Gaming at 1680 x 1050

E

EarthBrain

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
404
How many people game at 1680 x 1050 resolution?....and prefer this over higher resolution gaming?
 
If price is a factor.... 1680x1050 is unmatched. Obviously higher resolution is better for gaming, but it also costs quite a bit more money in the long run (bigger display, more powerful/frequent GPU upgrades).
 
I occasionally drop my screen resolution down to 1680x1050 if I need a very high frame rate when gaming, like when I'm playing a scout in TF2. Most of the time I run in native resolution of 2560x1600.
 
1680 X 1050 is the sweet spot for gaming right now. A 22" LCD monitor can be had for less then $200 and you don't need CF or SLI to run games at this resolution. You can have AA and AF turned on with the current batch of sub $200 GPUs. Gamers have never had it so good.
 
I do 1680x1050, I didn't want to have to buy expensive GPUs to have a decent frame rate for the higher resolutions. Especially when I'm going to college now, and not working.
 
EarthBrain said:
How many people game at 1680 x 1050 resolution?....and prefer this over higher resolution gaming?
Click to expand...

Well I just got a 22" monitor after having used a 1280x1024 19" for 5 years. So to me, 1680x1050 is "high resolution". It's all relative :)
 
I run UT3 @ 1680x1050 and get close to 60fps all the time with my Q6600 & 8800gt (both overclocked)

And also yes, 1680x1050 is also the native resolution on my 22"
 
im running 1680x1050 on my gateway 22" i like it, it's not really that big, but it was a heck of a difference coming from my old acer 17" LCD.

i am planning on getting a 28" sometime soon, so we'll see how much of a difference there is there.
 
I don't prefer 1680x1050 over the native res of my screen, 1920x1200, but if performance is a problem switching over to 1680x1050 usually smooths it out while still maintaining the nice widescreen res.
 
It is my monitors native res (Acer AL2216).

My GTX 260 runs any game amazing at this res (except crysis of course)
 
I game at 1680x1050 because I move my computer to school and back a couple of times a year and like to keep the monitor manageable. However, I really like this size/quality of the package, it's great. Higher resolution gaming is nice, but from what I've seen it's not much different. Not saying I won't upgrade if the circumstances change though :).
 
I run 1680x1050 as well. I was pondering getting a 4870 when I order my parts soon. Is that overkill? Based on some of the posts here perhaps it is.
 
You can always crank up the AA if your card destroys any game you throw at it at that res.

I love busting out 8x or higher AA on a game :D
 
Tom128 said:
I run 1680x1050 as well. I was pondering getting a 4870 when I order my parts soon. Is that overkill? Based on some of the posts here perhaps it is.
Click to expand...

no, my native res is 1680x1050 and the 4870 works well for it. not overkill at all IMO.
 
Tom128 said:
I run 1680x1050 as well. I was pondering getting a 4870 when I order my parts soon. Is that overkill? Based on some of the posts here perhaps it is.
Click to expand...

I run 1680 with my 4850. Not an issue. But a 4870 will probably out live the 4850.
 
Porter_ said:
no, my native res is 1680x1050 and the 4870 works well for it. not overkill at all IMO.
Click to expand...
Ditto, and as mentioned I just crank the AA when I can. I'm a graphics whore, so I have to run everything at max, hence the 4870 :D.
 
I just bought a new 20" LCD that runs at 1680x1050 natively. I see zero difference with my 8800 GTX card over my old 17". Games run great at this resolution - many with all options maxed. I don't want a larger LCD with a higher res. Just overkill imo.
 
I turn down my settings to 16x10 from 19x12 for Witcher. It blur things up a little, but it's worth it for the extra frames. My 320mb doesn't seem to like 19x12 very much in that game.
 
Cmustang87 said:
If price is a factor.... 1680x1050 is unmatched. Obviously higher resolution is better for gaming, but it also costs quite a bit more money in the long run (bigger display, more powerful/frequent GPU upgrades).
Click to expand...

Yes, but you get a much better experience.
As I've said before, the ideal IMO, is a 26-27in as your primary PC monitor, and a 37-40in 1080p as your multimedia screen for games, DVD and HDTV......remember that capture cards allow you to record both SDTV and HDTV, so this saves you having to buy a PVR and DVD player.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
1680 X 1050 is the sweet spot for gaming right now. A 22" LCD monitor can be had for less then $200 and you don't need CF or SLI to run games at this resolution. You can have AA and AF turned on with the current batch of sub $200 GPUs. Gamers have never had it so good.
Click to expand...

Or you could get a decent 8 bit panel and play at 1280x800 with high in game settings......I'll take a 26-27 at non native over a 22in TN POS maxed at 16x10.
 
1680 X 1050 is great for gaming mainly because a ultra high end video card is not required.
Unfortunately, 1680*1050 is a bit small for work (Excel spreadsheet, coding, etc...).
 
i have a 226bw which is obviously 1680x1050. im using a sapphire dual slot 4850 and its awesome :)
 
I find this resolution is the best value for money since upgrading to a 24" monitor is not a linear increase in expense. You can actually get away with using a cheaper quality albeit smaller screen due to the nature of TN panels in that the contrast difference between the top and bottom portions of the screen is not as pronounced. If you buy a TN 24" monitor, it is pronounced, and now you have to get a nicer panel which costs a lot more.
 
RadXge said:
1680 X 1050 is great for gaming mainly because a ultra high end video card is not required.
Unfortunately, 1680*1050 is a bit small for work (Excel spreadsheet, coding, etc...).
Click to expand...

1920x1200 is a minimal hit over 16x10.....the advantage is down to SIZE
 
Dogmapog said:
Good yes....awesome no:rolleyes:.....no such thing as a 2006/07 TN panel being awesome.
Click to expand...
Because you've used every single one of them. You know what's really awesome? Not being an elitist dumbass.
 
I have two Acer AL2216WBDs. One's newer, the other is the older version (I think it's the older version) that Sellout.Woot was dropping as refurbs. The one screen is 1.5cm taller than the other but I put the short one up on a notebook to make up for the height difference.

Personally, I'm not an LCD screen quality nut (so someone is probably going to go say how cheap/low end these screens are) but for my purposes color calibration isn't an issue. Deep blacks (some really bad LCDs show purplish blue) are had here (as I am seeing on [H] as I type this) and the whole dual screen setup cost me less than $450. Plus, it doesn't murder my video card (9800GX2) even for Crysis (which I seldom play anyway). Every other game I play gets completely owned by this card.
 
Like almost everyone else who posted, my monitors native resolution is 1680 x 1050 so that's what I game with. Good enough resolution, imo.
 
I just bought a 26' Samsung from Bestbuy for $285 because it was on clearance. The fucker is huge and I am really enjoying the 1920x1200 res. May have to SLI my 8800GT though :D
 
The best way I can put it is I can run my dell 2007WFP (1680X1050) w/ my sig setup, (Q6600 oc and an 8800GTX) on crysis on highest settings w/ no problem.
 
Dogmapog said:
Good yes....awesome no:rolleyes:.....no such thing as a 2006/07 TN panel being awesome.
Click to expand...

Shut your pie hole. Sounds like you're trying to rationalize a big outlay for a larger monitor. Its all subjective and if a person is very happy gaming on a 20"/22" at 1680x1050 who are you to argue with the withering comments? Its like telling a person who just bought an Accord and thinks its "awesome" that, no, its only "good" because you either prefer or drive an Acura.
 
i game at 1680 by 1050 and it works fine with my 8600 gt (i don't have money :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top