or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No wonder hardly anybody is gaming on a 2560 x 1600 monitor... they cost a fortune!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No wonder hardly anybody is gaming on a 2560 x 1600 monitor... they cost a fortune! - Page 2

post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsra13 View Post

Bigger resolution is not always better, I prefer max settings. I don't think most games are really programmed to support bigger resolutions than 1080p (or 1200). I mean, to show valuable information beyond that.

But that's only about games. I have a 1080p monitor and would really love to have a 30'' with bigger resolution, so I could have more windows open at the same time.

Most modern games for the PC scale perfectly. If you have the horsepower to support 2560 x 1600 there is nothing that can touch it. I play all my games maxed out @ 2560 x 1600 and maintain a steady 60 FPS with v sync on. There is not a TV made that can give the image quality of a high end monitor at that resolution. I have tried it both ways and 2560 x 1600 blows 1080P away every time. More pixels more detail.
post #32 of 67
Well technically, pixel pitch determines the fineness of the image. If i remember correctly, the 30" only has a 2% smaller (aka finer) pixel pitch than the Dell 24" 1920x1200 (that i owned before the 30"), which is still great of course. So 2560x1600 basically adds more FOV using the existing pixel pitch rather than more detail, or fineness of picture. Of course, a 27" 1080p monitor (or my 46" lol) won't have the same detail-per-centimeter than my 17" 1920x1200 laptop.
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

If you're talking about the settings on the PC, I pretty much had everything maxed out. So far, I haven't seen a game really stress my 560 Ti too hard yet. So, I've been turning up all the settings about as high as I can get them. I only tried playing those games one time on that 50 inch plasma. It was during the daytime,with some sunlight coming in, so not exactly ideal conditions to be judging picture quality. Still, the visual jump from console seemed much more muted than I would have expected. I know that many console games run at resolutions lower than true 720p, so I figured that seeing true 1080p would be a pretty huge jump. It just didn't seem extraordinarily better than the same console game. Just Cause 2 looked really, really pretty, but I don't think it would be one of those scenarios where somebody would walk in the room and say, "oh my god, that looks SO much better than the 360 version". If somebody was sitting there for a long time watching it, they might notice that it does indeed look superior to the console version, but I don't think it would have been an immediate revelation.

Having said all of this, again, I've only tried this once, and I haven't tried Bulletstorm on there. The Bulletstorm demo is the most impressive thing that I've seen so far on the PC. It's orgasmic in it's visual quality. I'm tried of all the browns and grays and muted colors, and Bulletstorm is a visual feast of color. I really need to try that on the plasma.

I think a large part of that is that the developers are designing for console first, then just bumping everything up for the PC as opposed to designing for PC and filtering down for consoles. It's annoying to be honest and I don't think we'll see any bigger jumps in PC quality until the new consoles launch.
post #34 of 67
We wont see > 1080p monitors/sets until the marketing departments at Samsung and so forth think they have a viable shot at convincing the public that they are better and you simply have to have one.

They wont release anything like that until there is content to fill all those pixels, and since right now the only thing that will do that is a digital master from feature films and PC game content, don't hold your breath. Gaming at those high resolutions only makes sense if you get the corresponding bump in texture resolution, because having 'sharper lines in the distance' is nice but not necessarily groundbreaking. Today I think video card manufacturers are aiming more towards multi-monitor performance than they are for single-screen uber-rez panels.

I'm going to guess the push will be on to make multi-monitor setups the norm in the future, probably with some form of miniscule to no seam panels, kind of like the new Samsung large displays that have almost no bezel at all...
One other thing, at its native resolution, you'd need to be sitting pretty damn close to work windows...as it is i'm 'only' at 1080p on a 37" monitor and the icons are plenty small enough for me, I'd hate to see what a smaller monitor AND higher resolution icons looks like...I'd go blind fosho!
post #35 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

I think a large part of that is that the developers are designing for console first, then just bumping everything up for the PC as opposed to designing for PC and filtering down for consoles. It's annoying to be honest and I don't think we'll see any bigger jumps in PC quality until the new consoles launch.


Obviously, this has been the case for many years now, with only strategy, mmo, sims, hardcore keyboard/mouse shooters, etc, etc, really being designed specifically for the PC. Even the hardcore keyboard/mouse shooters are designed for the consoles more so than the PC's. (Call of Duty and it's derivatives)

Still, are you saying that while we might be able to set the game to run at 1080p, it might not actually be any more detailed than the console version? I've only really experienced this so far, with Assassin's Creed (first one). I have that game set to 1080p, and it only looks marginally better than the 360 version. I'm sure Creed 2 and Brotherhood look dramatically superior to console, but the first one isn't that big a boost. Far Cry 2 definitely looks legit at 1080p. Just Cause 2 looks legit at 1080p.

But yeah, it does appear that some console ports are quite a let down.
post #36 of 67
I think you guys see PC gaming with rose-colored glasses.....I haven't seen a game on the PC that looked "Dramatically Superior" to a console version since the old Xbox days, certainly nothing on the modern consoles that looked dramatically different.

At this point the PC fiends will jump in and go "Thats because all games are dumbed down for the PC, YO! And only made for the consoles!!!" yes I picture all PC fiends as being leftovers from YO! MTV RAPS.

What people find so dramatic I find as "yeah, its a little better, but...".......sometimes the resolution bump to 1080p helps things along, but rarely have I seen a game on the PC versus the 360 that was so much better in anything other than doctored up screen shots...
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

I think you guys see PC gaming with rose-colored glasses.....I haven't seen a game on the PC that looked "Dramatically Superior" to a console version since the old Xbox days, certainly nothing on the modern consoles that looked dramatically different.

That's because all games are dumbed down for the PC, YO! And only made for the consoles!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

What people find so dramatic I find as "yeah, its a little better, but...".......sometimes the resolution bump to 1080p helps things along, but rarely have I seen a game on the PC versus the 360 that was so much better in anything other than doctored up screen shots...

In all seriousness, it mostly depends on how much you value things like a constant 60fps frame-rate, significant anti-aliasing and far superior texture filtering. These are things a good PC provides that I find to "dramatically" improve the image and gameplay experience.
post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSmith83 View Post

That's because all games are dumbed down for the PC, YO! And only made for the consoles!!!

Word

Quote:


In all seriousness, it mostly depends on how much you value things like a constant 60fps frame-rate, significant anti-aliasing and far superior texture filtering. These are things a good PC provides that I find to "dramatically" improve the image and gameplay experience.

On my TV on the couch with a joypad, I don't care about 60fps....its nice but it doesn't really make or break any gaming experience for me on a console, 30fps is fine....let me restate that it doesn't *break* anything for me on a console.

With a mouse however I can whip my POV around much faster, so I do appreciate 60+FPS in that case. 30fps on a console is fine by me with a joypad......for racing games, driving games, etc. I'd prefer more, but i'm ok with 30. On a PC however, 30 is unacceptable....its noticeable and its distracting on a PC game to have frames that low....maybe if I played with a joypad I wouldn't notice, probably depends on the game.

As for the rest...AA and Texture Filtering......Yes and Yes...cleaner but not really deal-breakers for me. Most console games have learned that if you can't do AA, slather on some screen blur or other creative post-processing to cover it all up.....

But I am, in all seriousness, with you on the "made for consoles first" front....Crysis 2 could have been a very different game on the PC, particularly when they gave up on the physics model and nothing blows up any more....thats sad :P
post #39 of 67
I think later this year you are going to see some titles that look far superior on the pc. I am going through bullet storm now, I do not get the fuss about this game, it is nice looking but hardly a technical masterpiece . Crysis 2 impresses me more. Even Cysis 1 and warhead did too
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfmp3 View Post

I think later this year you are going to see some titles that look far superior on the pc. I am going through bullet storm now, I do not get the fuss about this game, it is nice looking but hardly a technical masterpiece . Crysis 2 impresses me more. Even Cysis 1 and warhead did too


Bulletstorm is more of a Three Stooges Shooter than a First Person Shooter. It may not be for everyone, but I had a lot of fun with it. Now back to our originally broadcast topic.
post #41 of 67
Thread Starter 
It's funny you mention Bulletstorm, considering I find that particular game to be maybe the most impressive console port I've seen thus far. (admittedly I've only tried about 10 games total) The game looks absolutely drop dead gorgeous to me in 1080p. The color is off the charts. I've tried it on 360, and while it's a good looking game on the 360 as well, the PC version just seems to be much more vibrant.
post #42 of 67
You aint seen nothing till you played BF Bad Company 2 on triple screen. Oh my is it beautiful at 4800x900 resolution and such a wide FOV. It would be hard going back to 1 monitor. Just Cause 2 is another gem at high resolutions, its like it was made with multiple monitors in mind.
post #43 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiseGuy2k7 View Post

You aint seen nothing till you played BF Bad Company 2 on triple screen. Oh my is it beautiful at 4800x900 resolution and such a wide FOV. It would be hard going back to 1 monitor. Just Cause 2 is another gem at high resolutions, its like it was made with multiple monitors in mind.

Could I even try such a thing with a single Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti ? Unfortunately, I made the horrible mistake of not paying an extra $30 or $35 to get the Asus P8P67 Pro. My motherboard can't do SLI, and the CrossFire support is gimped. I'm basically stuck with a single card. I thought a single card would be the best route for me anyways, because I'm not that good with stuff to be running an SLI setup and dealing with all kind of drivers/configurations issues.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post
It's funny you mention Bulletstorm, considering I find that particular game to be maybe the most impressive console port I've seen thus far. (admittedly I've only tried about 10 games total) The game looks absolutely drop dead gorgeous to me in 1080p. The color is off the charts. I've tried it on 360, and while it's a good looking game on the 360 as well, the PC version just seems to be much more vibrant.
This game looks great on a 2560x1600 monitor as well. Since these monitors are typically meant for graphics purposes, most cover a wider color gamut. Some games take some getting used to with the colors...but games like Bulletstorm look amazing.
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post
Could I even try such a thing with a single Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti ? Unfortunately, I made the horrible mistake of not paying an extra $30 or $35 to get the Asus P8P67 Pro. My motherboard can't do SLI, and the CrossFire support is gimped. I'm basically stuck with a single card. I thought a single card would be the best route for me anyways, because I'm not that good with stuff to be running an SLI setup and dealing with all kind of drivers/configurations issues.
I picked up a Sapphire 5850 for 140 about a month ago. Runs triple pretty well, very impressed for the price I paid.
post #46 of 67
When you can get a killer 3D projector for $500usd with a screen size measured in feet instead of inches there's not much point in HDTV or monitors for gaming.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob7145 View Post

When you can get a killer 3D projector for $500usd with a screen size measured in feet instead of inches there's not much point in HDTV or monitors for gaming.

If you constantly use any projector for serious long gaming sessions then be prepare for some costly bulb replacements.
post #48 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob7145 View Post

When you can get a killer 3D projector for $500usd with a screen size measured in feet instead of inches there's not much point in HDTV or monitors for gaming.

Are you referring to the Acer H5360 (I think that's the right model #) ? If so, what about the fact that it's only 720p ? Is the 3D really worth it considering the drop in resolution?
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinker View Post

If you constantly use any projector for serious long gaming sessions then be prepare for some costly bulb replacements.

Lots of people are using the led acer k11 and were all waiting for the led Qumi.
post #50 of 67
"When you can get a killer 3D projector for $500usd with a screen size measured in feet instead of inches there's not much point in HDTV or monitors for gaming."

Given that I'm looking at 6 million pixels on my desktop right now, I'd have to relegate this statement to the crazy bin.
post #51 of 67
Even with the cost of bulbs it's still way less expensive.
You would never guess it's 1280 x 720 when looking at 3D!
Ever wonder how you got killed by a pistol from the other side of the map? Guy was using a projector (or stray shot). DLP is 2000x faster than LCD.
And it's portable, unlike an HDTV or 30" monitor.
post #52 of 67
[quote=HeadRusch;20510082
One other thing, at its native resolution, you'd need to be sitting pretty damn close to work windows...as it is i'm 'only' at 1080p on a 37" monitor and the icons are plenty small enough for me, I'd hate to see what a smaller monitor AND higher resolution icons looks like...I'd go blind fosho![/QUOTE]

How far do you sit from your monitor? Like 30 feet!? A 30 inch monitor at 1600p would be around 100 dpi, the same as just about every consumer monitor on the market since forever. A 32 pixel icon would be about 1/3 Inch wide, just like on my 16 inch monitor, just like my 19" from 1998, just like my 21" samsung, etc.
on your 37" the same icon would be bigger! (I'm assuming you have a tv) that icon would be about a half inch.

Iphones are about 300 dpi, and I've never heard anyone complain about icon size. But, with computers you can increase the icons and text to whatever you want anyway ( at least I can), so this whole discussion about dpi is moot to begin with.
post #53 of 67
Thread Starter 
I'm back to being interested in getting a 2560 x 1600 monitor, but the amount of money that has to be paid to get one is a bit out of this world. Man, I really want to see certain PC games running at a crazy high res of 2560 x 1600, yet, paying that much coin just to get that higher resolution just seems a bit ludicrous....


I mean, you have to pay at least $900 to get a high quality 2560 x 1600 display. AT LEAST $900. Realistically, if you want the Dell U3011, you're paying about $1300. Not exactly chump change... It's crazy, cause you can have a decent 1080p monitor for about $300. You'd think there would be a decent 2560 x 1600 monitor for about $600 or $700, but they don't exist...
post #54 of 67
There doesn't seem to be much demand for super high resolution monitors. My guess is that icons and text are so small at native resolutions, and games and web pages and movies and such don't look that much better anyways at the super high resolutions (its not like at 1200p you are looking at pixels), there just isn't this huge, honking demand.

But really it all comes back to native content.....
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I'm back to being interested in getting a 2560 x 1600 monitor, but the amount of money that has to be paid to get one is a bit out of this world. Man, I really want to see certain PC games running at a crazy high res of 2560 x 1600, yet, paying that much coin just to get that higher resolution just seems a bit ludicrous....


I mean, you have to pay at least $900 to get a high quality 2560 x 1600 display. AT LEAST $900. Realistically, if you want the Dell U3011, you're paying about $1300. Not exactly chump change... It's crazy, cause you can have a decent 1080p monitor for about $300. You'd think there would be a decent 2560 x 1600 monitor for about $600 or $700, but they don't exist...

It may be a lot of money, but at least you'll need a really high end graphics card for any of the games to run well at that res.
post #56 of 67
Its not really that, its what do you get at that resolution. You get sharper readability and less aliasing on objects, perhaps even negating the need to run any AA at all...but as we've seen at 1080p that isn't the case. You will need horsepower to drive that many pixels, and when presented with a game that has the high-rez textures and special effects to back up that resolution I'm sure the result will be mind-blowing.

But...will it be mind blowing over the same picture or game presented at 1080p or 1200p, or will it only be mind blowing in screen-shots.....

The $1400 question
post #57 of 67
Wait for 4k.

4k on +100" screen will blow away these "set's". Lmao!
post #58 of 67
Yeah, 4K...and then 8K.....lets not forget 8K.....
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Yeah, 4K...and then 8K.....lets not forget 8K.....


And that's probably what a pc monitor running that resolution will cost. $8K!
post #60 of 67
More than that ... by a LONG shot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No wonder hardly anybody is gaming on a 2560 x 1600 monitor... they cost a fortune!