HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:18:01 -0400, Coffee Lover
wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:40:34 -0400, kony , A non
coffee lover Said:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400, Coffee Lover
wrote:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?

Usually no, sometimes yes.

Try being specific with hardware details and use, and you
might get a specific answer.

OS-Windows XP.Home SP2 5.1.2600
Motherboard-Asus A8S-X BIOS 08/26/05 VER: 08.00.10 SiS 756 AMD Hammer
CPU-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice S939 Step DH-E6
Monitor- LG L1933TR-SF LCD 19"
Video Card-NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS(256 MB) NV41GS
Memory-Corsair VS1GB400C3 1GB(PC3200 DDR SDRAM)
Hard Drive-Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS Perpendicular
Recording Technology 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
DVD-SAMSUNG IDE Model SH-S182M/BEBE 18X DVD±R DVD Burner 12X DVD-RAM
Write, LightScribe


In typical 2D uses, you have no bottleneck from the
resolution. In modern 3D gaming, you will begin to see some
framerate reductions with moderate to higher eyecandy, but
depending on the game it may still be an acceptible
compromise.

In general, use the resolution you desire without concern
until you see obvious choppiness on-screen.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:06 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

I would add that I never use my PC for gaming etc ... just regular
stuff + TV card viewing.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:06 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

I would add that I never use my PC for gaming etc ... just regular
stuff + TV card viewing.

All the more reason to go with native resolution.
GAMES generally switch resolutions to what the game thinks it needs with
a particular card. Often you're forced to downgrade resolutions to get
decent speed on a particular game.

With a normal desktop however, you don't have that problem.
And, since there's *no* speed penalty (the subject of the thread) on
just about any desktop use, why make your eyes bleed by looking at a bad
compromise for an LCD panel? It's about like deliberately taking
out-of-focus pictures on a good camera that you bought for it's quality.

Worse actually, if you knew what the software actually does to even
display a downgraded resolution on an LCD panel.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:05:50 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird
wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

Right!!!!!!!! I'm going to give it a try overnight UK time and report
back here tomorrow. I predict that the difference will be minimal
but will openly admit the truth of whatever it does.
Watch this space!.................

"Frank McCoy" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
wrote:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
desktop.
Higher resolution makes most things too small.
Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font
sizes.
By doing that, things look a lot better.
Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on
the
eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.

The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
For something bigger, go higher.
For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
(My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21"
CRT
at 1600x1200.)

Games are different.
There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time
of
the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware
acceleration
as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you
have
to experiment with to see which looks best to you.

--
_____
/ ' / T
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
wrote:

Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?

Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
(viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change sizes
of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like purity
and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.

So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

Frank McCoy wrote:


So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
trying to understand what you are saying?

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning!

You did not say what type of monitor you have: CRT or LCD? It matters. If
you have an LCD then you HAVE to set the monitor to it's Native Resolution,
which is the ONLY resolution that will cause images and text to appear with
maximum detail.
Check you owner's manual.

--
---------------------
DaveW
"Coffee Lover" wrote in message
...
I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????