I've used one at work for about a year now, and just bought one for home.

Don't play games though, but I'll help if I can.

Well my main concern is what picture quality i will get if it try to run it at a lower res than the native resolution and it 'interpolates'.

Im sure it doesnt look too nice on officey applications, but its things like games im really wondering about. Anyone else?

Ummmmm...I know that some won't even let you run a lower resolution, but it's not something I've ever really tried I'm afraid. Sorry I can't be more help.

I've got an Iiyama 17" 1280x1024 panel and yeah, it doesn't look to brilliant running at anything other than native resolution for static or slow moving images but once things get moving, I tend not to notice too much. Fortunately, very few games I play these days will not support a 1280x1024 option.

Looking forward to the day I can afford a 1600x1200 one!

---

by Ming
I've got an Iiyama 17" 1280x1024 panel

---

If it's their cheapest 1280x1024 17" then I've got the same one, but I've got it attached to my 2nd machine so I don't play games on it. Very good image.

Um... the label says AS4311U, if that helps.

---

by Ming
Fortunately, very few games I play these days will not support a 1280x1024 option.

---

Its not so much whether the game WILL run at that resolution. Im thinking that when i buy it itll be fast enough to run at that speed but soon games will come that will require a drop in res to run speedily.

I dont want to be in a position of having to contantly upgrade the graphics card to run at a res higher than i need to.

I know that feeling, my PC hasn't been upgraded in quite a while - it's a mere 1GHz Athlon. However, I've found where my PC isn't chunky enough to run at 1280x1024x32, there's usually other options besides dropping resolution which work pretty well ie lower quality textures, lighting, 16-bit colour depth etc.

That said, I'm hankering after an Athlon XP3000 now...

I've never understood why people want to run games at such high resolutions anyhow. I think anywhere from 640x480 is fine for most stuff. Hell, PC users put up with graphics at 320x200 for so many years before the turn of 3D graphics cards.

I think you'll find that the interpolated image might not look so bad for games, because it has the effect of anti-alising the image in the game which may help it look a little smoother...

yes twas me (funkymonkey)



(Edited by misskittyfantastic 24/03/2003 12:42)

Yeah, but turning graphical effects off is one of my pet hates

Im in no rush so I think Ill look out for a few benchtests in the usual mags for gaming pcs with flat panels.

Generally speaking, higher res = more detail.. makes all the difference in a deatchmatch if you can see whether the bloke at the other end of the map you're trying to sniper is on your own team or not

---

by misskittyfantastic
I've never understood why people want to run games at such high resolutions anyhow. I think anywhere from 640x480 is fine for most stuff. Hell, PC users put up with graphics at 320x200 for so many years before the turn of 3D graphics cards.

I think you'll find that the interpolated image might not look so bad for games, because it has the effect of anti-alising the image in the game which may help it look a little smoother...

---

I think in that case you'd probably be better off using a games console.

However there are good reasons for running certain games in high resolutions, beyond simply the quality of the graphics. Neverwinter Nights, for example, allows you to have the map/inventory etc. windows visible all the time. This makes things much more convenient, but it only really works if you run it at high resolution, otherwise it takes up too much of the playing area. Also, in strategy games, you can usually see more of the map at higher resolutions. Etc. etc.

I can see the point in strategy based map games, but for you average 3D action blaster the textures arent done in than much detail so it doesnt make an awful lot of difference. Although the point about snipers and stuff is noted. All im saying is i'd prefer lush graphics at high frame rate @ say 800x600 rather than high res and slow frame rates.

It's certainly true that the biggest single leap in gaming experience quality came from going from 320x240 software to 640x480 Voodoo 1. Everything else has so far had a perceptible increase but not of the same magnitude.

For FPS, while it's true there's a limit on the quality of textures etc, it not due to a lack of desire on the part of developers to pump up levels of detail.

In any case, it seems to me that hardcore FPS PC gamers aren't interested in trade-offs between frame rates and resolution, they want both cranked up to the max! That's why they'll buy graphics cards that cost more than an Xbox (yes, I know consoles are subsidised)...

Im looking at a Hitachi CM174SXWB.

Its supposed to have a very low response time 16ms making it better for games, and a review said it was good at 'faking' 1024x768

---

by Ming
Um... the label says AS4311U, if that helps.

---

ah, mine says AS4314UT

I've got a Hansol TFT, and playing some games I get a message 'Out of Range' on the actual TFT menu, so I'm not 100% sure how it handles things. That was only on one game mine...

Which Hansol is that?
I've been looking at the 17" H750 as it'll do 1280 x 1024, like my laptop does.
Planning to hook it onto an ATI 9700 or 9800

---

by Wesley
Which Hansol is that?

---

It's an H520, 15" does the job anyway