The same problem as with 1440 x 1080. A custom resolution needs to be created and the game modified to support that resolution. Most games do, but not all. And definitely not out of the box.

Another LCD quirk is sometimes they drop frames when above 60Hz. That causes stutter. Maybe a DOS refresh rate utility can save the day.

I have a Dell 2405FPW that was over $800 in 2005 and it has problems with DOS resolutions and >60Hz. Though I have not extensively tested VGA vs DVI behavior.

swaaye wrote:

Another LCD quirk is sometimes they drop frames when above 60Hz. That causes stutter. Maybe a DOS refresh rate utility can save the day.

ISP panels do this. But the cheaper TN panels shouldn't. In that thread I posted earlier, there is a scrolling test on the ISO. All the TN panels I've tested do true 70Hz under DOS.

Many LCDs can also be run at higher refresh rates in some resolutions. E.g. my AOC does 75 Hz at 1024 x 768 without any dramas. And my 27" Samsung does 75Hz at 1080p which is awesome for online gaming.

IPS and PVA apparently cuz me olde Dell is PVA. I have a feeling the display controller is the real problem.

swaaye wrote:

IPS and PVA apparently cuz me olde Dell is PVA.

Hmm might be everything that's not TN then...

I was so lucky because initially I ordered the IPS version of my Samsung. But the issue was pointed out to me so I quickly changed the order 😊

To the original question: it heavily depends on the game and the graphics card in question. The Hitman series tend to be very demanding of hardware when they're new, so it isn't surprising to hear that "age appropriate" hardware is struggling at fully maxed out settings (a GeForce 6800 should have no such problems). Cards prior to the GeForce 4 were capable of it for gaming, for example see this Anand review of a GF2 Ultra (shows other cards too): http://www.anandtech.com/show/601/9 and the GeForce 4 Ti is certainly up to running some games at 1600x1200 too: http://techreport.com/review/3538/nvidia-geforce4-ti-4200/5 and http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/gf4/index4.html etc. Notice in some cases the performance hit as resolution goes up isn't all that massive. 😀

On the monitors: something interesting I noticed/learned with my Samsung is that when connected via DVI, it is fairly "dumb" about resolution supports - anything that isn't native will just get stretched to fill the panel (which is fine if the input is 16:9), however if the input is VGA it will automatically pillar-box 4:3 inputs (just like in the pictures).

This is one of the reasons why I have a native 1920x1200 LCD monitor :

Beautiful!

Is this DOSBox or real DOS?

DOSBox, real DOS wouldn't look as good.

IMO, 1600x1200 is a beautiful resolution to play games such as Quake 3. However, I think games that don't have a very high texture resolution or polygon count kind of look better with full scene AA and lower resolutions

subhuman@xgtx wrote:

IMO, 1600x1200 is a beautiful resolution to play games such as Quake 3. However, I think games that don't have a very high texture resolution or polygon count kind of look better with full scene AA and lower resolutions

Now that I have a V3 I can finally see this games at 1600 x 1200 on my 1920 x 1200 screen!

What stands out the most is how tiny the font becomes. Really hard to see when you sit at a normal distance away from the monitor.

The demands of 1600 x 1200 are more obvious when you calculate the number of pixels.

At 1024 x 768 there are 786432 pixels (Less than 1 Mega pixels) , but at 1600 x 1200 there are 1920000 pixels, almost 2 Mega pixels. So more than twice as taxing on the graphics card.

I really like the look of 1024 x 768. While it is non native, most LCD monitors scale this resolution really well. Many games support the 1280 x 1024 resolution, but I wonder if they adjusted the aspect ratio to 5:4. Might have to look into this. But not all games do. Many support 1280 x 960 instead. I don't know if 1280 x 1024 monitors letterbox this resolution, I don't think they do.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

The demands of 1600 x 1200 are more obvious when you calculate the number of pixels.

At 1024 x 768 there are 786432 pixels (Less than 1 Mega pixels) , but at 1600 x 1200 there are 1920000 pixels, almost 2 Mega pixels. So more than twice as taxing on the graphics card.

Don't forget about video memory. At 16bpp that's almost 4MB, and with double buffering and z-buffer almost 12MB are used leaving little more than 4MB for texture memory. Depending on the game a lot of texture thrashing will occur which will slow down performance.

Good point!

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I really like the look of 1024 x 768. While it is non native, most LCD monitors scale this resolution really well. Many games support the 1280 x 1024 resolution, but I wonder if they adjusted the aspect ratio to 5:4. Might have to look into this. But not all games do. Many support 1280 x 960 instead. I don't know if 1280 x 1024 monitors letterbox this resolution, I don't think they do.

Just tried 1280x960 on one of two 1280x1024 monitors - it automatically letter-boxed and continued to look as sharp as it should. 😀 This was my older (~2004) HyVision (I can't read the model # because it's behind the VGA cable's connector 🤣 - if I remember I'll check it when it isn't powered up sometime). I'll re-test this on my much newer NEC AS172 later today if I remember. The amount of "loss" due to letter-boxing wasn't that bad - fairly thin black bars. 😀

As far as games supporting 1.25:1, it should work without issues in most games regardless of their AR method - Vert- games like Mass Effect will actually gain somewhat more viewable area assuming it doesn't letterbox, and Hor+ or pixel-based games will be more or less unaffected (you'll have a narrower viewport but won't lose vertical content). The only games that would have issues are fixed-resolution titles (which usually assume 1.33:1), which may become slightly squished on a 1.25:1 display.

Just make sure you rule out that the graphics card driver doesn't do any scaling quietly 😀

We got some new 19" with LED backlight at work, I might test them and report back.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Just make sure you rule out that the graphics card driver doesn't do any scaling quietly 😀

Quadro FX was enabled for scaling for 3D (although defaulted to "On Display"); turned all of it off and re-set to 1280x960 - still letterboxes correctly. 😀

Since I'm in the QFX's control panel to check on that, I figured I'd try some more resolutions for grins:

1024x768: no letterboxing, just stretches to fill the entire panel. Looks bad. 😒
1280x800: letterboxes, looks just as sharp as native or 1280x960. Looks good. 😀
1280x720: letterboxes, looks just as sharp as native, 1280x960, or 1280x800. Looks good, but only uses about 55% of the panel. 🤣
1152x864: letterboxes, looks somewhat blurry compared to 1280x* resolutions. Looks acceptable.

Switched to GPU scaling on the QFX and re-tried 1024x768 - it letterboxes as it should, and looks much sharper, but still not quite as good as any of the 1280x* resolutions. It would be acceptable if that was the only option, but I'd rather run at 1280x960 if I had to run this monitor in 4:3.

I'll let you know what I find with my GeForce card and newer 17" LED backlit monitor once I get a chance.

EDIT:

On the GeForce and NEC AS172:

1280x960: Honestly can't tell a difference from 1280x1024. Not sure if it's scaling or even changing resolution. It does not look stretched.
1280x800: Preserves AR and letterboxes.
1280x768: Preserves AR and letterboxes.
1280x720: Preserves AR and letterboxes.
1152x864: Does not preserve AR, looks a little stretched, still very sharp.
1024x768: Does not preserve AR, looks a little stretched, still fairly sharp.

GPU scaling 1024x768 - preserves AR, doesn't look any sharper than letting the monitor stretch it though.

Well, the best way for 5:4 monitors, IMHO, is the hardware method. There is a "4:3" button and 1280x1024 monitor uses 1280x960 matrix after you press it.

Gamecollector wrote:

Well, the best way for 5:4 monitors, IMHO, is the hardware method. There is a "4:3" button and 1280x1024 monitor uses 1280x960 matrix after you press it.

What make and model please?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

What make and model please?

Yeah that would be interesting to see. I know neither of my monitors has that, but they do seem to have no issues with 4:3 letterboxing. Newer nVidia drivers also offer the scaling feature, so that's worth considering as well (I'm not sure if the newer ATi drivers support it as well; I don't have a very new ATi card).