Resolution scaling question

[bmt22033]

My current computer has a 7800GTX video card and a 19" LCD with a native res of 1280x1024. I'm a big gamer and just about every game that I've played that was made during the past few years seems to run fine @ 1280x1024. Now I'm about to build a new gaming system and I'm considering buying a bigger LCD display. I haven't done much research into specific models yet but I'd like to get a 24" display if, in fact, there are any good ones for gaming. It looks like the native resolution on most 24" displays is 1920x1200. I'm leaning towards a 9800GX2 or possibly two 8800GT/8800GTS cards running in SLI. I think this should probably be enough to drive a 24" LCD @ 1920x1200. But for games that don't support 1920x1200, what do current LCD displays and/or video cards look like when they scale to a resolution lower than the native res of the display? Is it better to let the display scale or use the video card for scaling? How is the image quality affected (or is it)?

Thanks for any advice!

 

[StormUP]

I wasn't really aware you had a choice between scaling at the video card level vs. scaling at the monitor level. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Are you talking about support for widescreen vs 4:3 standard and forcing that at the vid card vs monitor level or are you talking about scaling from say 1680x1050 up to 1920x1200?

 

[Nenu]

With a 24" 1080P LCD, in general, you wont suffer as much as the larger screens if you need to use different display modes. This is due to everything being too visible with a larger pixel size on larger screens.
Some displays can handle lower resolutions better than others but at a cost.
To clean the image up, the LCD has to process it which can add to the display lag.
This may not bother you and might not be too bad either but if you think it might bother you, get a display where you can disable the processing.
If possible, view/try a few LCDs at a computer store to see the types of difference.

The best thing to do is try and stay at the LCD default resolution which you already know but games like Crysis might make that difficult.
However, get the CCC1.31 mod for Crysis and you will be able to play at 1080p res just fine.
With a single clocked GT at 1080p and the level 3 CCC config, I get around 30 to 40fps (mostly around 40) so you should be able to hammer that!

I dont know of any other games that you wont be able to run at 1080p res but I cant speak for what is coming out soon

Something you do need to consider is ghosting, this isnt the same as lag.
The LCD panel will have a finite time it takes to change a pixel from one colour to the next.
When the next frame is ready to be displayed but the LCD hasnt got enough time to lose the old image, you will see a ghost.

There are 3 main types of LCD, TN, S-IPS and VA (comprising of variations on MVA and PVA)

Modern TN Panels are very quick and exhibit very low ghosting or non perceivable.
Sadly TN Panels have poor colour quality especially on dark scenes.
This is due to them only using 18bit (6 bits per colour) colour.
Many are sold as 16.7 million colours but this is achieved by the use of dithering and flashing between 2 colours. The colours often arent displayed as the artist intended.
TN panels often have bad or distracting brightness variation when viewing at differnt angles left/right and up/down.
Some people notice the above effects and find it annoying, others dont mind at all.

Some of the modern S-IPS and VA type panels are pretty damn good now and these have much better colour reproduction.
I have a 37" S-IPS and am very pleased with the LCDs response time (rated at 5mS).
If you really look hard for ghosting you can perceive a tiny amount but its hardly worth mentioning.
Colour rendering is awesome and the viewing angle is... well perfect tbh.

Beware of screens that claim to have very high contrast ratios as these are usually dynamic (ie they change the brightness of the backlight).
For example a 5000:1 contrast ratio LCD is more likely to have a real contrast ratio of about 1200:1 which isnt bad anyway.
However if you cant disable the dynamic contrast, it might get on your nerves.
So dont assume that a 3000:1 contrast ratio LCD is better than a 1200:1, it could be worse if the contrast is Dynamic.

A few titbits of info, my brain isnt switched on so I might add more later

 

[Dogmapog]

. But for games that don't support 1920x1200, what do current LCD displays and/or video cards look like when they scale to a resolution lower than the native res of the display? Is it better to let the display scale or use the video card for scaling? How is the image quality affected (or is it)?

Thanks for any advice!

On my 26, games look good even at 10x7.
As long as you can get any game to run at 16x10, it will look great.
With the exception of Crysis, a 8800GT will handle most games at 16x10, and some at 1920x1200.

IMO, 8800GT or 9600GT SLI is the best value, and it does seem that SLI is scaling and performing better than ever.
The 9800gx2 is overpriced and also has last gen amounts of ram and also is only 256bit......it seems to me that 384+768 or 512+1g is where we need to be right now, especially at the price they're asking relative to a 9600GT SLI.

 

[bmt22033]

@ StormUP - I was mostly wondering about older games that might not support a resolution higher than say, 1280x1024 or 1024x768. I was wondering what these games would look like on a 24" LCD with a native res of 1920x1200.

@ Nenu & Dogmapog - Thanks very much guys. I appreciate all the info!

 

[Dogmapog]

Older games from 2003 might look a bit dodgy, but I wonder why you'd care considering how good the newer games will look...for example, Far Cry and Shadow Ops both look excellent at 1920x1200...both are from 2004.

 

[orangeble]

I'd first check out information on these games beforehand, because I know that many older games (like FEAR for example) have either mods or simple hacks that can force the game to run at a higher resolution.

As far as lower resolutions on a 24" screen, they will still look good if they are of the same aspect ratio (16:10), but if they are not, then they will look stetched and splotchy. I know, however, that some monitors feature a 4:3 mode that allows you to display an image in its native aspect ratio with black bars on the side. This solves the problem of stretching, but it will aslo make the picture smaller, so its a bit of a tradeoff.

 

[Bdbtoys]

The OP is having the same issues that I have. I have a good system and enjoy playing the new games which support the 16:10 widescreen format, however I still play old 4:3 games on a regular enough basis to justify putting serious thought into my monitor purchase.

First, 4:3 streched to 16:10 sucks.. for lack of a better word. The image is distorted, your mouse doesn't move the way you move it (ie a 45 degree mouse movement will be approx a 35-40 degree screen movement).

However there is a saving grace here...Scaling (or Fixed Aspect Ratio...stretching but keeping proportions correct). Now as it was mentioned there are 2 different ways to go about the scaling... Display Drivers & Monitor Options. The latter would be preferred as it takes your setup out of the equation. For example I have a 8800, with the display drivers in Vista you can not do ANY scaling if you are not connecting from DVI to DVI. Even if you have DVI to DVI it is not gaurenteed, but it is far more likely. I found out the hard way that DVI-HDMI is a no-go as well. The second way to go about this is thru the monitor options. The connection type that is availible to scale is only limited to the functions programmed in the monitor itself. The last bit of info regarding scaling is that not all resolutions look good when scaled. This has a lot to do with the monitor, as I have seen one do a really good 1024x768, and another do horrible at it.

Another thing to look for would be 1:1 Ratio. For example if you decide on a 1920x1200 monitor and decided to run a game at 800x600, it would show up as a little box in the middle of the screen because each pixel is being aligned 1:1 with the pixels of your screen. This usually looks better than any scaling minus the smaller size.

Now that you got the scoop on scaling there is one last gotcha with LCD's... Input Lag (a delay in the image you see, basically seeing images in the past). Any processing done by the monitor will introduce some input lag. For the most part this lag is normally mild on the newer monitors, however if your a twitch gamer then you will most likley notice it more than someone who's more casual. Keep in mind that some monitor have almost no input lag, and others are terrible.

Now to answer your question, on a good monitor with fixed aspect ratio on 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 resolutions look pretty good. 1600x1200 will look perfect (as the height (1200) is the same in the 1920x1200). On the monitor I am currently trying out, these look good... however all the work is being done by the monitor options (Nvidias can not be used due to restrictions mentioned above).

 

[bmt22033]

@ orangeble & Bdbtoys - Thanks to both of you! I really appreciate the info!