When did 1080p become the standard for gamers?

[masterdeejay]

I had a few low end CRT-s in the 90s 640x480, 800x600.... NEC, GABA at 60hz...but i started with an old videoton color tv for my c64 (320x200 16 color), and then hercues crt for my 286 (720x348).
I played Cod1/uo on a Cornerstone P1600 CRT 1024x768 100hz
Cod4 on a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB at 1600x1200@110hz (2007-2011)
This was the time when high-end CRTs were better for gaming, better colors, better response times. Early 2000s LCD-s was very bad. And the CRT-s was dirt cheap used.

I only got an LCD when IPS technology was affordable, Dell U2311H 23" 1920x1080@75 (overclocked) was 2011 but I hated the 16:9 only 1080 res.
Now i use a HP ZR30W, it is just 60hz but im not playing fast multiplayer games. It is 30" 16:10 2560x1600 10bit color and it is compatible with the retro dos games beacuse it can do 1280x800 native.

 

[Paganstomp]

My first 1080p monitor that is still in working order today was built in May 2009. Acer H233H. DVI, VGA, and HDMI inputs with built in speakers. Right around the time Blu-Ray became a thing which was 2006.

 

[Dyno]

Quality? Huh? Congratulations, Dyno! I think you read more into my comment something not said than any one has ever did!

To answer your question, NO! I did NOT mention, imply, suggest or infer anything about quality. I simply and as tersely as possible answered the question. The question was, "When did 1080p become the standard for gamers?" And with just 5 words, I answered as succinctly as I possibly could and said, "Gaming consoles attached to TVs." How you thought I was implying anything about quality out of that, I have no clue.

***


I think there are too many younguns around here who think the gaming universe started with them and their gaming "PC". LOL

Sometimes I think it would be nice to be so innocent and naïve again. I miss going to the back room "video arcade" at the local bowling alley after work to play, and be totally engrossed in Pong. I really miss my modified C64 with two (#8 and #9) 5 1/4 inch, single sided floppy disk drives and its amazing 13 inch color monitor. Those were the golden days of computer gaming.

The first thought in my head when you mentioned, "Gaming consoles attached to TVs." was comparing PC to Consoles, because there are way more graphic adjustments than you can do on the consoles.

 

[Ruru]

Didn't like everyone have a Sony CRT that was capable of 1440P, but no video cards where capable at the time??

I played almost every game at 1600x1200 back when solid 60fps wasn't a thing like it's today.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I played almost every game at 1600x1200 back when solid 60fps wasn't a thing like it's today.

I remember thinking I was rocking a high end display with Dell 2005FPW back in 2006 but the real high end was the 24 inch 1920x1200 displays for 1k lol rich people smh. I didn't get one of those till 2010/11.

I still ran most pc games at much lower resolutions than native though. Till probably the gtx 680/HD 7970s came out.

 

[AsRock]

define "gamers" and I assume we are talking about North America

are we talking console gamers with TVs?
PC desktop gamers with monitors?
PC gamers which includes laptop gamers?

If it's the latter then your best bet would probably be a STEAM hardware survey. For the other two it would probably be a year or two after 1080p became the dominant resolution sold by the TV & Monitor brands.

Or PC Gamers with TV, as it was about 2009 time when i got a 40" FULLHD 1080P TV ( still works today.

 

[Fokker]

It became the standard for me as soon as 1080p flat panels became available in the early 2000s. I was tired of dealing with amount of space large format CRTs took up and the weight. I think I was running 17-22" early on, but rapidly switched to 32" as my standard around 2008. These days 3440x1440 is my standard and likely won't change any time soon.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

My first 1080p monitor that is still in working order today was built in May 2009. Acer H233H. DVI, VGA, and HDMI inputs with built in speakers. Right around the time Blu-Ray became a thing which was 2006.

Same year as that Sony Bravia that my brother-in-law has. LCD with CCFLs of course, which is still working!

 

[Waldorf]

@chctulc
by global numbers, more than 50% are still using 480/720p, but its a while ago since i have checked.

@Beginner Macro Device
unless your sitting 2ft away from an 85, or you want to double your existing ppi ( i assume your 32 is 1440p), 8K will be a waste for plain gaming.
not saying dont, but even that my 50in UHD has a little less ppi than my previous 32@2K, at 2ft and up, its enough to not get a screen-door effect.

while i would prefer getting a moni, nothing +60in has 5K or more, so i will probably get a 65in (mini-led; cant stand the low amount of zones smaller tvs have),
and just push it to end of the desk, to make up for less ppi.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

unless your sitting 2ft away from an 85, or you want to double your existing ppi ( i assume your 32 is 1440p), 8K will be a waste for plain gaming.

I don't mind gaming at low resolutions but I have tired ageing eyes so I want as much PPI as possible: this way eyes can stand more reading and more work. I don't only use my PC for leisure.

My current monitor is 27" and my average eye-to-display distance is about 3'7".

 

[Waldorf]

@Beginner Macro Device
not talking about in-game res used for playing, but native res of the screen.
past the point where you dont see a screen-door effect (+90ish ppi for 2ft or more distance to the screen), raising ppi will only help to a certain degree,
e.g. sub layout of tv (non-monis) is usually messing up text man than little less ppi.

27in@1440p is 108ppi, so going with 2160p, you can have up to 40in before ppi drops (below that of yours), so going with 8K, will double ppi, but be a lot more expensive on smaller screens,
and even on 65in would still be about 20% higher ppi than you have now.
would be a lot cheaper to do 5 or 6K, as long as you dont want a screen above 40in.

part of the reason i decide on getting a tv, as all monis (so i can have less than 8K), are much smaller than what i have now, ignoring most are made for content/production,
not "gaming" (e.g. gsync/higher refresh rates and such).

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

and even on 65in would still be about 20% higher ppi than you have now.

Wrong. My display is 2160p. 65" at 8K has a LOWER PPI than 27" at 4K does. My current PPI is 163 if my maths prowess still exists. More than enough for gaming, movies, YT, etc but is slightly lacking in working with long reads. I will be much pleased to have an 8K display so I could read and write with more comfort. This won't affect my gaming and non plain text media consumption whatsoever though.

 

[Waldorf]

aah, didnt find the display's specs, so assumed its 1440p.
well, you can still do 50ish and gain a bit..

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

well, you can still do 50ish and gain a bit..

I don't want more inches. Well I'd love to extend that from 27" to 34" simultaneously with stretching it from 16:9 to 21:9 cuz due to some brain damage I don't perceive upper and lower pixels very well but this didn't affect my peripheral so UW is a go.
What I want is an extremely high PPI value so it could feel like reading a real book. Preferrably, more than 700 PPI but that's gonna be beyond expensive. My eyes are too tired for 100 and lower PPI.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Sadly, many don't take distance from screen surface to head into consideration when buying a big screen TV or computer monitor.

See: size of tv to distance at DuckDuckGo