
17,186 Posts
There's a rather low 1920*1200 level here. It's the only one I play at, a single 4870 is powerful enough for it anyway. 
Joined
·
7,074 Posts
I guess rather few people in here (that has voted at least) doesn't have that big a monitor, or they don't have a powerful enough card to play at that resolutionThere's a rather low 1920*1200 level here. It's the only one I play at, a single 4870 is powerful enough for it anyway.
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Sorry if this sounds picky, but there's a few things I just have to correct.
Secondly, using 1280x1024 on a CRT is, to be blunt, stupid in my opinion. That's a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 screen. I don't know why CRT brands on the latter time frame budget models ever started making 1280x1024 their recommended resolution. That resolution should really only be used on the 5:4 LCD it was standardized on. Thay have 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x960 to work with, but they chose 1280x1024, a 5:4 ratio, for the default resolution of a 4:3 screen. Why use a non-matching aspect ratio? Perhaps for the extra vertical real estate, which is most important to entry level/internet PCs. It must had been due to the new (at the time) upcoming standard of it from the influx of LCDs of the time, 95% of which had that resolution.
I wouldn't say aperture grilles are "better" than LCDs either, but they are far superior to the old cliche 1024x768 85Hz 17" shadow mask CRT that comes to most people's mind when comparing CRTs to the new LCDs.
Now, as for me, I use many, and that's at least half the reason I'm still on a CRT.
For emulators, I often use 640x480 or maybe 800x600. Sometimes 1024x768 makes an appearance.
For games, it's often 1280x960, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, or perhaps 2048x1536 when possible. Again, sometimes 1024x768 makes an appearance. I never have to go lower, if to that at all. 1280x960 is usually the lowest I need to go, and I prefer 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 where I can get good speeds with good quality.
For desktop use, it's mostly 1600x1200 (@100Hz).
Edit: My secondary PC, which is often hooked up to my HDTV, uses the native resolution of that TV, which is 1366x768 (but it displays as 1360x768). It's basically 1024x768 in a widescreen format. It's okay for videos and some gaming, but not really prolonged Windows/OS use. The text, despite it being an LCD, is not very sharp. The dot pitch of having such a small resolution on such a large area makes it anything but sharp to the eye that knows what it's looking for.
CRTs don't have a native resolution. The manufacturer may recommend a "recommended resolution", but that's another matter.
Secondly, using 1280x1024 on a CRT is, to be blunt, stupid in my opinion. That's a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 screen. I don't know why CRT brands on the latter time frame budget models ever started making 1280x1024 their recommended resolution. That resolution should really only be used on the 5:4 LCD it was standardized on. Thay have 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1280x960 to work with, but they chose 1280x1024, a 5:4 ratio, for the default resolution of a 4:3 screen. Why use a non-matching aspect ratio? Perhaps for the extra vertical real estate, which is most important to entry level/internet PCs. It must had been due to the new (at the time) upcoming standard of it from the influx of LCDs of the time, 95% of which had that resolution.
You have it backwards. Shadow masks are the older types of CRTs. Aperture Grilles are the newer types (but I wouldn't call them "modern", as any CRTs still in production are probably budget level 17" shadow masks, as the higher end aperture grilles have been discontinued).woohoo me too...my tft lcd burnout twice
I wouldn't say aperture grilles are "better" than LCDs either, but they are far superior to the old cliche 1024x768 85Hz 17" shadow mask CRT that comes to most people's mind when comparing CRTs to the new LCDs.
Again, this must be a CRT (no 1280x1024 LCD does 100Hz that I know of), so that's not a native resolution, nor does it's aspect ratio match your monitor. 1280x960 is the 4:3 1280 resolution.
Now, as for me, I use many, and that's at least half the reason I'm still on a CRT.
For emulators, I often use 640x480 or maybe 800x600. Sometimes 1024x768 makes an appearance.
For games, it's often 1280x960, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, or perhaps 2048x1536 when possible. Again, sometimes 1024x768 makes an appearance. I never have to go lower, if to that at all. 1280x960 is usually the lowest I need to go, and I prefer 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 where I can get good speeds with good quality.
For desktop use, it's mostly 1600x1200 (@100Hz).
Edit: My secondary PC, which is often hooked up to my HDTV, uses the native resolution of that TV, which is 1366x768 (but it displays as 1360x768). It's basically 1024x768 in a widescreen format. It's okay for videos and some gaming, but not really prolonged Windows/OS use. The text, despite it being an LCD, is not very sharp. The dot pitch of having such a small resolution on such a large area makes it anything but sharp to the eye that knows what it's looking for.
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
As I thought. The extra vertical real estate for internet use matters, and the aspect ratio difference won't be very pronounced (not like having a 4:3 images stretched on a widescreen display).
It's just ironic to me that we had 4:3, and suddenly introduced 5:4, going taller, only to reverse and start to go wider.
It's just ironic to me that we had 4:3, and suddenly introduced 5:4, going taller, only to reverse and start to go wider.
Joined
·
3,081 Posts
hmm anything higher then my current resolution at the same refresh is all widescreen formats like 1600 by 900 well this reolution looks perfectly fine by me on this crt and they are all widescreen formats for 72 mhz and 70 mhz only 60 mhz gives me anything larger thats eaither 4:3 or 5:4 and i cant stand the refreash rate it flickers far to much for me and its a major eye strain. and sence i browse the web most of the time 1280x1024 is just perfectly fine be me and like i ais it looks perfectly fine on this screen i havent pulled a tape measure out yet and comparent a square image or something yet to see if its truly square. but who knows i may end up doing that one of these days.
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
I was just nitpicking. Even though it's still not "proportionally" correct, since it's not interpolated or anything (since CRTs don't have or require native resolutions), and since the ratio differences aren't too big, this may be why nobody notices it and/or is bothered by it.
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
Okay, on a serious note. Why is there no 1920x1080 option?? I thought 1080p/i was pretty standard on PCs to these days.
320x200 (for DOS games)
1920x1080 is my favourite. It's really nice having a monitor that supports this resolution (or a VGA/DVI compatible TV that supports 1080p as well). Aliens versus Predator looks really cool at this resolution, but my monitor only supports 30Hz at that resolution, damn CRT!
320x200 (for DOS games)
1920x1080 is my favourite. It's really nice having a monitor that supports this resolution (or a VGA/DVI compatible TV that supports 1080p as well). Aliens versus Predator looks really cool at this resolution, but my monitor only supports 30Hz at that resolution, damn CRT!
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
lol
Joined
·
11,876 Posts
That is because the fools quickly realized they were doing it wrong.
Is the flashing really noticeable? I tried making my monitor run at 30Hz to see what it's like, but I couldn't get it to run at 30Hz... though with the nvidia tool thing I could make it run at 25Hz... and it was funny.
16:9 can help with gaming, but since your eyes can only focus in one small spot it doesn't really help much IMO.
Not really, 4:3 or 5:4 is better because it helps with browsing... whereas 16:9 makes your eyes move back in fourth more when browsing.
16:9 can help with gaming, but since your eyes can only focus in one small spot it doesn't really help much IMO.
41 - 60 of 157 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
