Poll: Resolution or effects/FPS for PC gaming?

[Ezahn]

Yeah, I know, many will reply "both".
But not everybody has an ubaubbapowa gaming PC.
So what I'm asking is: do you prefer staying with a lower resolution/smaller monitor while maintaining good performance and being able to turn on many effects - or pumping resolution up and unplug some graphical goodies?

I play on a e8400 3.0 / 8800GT / 4 gb ram @ 1400x900 (19'' lcd monitor).
I'm happy, also if I'm sure I'm losing a lot of detail at that resolution.

What do you think?

 

[migo]

720p is fine at arms length. No need for anything higher than that. FPS first, effects next, resolution last - it has the least effect on visual quality.

 

[Undeadpope]

Somewhere inbetween is nice,I will always choose preformance over eye candy but at the same time I don't want to be running around with bricks for players if I can handle more at the cost of 1 or 2 frames.

Also Resolution is fairly low down,as long as there are no bricks,its pretty much fine by me.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Uh... resolution (640x480, the HD bastardizations (720p, 1080i) hasn't had much effect on fps for several video card generations.

So its really just effects and texture detail vs fps. Between those, I always go detail. I want eye candy. I grew up with shitty fps.

Usually I don't have to make that choice, though. The difference between the $150 card and the $400 card aren't nearly as vast as they used to be.

 

[Ezahn]

So its really just effects and texture detail vs fps. Between those, I always go detail. I want eye candy. I grew up with shitty fps.

I want candy as well! ^^
An older card like mine tough has a hard time pushing it to 1600xWhatever.
At 1400x900 I can play many titles with most effects on.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I go for low resolutions/high settings, I think post processing like HDR and motion blur add more to the visual image more than resolution.
Most games even with the hardware to run them ship with textures that are far too small for the crazy 5760x1200 resolution tripple screen setups I see the hardware enthusiasts running.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 @2.5GHz
2.00GB DDR2 800MHz RAM
9800GTX
1280x1024 85Hz CRT
Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit

Even the games of 2011 like

Portal 2
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Witcher 2
Dragon age 2: The Ensequelment
Dead Space 2
Rage
Bulletstorm
Guild Wars 2

Still won't challenge this machine 1280x1024 is such a 90's resolution that the post 7th Generation console GPU's laugh at it.

 

[Woodsey]

Resolution doesn't have much impact in terms of performance, so I'm easily able to run at my native 1360 x 768.

As for effects I can still run almost every game on its highest settings (not including 12x AA or whatever ridiculous number it goes up to) no problem.

The Nvidia 9600 GT, still making games it's *****.

 

[similar.squirrel]

From my limited experience, I would go for effects. I hate to see a grenade or whatever explode without the flashy stuff. But framerate is the most important.

 

[Ezahn]

I go for low resolutions/high settings, I think post processing like HDR and motion blur add more to the visual image more than resolution.

Exactly. When I see those hyper-resoluted screenshots on NeoGAF sometimes I couldn't have seen the difference from what I'm experiencing at 1400x900, if only those weren't so damn huge.

 

[mikecoulter]

I choose lower resolutions to allow for a higher fps and some higher quality textures.

 

[Rattler5150]

Its about the balance for me. Its not good having 1920x1080 res with all the eye candy on if your getting 10fps

Also, its no good if you're in 640x480 with everything looking plain

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Still won't challenge this machine 1280x1024 is such a 90's resolution that the post 7th Generation console GPU's laugh at it.

1280x1024 is more than 40% more pixels than 720p, which is the highest most console games actually render at, and I don't see that changing until we get new consoles, which they seem in a big hurry not to do.

Running at native resolution is the most important thing for me, because anything other than that looks completely like ass because of the scaling artifacts. My monitor is 1920x1200, so everything runs at 1920x1200 if at all possible (or 1920x1080 for some crappy console ports, or 1600x1200 for older stuff that only runs in 4:3, but always 1:1 pixel mapping). After that, settings go as high as they can while still getting a reasonable framerate, which depends a lot on the type of game. However, since I stay a year or two behind current with most games, because they're dramatically cheaper a year or two after they come out (under $10 a lot of the time), my $100 video card can run most stuff I play maxed out, so I don't have to trade off for anything.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Still won't challenge this machine 1280x1024 is such a 90's resolution that the post 7th Generation console GPU's laugh at it.

1280x1024 is more than 40% more pixels than 720p, which is the highest most console games actually render at, and I don't see that changing until we get new consoles, which they seem in a big hurry not to do.

Running at native resolution is the most important thing for me, because anything other than that looks completely like ass because of the scaling artifacts. My monitor is 1920x1200, so everything runs at 1920x1200 if at all possible (or 1920x1080 for some crappy console ports, or 1600x1200 for older stuff that only runs in 4:3, but always 1:1 pixel mapping). After that, settings go as high as they can while still getting a reasonable framerate, which depends a lot on the type of game. However, since I stay a year or two behind current with most games, because they're dramatically cheaper a year or two after they come out (under $10 a lot of the time), my $100 video card can run most stuff I play maxed out, so I don't have to trade off for anything.

I'm talking about Dx.10 GPU's (8800 series onwards) that were released after the 7th generation of consoles, i'm not talking about the Graphic processors inside the consoles like the PS3's RSX chip.

In PC land 1280x1024 is a tiny resolution compared to the 5760x1200 I see running at the high end today

 

[DazZ.]

I go for FPS first for sure, then resolution over fancy effects and whatnot. I can't stand having a huge HUD and/or less visible range.

 

[Ezahn]

Resolution isn't really a flexible factor. Everything should be running at native resolution.

Well let's say it's sorta flexibile since you can change your monitor. ;-)

 

[Wolfram23]

Well, my old PC I played at medium resolutions and settings because a smooth game is important to me, and I had a measly 8600GT.

Now, however, I have crossfire 5850s and run every single game at 1920x1080 with maximum detail settings so... yeah. Just do what you can.