|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Gold Member
![]() Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 258
|
Is the resolution based off the video card or the monitor? If I'm remembering correctly, the two coincide, but while shopping for monitors, I never saw one have over a resolution size of 1600, which I find odd. Is it that the monitor has a set resolution it can go to, but the video card can push it further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Diamond Member
![]() Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,355
|
yes, basically, and it also depends on if you have a crt or lcd. Lcd's have a native resolution which they work best at (look the best at least), but I don't think crt's are as affected by this. As far as what to run it at, for an lcd, choose the native resolution whenever possible, for crt's, just find a middle ground between framerates and graphics quality and resolution will play a role in there
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Super Moderator
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lexington, NC
Age: 24
Posts: 12,388
|
CRTs do have limits, and tend to look better at lower resolutions. As mentioned, LCDs have their native resoultions and tend to look better at them.
I typically run my computers at 1024x768. That's the max on my little 12" and I don't mind the little fuzzyness it produces on my desktop's LCD(it's max res is 1280x1024) I have an older CRT I've used a few times, I think it goes up to 1600x1200, maybe higher. I have no reason to bump it up that high so I can't remember right off ![]() ANother factor with CRT's is the Hz. Usally, towards the max resolutions they can handle, they can only handle lower Hz settings. Anything less than about 72-75 isn't as good on your eyes, if I remember correctly. I know it really bothers mine. I can't stand CRTs anymore!
__________________
Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 | 2G RAM | 160G HD | 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 | 3G RAM | 120G HD | Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 | 2G RAM | 160G HD | Intel x3100 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|