Reply 20 of 62, by Sombrero
- Rank
- Oldbie
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-03-05, 13:07:Updated my benchmarks to include the 1600x1200 results. I have to say, most WinXP games do actually have enough texture detail to justify this resolution (and higher ones). This is in stark contrast to Win9x games, because they often only used low-res textures (256x256 and such). Of course, that makes perfect sense considering the hardware of that time period. But it's still a bit jarring to see blurry textures paired with ultra-crisp polygons when you crank up the resolution.
Anyway, I can see why 1600x1200 remained popular well into the late 2000s under WinXP. I never experienced it back in the day, since the monitor and GPU which I was using at that time couldn't handle it. Now, it's a real treat to finally play games like Doom 3 and Far Cry at that resolution.
I came to the same conclusion after I got a 1600x1200 monitor, somehow I thought I'd only use that resolution for games that were released 2006 or later but I've already used it with one game from 2002.
Which is surprising considering I usually don't go for max resolution and AA, old games all too often start looking somehow clinical to my eyes (not to mention UI going tiny annoyingly often) but there definitely are exeptions. I compared UT2004 at 1600x1200 to 1024x768 which is how I played it back in the day and yeah, I think I'll stick with 1600x1200 😀