# What resolution do you game at? "2011"



## HossHuge (Feb 25, 2011)

I am curious to see how things are trending from the last time a poll like this was done here a few years ago now. (  What resolution do you game at?)

There are four things that I'm interested in finding out:

How much of an increase there has been in gaming resolution?
How much of an increase there has been to 16:9 monitors?
How much the 1080p resolution has increased?
How many people game at 2560x1600?


----------



## v12dock (Feb 25, 2011)

I game at 1080P


----------



## Kursah (Feb 25, 2011)

1. I went from 1280x1024 in 2006, to 1440x900 in 2007, to 1680x1050 in 2008, to 1920x1080 in 2009, and been there ever since.

My Asus VW246H 1920x1080 is my first 16:9 monitor, back when I got it, the 16:9 and 16:10 were still in a battle where it was still just as common to see both. Now 16:9 seem dominant in the market.


----------



## happita (Feb 25, 2011)

I think you should've made this thread with a poll to better gauge how many people game at which resolutions nowadays.
Me personally, I switched to a 1920x1080 monitor when I built my rig back in 2008. Its pretty crazy how much of a performance hit you get when you switch to a higher resolution.


----------



## Over_Lord (Feb 25, 2011)

1080p..

period


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080 only cause can't afford 2560x1600 (and the gpu's to drive it) and 1920*1200 is getting rare as hens teeth now.  Upgraded from 1680x1050


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 25, 2011)

I really like 1080p, it's nice having so many things fill your screen natively without black bars. I just wish way back when they made the spec it had been just a little higher like 1400p. Now it'd suck to intro a new standard cause everything would need to be upscaled. 2560 is just way too high, not to mention expensive, isn't even 16:9 aspect.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 25, 2011)

2048x1152 list please


----------



## Goodman (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080


----------



## Frick (Feb 25, 2011)

1080p = 1920 x 1080 right?

Anyway, I'm still on a 1280 x 1024 monitor. I did have a modern WS monitor but I sold it for some reasons. Currently looking to buy a 20 inch 1600 x 1200 monitor I've got in my sights.


----------



## HXL492 (Feb 25, 2011)

Still game at 1680x1050


----------



## PopcornMachine (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200.  But monitors this size seem to be going extinct.


----------



## Frick (Feb 25, 2011)

TIGR said:


> But for titles like CoD4 I play with 3x 21" CRTs at 1600x1200 each, so 4800x1200 total. Negligible input lag; decent color, resolution, screen area, and field of view; and the monitors cost $10 each.



I want pictures of that setup, seriously. What monitors are they?


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 25, 2011)

1080p here too


----------



## Frick (Feb 25, 2011)

TIGR said:


> It's nothing special but the CRTs are beasts (as in physically hefty, ~70lbs each). Dell P1130s. Still, at that resolution even CoD4 takes a bit of graphics horsepower to run at acceptable frame rates. For me that means 85fps (the P1130s are set to an 85hz refresh rate).



I've used some 22-23 inch CRT's before and they ARE huge, it would be interesting to see how it looks in real world use. Still, they seems to be "modern" monitors so the bezel doesn't look to thick. Last year when I ditched my TN WS monitor I was on a 20' CRT for some time and my desk got pretty overloaded. 

EDIT: And my hate resolutions are 1366 x 768 and 1600x900. The first one because the numbers just look ... annoying to me, and the fact that laptops are still at low resolutions. 1600 x 900 because it's retarded.

In fact, I'm not really a fan of widescreen at all, but what are you gonna do.


----------



## Champ (Feb 25, 2011)

I was at 1280x1024, but last year got a 24" 1080P from here.  I haven't actually used it for PC gaming yet.  Don't have a rig and won't have one for some time.  Using the monitor for the 360...such a waste


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 25, 2011)

1680x1050.......


----------



## hat (Feb 25, 2011)

I use a 19" HDTV as my monitor. 1440x900 is the native PC resolution.


----------



## PhysXerror (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200 for the last 4+ years. Samsung SyncMaster 245B, the PSU in it died but a few new resistors did the trick. Why is it that 1920x1200 monitors are rare to find theses days?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 25, 2011)

Oh yeah I game at 1080p on the HTPC..but only 1680x1050 on my main gaming rig....


----------



## qubit (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200. 16:10 is the perfect ratio for me.


----------



## entropy13 (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 25, 2011)

1024*768. waiting for this crt to break down..... it wont dieeee!!!!!
and im too poor to get a more expensive GPU


----------



## Melvis (Feb 25, 2011)

1600*1200 im old school


----------



## Jmatt110 (Feb 25, 2011)

I game at 7680x1600.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200

I wish manufacturers would release more 16:10 monitors instead of the huge push to 16x9.


----------



## mrsemi (Feb 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> 1920x1200
> 
> I wish manufacturers would release more 16:10 monitors instead of the huge push to 16x9.



Curious as to why?  I put down 1920 1080 because I ordered a monitor with that specs but currently running 1920x1200.  Other than a few more pixels, what could be the difference?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2011)

Those few pixels make a difference in reading documents and web pages. As far as resolution is concerned, more is better.

Hell, I'd take 1920x1440 over 1080p if they made them.


----------



## erixx (Feb 25, 2011)

voted. next question!


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2011)

erixx said:


> voted. next question!



What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?


----------



## Frick (Feb 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?



European or african?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2011)

Well I don't know that.


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 25, 2011)

2560x1440


----------



## _JP_ (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080. Before this, 1024x768. Huge leap.
BTW, this poll is missing laptop 15.4'' screens. Where's the 1280x800 resolution? I also played at this resolution for a year and a half.


----------



## qubit (Feb 25, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> 2560x1440



I hate you.


----------



## chris89 (Feb 25, 2011)

Has been 1920x1200 ever since 2008 Then before hand on an Large CRT monitor was 1600x1200.

Chris


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 25, 2011)

Kursah said:


> My Asus VW246H 1920x1080 is my first 16:9 monitor, back when I got it, the 16:9 and 16:10 were still in a battle where it was still just as common to see both. Now 16:9 seem dominant in the market.


Which makes no sense.  16:9 is a "HDTV" ratio, 8:5 (aka 16:10) is a VESA (aka computer) ratio.  There are three reasons why 16:9 is more popular:
1) It's cheaper to manufacture.  Less pixels (over 230,000 less) means less money.
2) They can make one panel for TVs and computer monitors saving them the money.
3) "HD" is a huge "buzz word" right now.  People buy the inferior display just because it has HD stuck on it.

Most people probably don't even realize 8:5 has been around a hell of a lot longer than 16:9 because Hollywood wasn't pushing 8:5 (when they really should have--16:9 is redundant).


----------



## Jan Kyster (Feb 25, 2011)

Went from Dell U2711 2560x1440 to Philips 240S 1920x1200 :shadedshu


----------



## erixx (Feb 25, 2011)

Wile E, don't make me start eh, haha


----------



## DigitalUK (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080 for me


----------



## T3RM1N4L D0GM4 (Feb 25, 2011)

1280x1024


----------



## paulharrison123 (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200 for me on my 28"


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 25, 2011)

5760X1080


----------



## bear jesus (Feb 25, 2011)

5040x1050


----------



## Peter1986C (Feb 25, 2011)

1280x1024 on a 17" Acer AL1714 LCD screen. I bought it in July 2006 and I will use until it dies. Even if money wasn't a "problem" (not that I'm poor, but I can't spill it either) I would not replace it. Because it's just fine.


----------



## qubit (Feb 25, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> 1280x1024 on a 17" Acer AL1714 LCD screen. I bought it in July 2006 and I will use until it dies. Even if money wasn't a "problem" (not that I'm poor, but I can't spill it either) I would not replace it. Because it's just fine.



Using it until it dies is false economy. Higher resolution displays are now very cheap nowadays and are much more comfortable to work with. Even a modest 1680x1050, 16:10 monitor will be much better. In fact the 16:10 ratio is better than the 16:9, where you can still buy them, as it gives you more desktop area.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2011)

excellent poll idea, and well executed. since i have two systems, at least i could select both resolutions i use in the poll.



as to the 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 thing... not in this thread, please. its been argued over a dozen times already. lets keep this about the poll.


----------



## entropy13 (Feb 25, 2011)

d.d.d. and HalfAHertz @ 1024x768 or 800x600? wow.


----------



## dhdude (Feb 25, 2011)

Started on a 1280x1024 17" CRT in 1999, then in 2002/3 I went to a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, then in 2006 to a 22" iiyama CRT @ 2048x1600 (I believe, was 2048xsomething square res anyway...) and I had to run games @ 1600x1200 most of the time as my old 256mb X800XT certainly couldnt handle anything higher at acceptable fps...
Then in 2009 I bought my current iiyama 24" 1080p monitor... noticable drop in res but I wanted the desk space and the old CRT was dying a blurry death


----------



## bbmarley (Feb 25, 2011)

eyefinity 5760x1080


----------



## Brandenburg (Feb 25, 2011)

depends on the game and what is acceptable fps for me.. sometimes 1600X1200.. other times it will be 1280X768 or 1024X768.. Really depends on the game


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1080p


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 25, 2011)

Jan Kyster said:


> Went from Dell U2711 2560x1440 to Philips 240S 1920x1200 :shadedshu



Why


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 25, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Why



http://www.google.co.in/search?clie...11+2560x1440&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


----------



## Ra97oR (Feb 25, 2011)

I still game at 1440 x 900. I prefer smaller screens though.


----------



## Brandenburg (Feb 25, 2011)

im using a heavy as 21"  CRT






It puts incredible strain on my 3/4 desk.. A very well built desk with alot of metal support braces I might add...I LOVE IT THOUGH.. Good.. clear picture


Next monitor i get is a dual monitor setup..  21" min flat screens


----------



## hv43082 (Feb 25, 2011)

Gaming at 2560x1600 since 2007.  Spent $1k for this LCD and it's worth every penny. It's still the best money spent on my pc.


----------



## newbsandwich (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm at 1920 x 1200 for about a year now.  Had 1680 x 1050 for 2 years, and 1024 x 768 before that.

Hey Brandenburg, I got that same Desk for my setup!


----------



## Brandenburg (Feb 25, 2011)

newbsandwich said:


> Hey Brandenburg, I got that same Desk for my setup!



I love this desk.. So easy to disassemble and its very sturdy.. Best desk i have ever owned


----------



## cyriene (Feb 25, 2011)

Loving the 30 inch screen and 2560x1600 resolution. Pricey, but best pc investment I've made in years.


----------



## horik (Feb 25, 2011)

1080p


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 25, 2011)

Used a 19'' 1440x900 monitor since 2007, but last month i moved up to a 23'' 1920x1080 monitor.


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 25, 2011)

1080p... wish i could afford eyefinity I want 3 or 6 of these HP LA2405wg Black / Silver 24" 5ms  Height/Pivot/S...


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 25, 2011)

It depends on what computer/monitor I'm using at the time.  But usually 1920x1080 or 1366x768, though my SLI GTX460s are connected to a 1280x1024 monitor currently so I play on that from time to time as well.


----------



## scooper22 (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200 on my 24" ^-^

16:10 is just perfect, 16:9 is not high enough, amazing how much visual area is lost!


----------



## alucasa (Feb 25, 2011)

1600 x 900 at 20inch.

I tried higher resolution monitors and found out that all it does is distract me, and since I place my monitor close to my eyes, I don't need a bigger resolution.

And at 1600 x 900, GTX 460 does wonders.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 25, 2011)

1920x1200, after gaming on 1600x1200 for so long I always felt like gaming on 1920x1080 was cutting off to much. I am not sure why 1920x1200 is going extinct either IMO it is the best resolution for a single monitor. Price difference would probably be the main reason. But it is so worth it to have that extra 200px in height.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 25, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> 1920x1200, after gaming on 1600x1200 for so long I always felt like gaming on 1920x1080 was cutting off to much. I am not sure why 1920x1200 is going extinct either IMO it is the best resolution for a single monitor. Price difference would probably be the main reason. But it is so worth it to have that extra 200px in height.



Actually, it is only 120px in hieght, and it really isn't worth it.  16:10 is dying because 16:9 panels are flooding the market, and are hence cheaper, because manufacturers can make the same panels for TVs as they do for computer monitors.


----------



## VulkanBros (Feb 25, 2011)

16:10 - 1680 x 1050 on a 21" monitor


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 25, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> 1920x1200, after gaming on 1600x1200 for so long I always felt like gaming on 1920x1080 was cutting off to much. I am not sure why 1920x1200 is going extinct either IMO it is the best resolution for a single monitor. Price difference would probably be the main reason. But it is so worth it to have that extra 200px in height.



I used to game at 1600x1200 on my old Viewsonic G810 looked great and yes the extra height was nice. but now being on 1680x1050 for years I don't notice it any more. 

I personall worry more about the rarity of the higher resolutions than the disapearance of 1920x1200 monitors. 

I'd hoped that by now being 2011 we'd see a push for higher resolutions especially in the face of all the gpu power we've been seeing compared the games that come out. But it seems that once Tv's finally caught up and got to 1080P the whole market shutdown and stayed at that resolution for everything. We had far more advancement in pc screen resolution when tv's were still analog than when tv's could do hd resolutions. 

For me there's gotta be a connection there. So I have a bad feeling that we won't start to see higher resolutions be more mainstream in pc's until we start to see higher resolutions in TV's.


----------



## qubit (Feb 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> It depends on what computer/monitor I'm using at the time.  But usually 1920x1080 or 1366x768, *though my SLI GTX460s are connected to a 1280x1024 monitor currently* so I play on that from time to time as well.



Man, I bet you don't get any frame rate drops at all on anything with all that horsepower driving that tiny res. 




scooper22 said:


> 1920x1200 on my 24" ^-^
> 
> 16:10 is just perfect, 16:9 is not high enough, amazing how much visual area is lost!



+1. I find 16:10 to be the most comfortable aspect ratio. I used to prefer 4:3, but not since I used a 16:10 display for a while. A 16:9 ratio is just that little bit too narrow.



yogurt_21 said:


> I used to game at 1600x1200 on my old Viewsonic G810 looked great and yes the extra height was nice. but now being on 1680x1050 for years I don't notice it any more.
> 
> I personall worry more about the rarity of the higher resolutions than the disapearance of 1920x1200 monitors.
> 
> ...



Yup, monitor specs are now being driven by TV specs. Sad, isn't it? :shadedshu

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2560x1600 display that didn't cost a small fortune? We would if we weren't stuck at 1080.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Feb 25, 2011)

qubit said:


> Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2560x1600 display that didn't cost a small fortune? We would if we weren't stuck at 1080.



People are buying the "Full HD" marketing and don't realize that monitor market has actually taken a step backwards.  I do a lot more with my monitor than watch HD movies.

And don't get me started on the shiny/glossy trend that people are also buying into.  I just don't get it.


----------



## GSquadron (Feb 25, 2011)

Brandenburg said:


> im using a heavy as 21"  CRT
> http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r22/GK_Brandenburg/100_8756.jpg
> 
> It puts incredible strain on my 3/4 desk.. A very well built desk with alot of metal support braces I might add...I LOVE IT THOUGH.. Good.. clear picture
> ...



I am using a HEAVIER 23" CRT from Dell. I was stuck in 1024x768 for years, since i got this one!


----------



## CBRworm (Feb 25, 2011)

I shoot for 1920x1200 on my left 24" LCD, but sometimes I go to lower res for higher FPS.


----------



## copenhagen69 (Feb 25, 2011)

love the poll ... just proves that everyone who claims that a reviewer who does not use 2560x1600 resolution is worthless and incomplete is just full of BS


----------



## qubit (Feb 25, 2011)

PopcornMachine said:


> *People are buying the "Full HD" marketing and don't realize that monitor market has actually taken a step backwards.*  I do a lot more with my monitor than watch HD movies.
> 
> And don't get me started on the shiny/glossy trend that people are also buying into.  I just don't get it.



Sounds like the Apple Reality Distortion Field effect, dunnit? <gag>



Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I am using a HEAVIER 23" CRT from Dell. I was stuck in 1024x768 for years, since i got this one!



Such a low res, you poor schmuck! That's like the iPad. What are you running that CRT at now? I'll bet you enjoy the lack of ghosting on movement and zero input lag.


----------



## catnipkiller (Feb 25, 2011)

why do all the bench marks never run at 1920 by 1080p? is there a reason for this?


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 25, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I am using a HEAVIER 23" CRT from Dell. I was stuck in 1024x768 for years, since i got this one!



I've still got an LG Flatron 17" 775FT in my 'old collection'. It's just _the_ one CRT I don't want to part with  I used it for looong years, and it's still perfect! (apart from weighing 45lbs -- it's the heaviest CRT in my collection, I can barely move it around)

Then I spent some months on a 17" LCD MAG monitor at the same 1280x1024 as the LG, and then in 2007 I bought another LG Flatron, this time a 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 (very nice monitor, no bad pixels), and then last November I got the Dell shown in system specs. It's only since I owned the Dell that I realized how off my LG 22" was regarding colours...


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 25, 2011)

I really thought the next step up would be 2048x1152 like on my Samsung.  But it appears that it has died off.  I think the only other company that made this resolution was Dell.  

The whole market seems all messed up now.  Graphics power keeps increasing however resolution seems to be stalled.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Feb 25, 2011)

1680x1050 for me. I don't need bigger for now, because I was using 1024x768 CRT before.


----------



## Jan Kyster (Feb 25, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Why  (replace Dell 2711 with Philips 240S)


Above all I want maximum image quality and the meagre 5970 simply can't drive the Dell with _that_ high resolution. 
At least not in my favorite game... refused to get one more 5970 :shadedshu so had to let the Dell go.

One hell of a monitor though. Saw no flaws with it and top notch image.

But the current Philips is actually very, very good too. And the 5970 has no problems driving it with all settings maxed out.



de.das.dude said:


> http://www.google.co.in/search?clie...11+2560x1440&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Nah, wrong link! 

Here's the correct one, but beware of crying and whining!  http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=177907


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 25, 2011)

Big jump on 1080. No real surprise there I guess.

I'm 1920x1200 since mid-2007 but thats cause I scored a free Apple Cinema from work back in the day.


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 25, 2011)

Just a reminder.  This is where we were almost 3 years ago.


----------



## puma99dk| (Feb 25, 2011)

ain't almost every thing 1920x1080 today even PS3 and Xbox360 uses that at max resolution and i have had that resolution for over a year both at my screen and LCD tv it's awesome, i always liked big desktops ^^;


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 26, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Just a reminder. This is where we were almost 3 years ago.



If you look at the chart 2560x1600 still has 3 people I bet its the same 3 as of now. I would love to help make that 3 a # 4


----------



## adcx64 (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm a 640x480 enthusiast.


----------



## Spectrum (Feb 26, 2011)

1680x1050 for me


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 26, 2011)

Delta6326 said:


> If you look at the chart 2560x1600 still has 3 people I bet its the same 3 as of now. I would love to help make that 3 a # 4



Ya, me too.  I just can't get passed the price of them.  Especially, when you have a family.  For every piece of hardware that I buy, I have to do a buy/get in shit from the wife analysis to see if it's worth it.  If I were to pick up one of those monitors, I'd have to lie to her and tell her it actually improves your eyesight.....

So, does anyone know what the new graphics card max resolution will be after 2560x1600? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#Computer_graphics


----------



## christian27 (Feb 26, 2011)

1024 x 768 and 1280 x1024 enough for me so far


----------



## Mussels (Feb 26, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> Ya, me too.  I just can't get passed the price of them.  Especially, when you have a family.  For every piece of hardware that I buy, I have to do a buy/get in shit from the wife analysis to see if it's worth it.  If I were to pick up one of those monitors, I'd have to lie to her and tell her it actually improves your eyesight.....
> 
> So, does anyone know what the new graphics card max resolution will be after 2560x1600? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions#Computer_graphics
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110225/Scales.jpg



i know the next ones gunna be 2560x1440, for the next 'HD' resolution, followed by 	3840x2160


----------



## Spectrum (Feb 26, 2011)

3840x2160? that's huge! Also if you consider that graphics cards still struggle to run games at 2560x1600.
Then again there is the gtx 595 and amd 6990 on the way... both with massive amounts of memory.


----------



## MN12BIRD (Feb 26, 2011)

1920x1080 only because that's my monitors native resolution.  I'm not a pixel junkie and to be honest I would be perfectly happy with 1280x720 if that was the native resolution.  But of course that looks like ass when the monitor scales it.


----------



## Protagonist (Feb 26, 2011)

I game at 1920x1080 coz my monitor supports it, i have a Dell SX2210 21.5 inch, and coz i used to have Nvidia Geforce 9800GT 1GB it worked well, then i switched to AMD Radeon HD 5770 1GB and it also did a good job, Now i'm using Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 1gb and its great too, so 1920x1080 doesn't feel like a anything special, plus i used to and still gaming with every thing enabled......


----------



## Protagonist (Feb 26, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> I really thought the next step up would be 2048x1152 like on my Samsung.  But it appears that it has died off.  I think the only other company that made this resolution was Dell.
> 
> The whole market seems all messed up now.  Graphics power keeps increasing however resolution seems to be stalled.



resolutions are higher than 2560x1600 now, there are 3840x2160 AUO screens


----------



## wickerman (Feb 26, 2011)

For the last few years I ran 1920x1200 on a Dell 2407, and once I got tired of fixing the stupid power button I relegated it to server duty and now run a Dell U2711 at 2560x1440. Thinking about adding a few more


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 26, 2011)

PopcornMachine said:


> 1920x1200.  But monitors this size seem to be going extinct.



but they are still win! i hate seeing 16:9 monitors compared to my 16:10. they look so long and weird


----------



## malcolm2608 (Feb 26, 2011)

Im just fine at 1366 x 768 or 1400 x 900 if im using my sister's computer .


----------



## phobias23 (Feb 26, 2011)

1920x1080p/23" Viewsonic,


----------



## qubit (Feb 26, 2011)

640x480 with max AA is fine.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 26, 2011)

Jan Kyster said:


> Above all I want maximum image quality and the meagre 5970 simply can't drive the Dell with _that_ high resolution.
> At least not in my favorite game... refused to get one more 5970 :shadedshu so had to let the Dell go.
> 
> One hell of a monitor though. Saw no flaws with it and top notch image.
> ...



You took a step backwards in more than just resolution. You also downgraded from an IPS based panel to a Tn-film based panel, so now your monitor has less accurate colors. I gotta say, that was a huge mistake. You should have at least went down to a U2410 or some other IPS based solution.


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 26, 2011)

st.bone said:


> resolutions are higher than 2560x1600 now, there are 3840x2160 AUO screens



But I don't think there are any graphics cards out that support that resolution, are there?


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 26, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> 1024*768. waiting for this crt to break down..... it wont dieeee!!!!!
> and im too poor to get a more expensive GPU



woot my monitor died last night. And im broke. No tpu 4 a lng time.


----------



## qubit (Feb 26, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> woot my monitor died last night. And im broke. *No tpu 4 a lng time.*



So how are you posting this?


----------



## Jan Kyster (Feb 26, 2011)

Wile E said:


> You took a step backwards in more than just resolution. You also downgraded from an IPS based panel to a Tn-film based panel, so now your monitor has less accurate colors. I gotta say, that was a huge mistake. You should have at least went down to a U2410 or some other IPS based solution.


We are drifting OT now, but I _must_ defend my Philips a bit here 

Run the calibration program and the Brilliance serie will show very accurate colours, actually one of the reasons I bought it. Besides my preferred 16:10 format, it was highly recommended for photographics work in a test and I don't see any faults on it. And compared directly to the IPS-panels, it's _very_ easy to live with - so no real backward steps here.

Except in number of pixels... but that's what prevented me from running optimal image quality in the first place, so...


See, now I'm running in circles too!


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 26, 2011)

1080p is very nice


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Feb 26, 2011)

1920x1200

got a used samsung 245B for cheaps, best monitor ive ever had


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 26, 2011)

qubit said:


> So how are you posting this?



college dude cellphone + wifi =   and came back an fixed my monitor. so now from home LOL.


----------



## qubit (Feb 26, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> college dude cellphone + wifi =   and came back an fixed my monitor. so now from home LOL.



Awesome, glad to hear it.  I'd go nuts without my computer.


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 26, 2011)

qubit said:


> Awesome, glad to hear it.  I'd go nuts without my computer.



same here. infact i am thinking of building a second system cheap from used parts.


----------



## sheps999 (Feb 26, 2011)

800x600

Hooray for an old computer, I don't think.


----------



## Peter1986C (Feb 26, 2011)

qubit said:


> Chevalr1c said:
> 
> 
> > 1280x1024 on a 17" Acer AL1714 LCD screen. I bought it in July 2006 and I will use until it dies. Even if money wasn't a "problem" (not that I'm poor, but I can't spill it either) I would not replace it. Because it's just fine.
> ...



As far as I know, monitors contain lots of "crap" (e.g. bromine) so I like to think of more than only my comfort and wallet, if you get my meaning. I am *not* a anti-consumerist, but neither do I want to shop just for the shopping when it comes to electronics (which I kinda do if I am satisfied).
And just don't forget that 1280x1024 is still pretty sharp on a 17". Most LCDs with that resolution had a diagonal size of 19" during the last years before the standard was declared "dead".


----------



## wolf (Feb 26, 2011)

I had a feeling 1920x1080 was going to be damn popular, now either make 1080p screens smaller and cheaper (yes smaller, like 15-17" for higher pixel density) or bring 2560x1440 to 20-24" screens affordibly.


----------



## human_error (Feb 26, 2011)

1920x1200 for about a year now (HP LP2475w - amazing monitor). I also game in 3D at 1920x1080 as there are no 16:10 3D monitors :shadedshu

Was on 1680x1050 before that for ~3 years.

I'll be holding off my next upgrade until 4k screens become available at sizes under 30" (pixel density FTW).


----------



## qubit (Feb 26, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> As far as I know, monitors contain lots of "crap" (e.g. bromine) so I like to think of more than only my comfort and wallet, if you get my meaning. I am *not* a anti-consumerist, but neither do I want to shop just for the shopping when it comes to electronics (which I kinda do if I am satisfied).
> And just don't forget that 1280x1024 is still pretty sharp on a 17". Most LCDs with that resolution had a diagonal size of 19" during the last years before the standard was declared "dead".



Well, if you're happy with it, then it's whatever works for you, I guess.

Do you use monitors with higher resolutions regularly, like at work, say? Because in that case, you're in a good position to make an informed choice about what resolutions you're comfortable with. Otherwise, you may not realize what you're missing.

Look, I use a 1920x1600 monitor at work and at home, so when I occasionally have to use a 1280x1024 monitor (also at work) it feels really cramped and uncomfortable.

Looks like "green" issues are also a factor for you.


----------



## Peter1986C (Feb 27, 2011)

Well, on campus there are mostly 15" or 17" monitors at 1024x786 so at home it ain't bad at all. My 2007 lappy has a 17" at 1440x900, btw.

What resolutions are comfortable depends on size and of course the distance to the screen. Meh, I think I will check monitors of different kinds in a store or at friends or so (to check what pixel densities I like), when I make the big jump to whatever screen tech we've got by that time. If it is still LCD then, then I will of course buy an LED backlit screen and might buy someting that contains something better than a TN panel. Probably between 17-23", economical and hopefully with as little bromine (and other crap) as possible.


----------



## BumbleBee (Feb 27, 2011)

1920x1200 @ 98Hz CRT
1920x1080 @ 120Hz LCD
1920x1080 @ 600Hz (60Hz x 10 subfields) Plasma


----------



## Disparia (Feb 27, 2011)

My box: 24" @ 1920x1200 for my machine. The others are 22" @ 1680x1050 and 19" @ 1280x1024.

Few years back I said I'd never buy a 1920x1080 monitor, and have been able to keep to it so far!


----------



## hellrazor (Feb 27, 2011)

Maybe we should start a poll?


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 27, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> Maybe we should start a poll?



Is this not a poll? its at the top


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 27, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> I am curious to see how things are trending from the last time a poll like this was done here a few years ago now. (  What resolution do you game at?)
> 
> There are four things that I'm interested in finding out:
> 
> ...



How much of an increase there has been in gaming resolution? *A LOT*
How much of an increase there has been to 16:9 monitors? *A LOT*
How much the 1080p resolution has increased? *A LOTx2*
How many people game at 2560x1600?* Hardly any.  However I think more people have turned to Eyefinity*


----------



## adcx64 (Feb 27, 2011)

640x480


----------



## qu4k3r (Feb 27, 2011)

1440x900 on 19" LCD.

I tried a 22" 1920x1080 and I felt it huge.


----------



## adcx64 (Feb 27, 2011)

SVGA at houndreds of colors.....


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 27, 2011)

1920x1080P here


----------



## PopcornMachine (Feb 27, 2011)

(FIH) The Don said:


> 1920x1200
> 
> got a used samsung 245B for cheaps, best monitor ive ever had



I picked up a new SnycMaster 245BW for $380 (I think) about three years ago. Wasn't thrilled with the glossy bezel, but at least it's very thin.  Great for gaming. Wish I could get two more, but can't afford that these days.

It was a good deal at the time, and based on market history I thought the 1900x1200s would keep going down in price and even higher resolutions would take it's place.

But the cost of 2560x1600s haven't budged, and it seems all the stores have anymore are 1080p monitors.  Very disappointing.


----------



## Maelstrom (Feb 27, 2011)

Once I start playing with my laptop, it will be 1366x768. When I had a desktop, I gamed at 2048x1152 on a 23" monitor.


----------



## N.E.A (Feb 27, 2011)

1600*900 Asus MS20B i think, i am not a big fan of huge displays. though i wanted the 21.5 inch of my monitor but i believe that it does not exist. 
BTW guys, in the near future i am going to buy a GTX 560 or 570, i am waiting to see how they perform in crysis 2. if the 560 handles it well @ my res. then i will get it , if not then i will go with the 570. so do you suggest getting a bigger monitor if i buy the 570 ?? i am happy with it but i do not want to get a bigger monitor and the performance goes down.


----------



## ASRockIQ (Feb 28, 2011)

1920x1080 is the only way to game


----------



## BumbleBee (Feb 28, 2011)

ASRockIQ said:


> 1920x1080 is the only way to game



4k projectors dawg


----------



## Nick89 (Feb 28, 2011)

1920x1200 

Fuck 1920x1080 I like my extra 3 inches of desktop space.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm surprised. 1920x1200 is making a stronger showing than I thought it would.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 28, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I'm surprised. 1920x1200 is making a stronger showing than I thought it would.



the few that use it, are hardcore fans who wont leave it even if it costs them their testicles.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the few that use it, are hardcore fans who wont leave it even if it costs them their testicles.



You can count me in that user group.


----------



## HossHuge (Feb 28, 2011)

The log-jam at 1080p and 1200p is all because of price.  Nobody wants to pay so much more for 2560x1600.  Which is why again I am surprised that many people didn't go for the 2048x1152 resolution. It's higher than both but at about the same price.  I bet this doesn't change very much in the next few years.  Most people will stay at 1080p but they will be 120mhz, LED or IPS panel monitors.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 28, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> The log-jam at 1080p and 1200p is all because of price.  Nobody wants to pay so much more for 2560x1600.  Which is why again I am surprised that many people didn't go for the 2048x1152 resolution. It's higher than both but at about the same price.  I bet this doesn't change very much in the next few years.  Most people will stay at 1080p but they will be 120mhz, LED or IPS panel monitors.



2048x1152 isnt taking off because it makes midrange video cards too slow to game on, and its not compatible with all the games consoles.


many people multi purpose their screens now, and its very convenient when all your devices work at the one resolution over the one input (HDMI)


its great for now but will cause some stagnation in the coming years, at least until HDTV's up their resolution again...


----------



## Wile E (Feb 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> 2048x1152 isnt taking off because it makes midrange video cards too slow to game on, and its not compatible with all the games consoles.
> 
> 
> many people multi purpose their screens now, and its very convenient when all your devices work at the one resolution over the one input (HDMI)
> ...



There also aren't any high quality panels in that res. They are all Tn-film. I'm guessing that discourages some potential buyers. I know I won't buy anything with a TN-film panel in it.


----------



## inf3rno (Feb 28, 2011)

1080p


----------



## Radical_Edward (Feb 28, 2011)

1600 x 1200 for me.


----------



## TIGR (Feb 28, 2011)

Radical_Edward said:


> 1600 x 1200 for me.


----------



## BumbleBee (Feb 28, 2011)

we won't be seeing 1440p for a long time. the FCC rejected it because of bandwidth limitations  we will be seeing 21:9 aspect ratios tho.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Feb 28, 2011)

1366*768 for my 16" laptop (the screen is surprisingly clear and crisp). Previously 1920*1080 with my confiscated desktop (crappy grades lol) and a nearly 2 year old 21.5" Insignia NS-L22X-10A HDTV (whose picture looks dark and yellowed with CCFL backlighting vs. my laptop's bright, slightly bluish LED lighting). I do miss 1080p for the sheer size of the image and less jaggies in games, though.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 28, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> The log-jam at 1080p and 1200p is all because of price.  Nobody wants to pay so much more for 2560x1600.  Which is why again I am surprised that many people didn't go for the 2048x1152 resolution. It's higher than both but at about the same price.  I bet this doesn't change very much in the next few years. * Most people will stay at 1080p but they will be 120mhz, LED or IPS panel monitors*.



for that price you might as well have gotten the 1920x1200 panel. Cheapest 1080p ips I've seen is 350$ might as well go the extra 50 to get the extra resolution, extra colors, and larger screen.  

not to mention 2048x1152 isn't exactly mainstream most places don't even carry a monitor in that res. And there's only a 50,000 pixel gain over 1920x1200.


----------

