Gaming at 2560x1600

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Jacen22 (664 posts) -

I just recently saw some videos on youtube and pics over the internet of people gaming at 2560x1600 resolutions and the graphics looked like nothing I have ever seen before, it was amazing. I run gtx 470 in sli and looked up the specs on my card and it says max resolution is 2560x1600. Is there any way I can run games at that resolution or anything a bit higher than 1920x1080?

 

My monitor is 1920x1080, so does that mean I will have to buy a new monitor? Tried to google aound for info but couldn't find answers to my question, or maybe I wasn't asking the right questions. Any info would be greatly appreciated. 

#2 Posted by soolkiki (1763 posts) -

If that is the max that you're monitor can handle, then yes, you will have to get a new one to support the new resolution.

#3 Posted by Jacen22 (664 posts) -

So only when I get a new monitor that can handle resolutions over 1920x1080 will the option be available to run at those higher resolutions? 

#4 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3842 posts) -

So only when I get a new monitor that can handle resolutions over 1920x1080 will the option be available to run at those higher resolutions? 

Jacen22
Yes, but you want to get a monitor that supports your required resolution natively.
#5 Posted by Jacen22 (664 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jacen22"]

So only when I get a new monitor that can handle resolutions over 1920x1080 will the option be available to run at those higher resolutions? 

acanofcoke

Yes, but you want to get a monitor that supports your required resolution natively.

 

What does natively mean? Sorry, I'm not really comp savvy. Is there a way to game at higher resolutions on a 1920x1080 monitor? I just looked at the prices on newegg for higher res monitors and they are quite expensive.

#6 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"][QUOTE="Jacen22"]

So only when I get a new monitor that can handle resolutions over 1920x1080 will the option be available to run at those higher resolutions? 

Jacen22

Yes, but you want to get a monitor that supports your required resolution natively.

 

What does natively mean? Sorry, I'm not really comp savvy. Is there a way to game at higher resolutions on a 1920x1080 monitor? I just looked at the prices on newegg for higher res monitors and they are quite expensive.

THey already answered that with the first post. You simply, cannot. You need to buy a new monitor. Native resolution = the max resolution your monitor can support which in your case is 1080p.
#7 Posted by darksusperia (6911 posts) -
#8 Posted by Jacen22 (664 posts) -

Thanks for the feedback guys. Downscaling looks like an interesting option, gonna give it a read through thanks for the link

#9 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -
#10 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
[QUOTE="darksusperia"]if you dont want to buy a new monitor you could always downscale. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?281595-Better-IQ-Downscaling

That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?
#11 Posted by darksusperia (6911 posts) -
[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="darksusperia"]if you dont want to buy a new monitor you could always downscale. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?281595-Better-IQ-Downscaling

That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?

no.
#13 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
[QUOTE="darksusperia"][QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="darksusperia"]if you dont want to buy a new monitor you could always downscale. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?281595-Better-IQ-Downscaling

That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?

no.

Awesome. Thanks.
#14 Posted by Marfoo (5994 posts) -

You guys realize that taking a larger rendered image and then downscaling it to get an antialiased image is exactly what super sampling anti-aliasing does right?

In other words, 2x SuperSampling will render it so that it can average 2 pixels per pixel, 4x will average 4 pixels per pixel etc... The supersampling feature of your graphics card also does some other tricks to get a better image, like LOD biasing.

Example, I'm playing Mass Effect at 1920x1200 with 4x Supersample Antialiasing.  The game is internally rendered at 3840x2400 and then averaged down to 1920x1200 by averaging 2x2 pixels.  The driver also performs LOD biasing to increase the detail of certain objects in the distance.

#15 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

You guys realize that taking a larger rendered image and then downscaling it to get an antialiased image is exactly what super sampling anti-aliasing does right?

In other words, 2x SuperSampling will render it so that it can average 2 pixels per pixel, 4x will average 4 pixels per pixel etc... The supersampling feature of your graphics card also does some other tricks to get a better image, like LOD biasing.

Example, I'm playing Mass Effect at 1920x1200 with 4x Supersample Antialiasing.  The game is internally rendered at 3840x2400 and then averaged down to 1920x1200 by averaging 2x2 pixels.  The driver also performs LOD biasing to increase the detail of certain objects in the distance.

Marfoo

So it's the same thing? Which method is better? Safer? Better results? All i know is that when I use supersampling... framerate is unplayable.  At least with the downscaling method, my games are playable.. like for example BF3 @60fps 1600p, versus 100+ with 1200p.

#16 Posted by Marfoo (5994 posts) -
[QUOTE="Marfoo"]

You guys realize that taking a larger rendered image and then downscaling it to get an antialiased image is exactly what super sampling anti-aliasing does right?

In other words, 2x SuperSampling will render it so that it can average 2 pixels per pixel, 4x will average 4 pixels per pixel etc... The supersampling feature of your graphics card also does some other tricks to get a better image, like LOD biasing.

Example, I'm playing Mass Effect at 1920x1200 with 4x Supersample Antialiasing.  The game is internally rendered at 3840x2400 and then averaged down to 1920x1200 by averaging 2x2 pixels.  The driver also performs LOD biasing to increase the detail of certain objects in the distance.

Elann2008
So it's the same thing? Which method is better? Safer? Better results?

You'll probably get better results with supersampling as the manufacturer has worked out all the kinks to get the most performance and best picture. Sometimes drivers struggle to force it in game though, in which case forcing it using this downscaling method may trick the game into running supersampling anyway.
#17 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="Marfoo"]

You guys realize that taking a larger rendered image and then downscaling it to get an antialiased image is exactly what super sampling anti-aliasing does right?

In other words, 2x SuperSampling will render it so that it can average 2 pixels per pixel, 4x will average 4 pixels per pixel etc... The supersampling feature of your graphics card also does some other tricks to get a better image, like LOD biasing.

Example, I'm playing Mass Effect at 1920x1200 with 4x Supersample Antialiasing.  The game is internally rendered at 3840x2400 and then averaged down to 1920x1200 by averaging 2x2 pixels.  The driver also performs LOD biasing to increase the detail of certain objects in the distance.

Marfoo
So it's the same thing? Which method is better? Safer? Better results?

You'll probably get better results with supersampling as the manufacturer has worked out all the kinks to get the most performance and best picture. Sometimes drivers struggle to force it in game though, in which case forcing it using this downscaling method may trick the game into running supersampling anyway.

Oh ok. ty ty
#18 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="darksusperia"]if you dont want to buy a new monitor you could always downscale. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?281595-Better-IQ-DownscalingElann2008
That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?

Which resolution did you use?

#19 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="darksusperia"]if you dont want to buy a new monitor you could always downscale. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?281595-Better-IQ-Downscalingmitu123

That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?

Which resolution did you use?

2560x1600p
#20 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"] That's so damn cool. Just tried it in Crysis 3 and it looks great. I lost about 10-15fps but the visuals are so much better. Is it going to cause any damage to my computer, especially in extensive use for gaming or desktop use?Elann2008

Which resolution did you use?

2560x1600p

Oh ok, I see you like downsampling, I've been using it for months for a reason.=p Too bad I don't think Tomb Raider supports it.

#21 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Which resolution did you use?

mitu123

2560x1600p

Oh ok, I see you like downsampling, I've been using it for months for a reason.=p Too bad I don't think Tomb Raider supports it.

I noticed you talking about it in the screenshots thread but I wasn't sure what exactly you were talking about lol. So this is what that is.. Hmm.. Well, I just ran Crysis 3 @ 1200p with 4x supersampling.. not sure if it's working because I'm not getting a big hit on performance. It does look good though.. even though it already looks great without the tweaks.
#22 Posted by Marfoo (5994 posts) -
Downsampling from 2560x1600 should be less demanding than 4x SSAA which would be downsampling from 3840x2400. Yeah, not all games support forcing SSAA for some reason, and you'd definitely expect a game like Crysis 3 to take a hit.
#23 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
Downsampling from 2560x1600 should be less demanding than 4x SSAA which would be downsampling from 3840x2400. Yeah, not all games support forcing SSAA for some reason, and you'd definitely expect a game like Crysis 3 to take a hit.Marfoo
Yeah, it's not working in Crysis 3. :( Framerate stays the same so I'm sure it's not working unless by some miracle... it's incredibly well optimized.
#24 Posted by darksusperia (6911 posts) -
[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Downsampling from 2560x1600 should be less demanding than 4x SSAA which would be downsampling from 3840x2400. Yeah, not all games support forcing SSAA for some reason, and you'd definitely expect a game like Crysis 3 to take a hit.Elann2008
Yeah, it's not working in Crysis 3. :( Framerate stays the same so I'm sure it's not working unless by some miracle... it's incredibly well optimized.

wishful thinking..
#25 Posted by kraken2109 (13035 posts) -
[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Downsampling from 2560x1600 should be less demanding than 4x SSAA which would be downsampling from 3840x2400. Yeah, not all games support forcing SSAA for some reason, and you'd definitely expect a game like Crysis 3 to take a hit.Elann2008
Yeah, it's not working in Crysis 3. :( Framerate stays the same so I'm sure it's not working unless by some miracle... it's incredibly well optimized.

I think you'd notice if you had quadrupled the resolution :P that would hurt like in hell in Crysis 3, especially on vram.
#26 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Downsampling from 2560x1600 should be less demanding than 4x SSAA which would be downsampling from 3840x2400. Yeah, not all games support forcing SSAA for some reason, and you'd definitely expect a game like Crysis 3 to take a hit.Elann2008
Yeah, it's not working in Crysis 3. :( Framerate stays the same so I'm sure it's not working unless by some miracle... it's incredibly well optimized.

That's strange since it worked in the beta as proof here:

ibljDjnlPNMy6g.png

 

 
#27 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
Yeah it's not letting me force supersampling. I know for a fact that it works with other games like The Witcher 2.. and it's very obvious when turned on.. the framerate will chug.
#29 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Well I just tried it and it does work, some 1440p screens, top is with FXAA and bottom is with 8xAA, and yes, the game is uses 3.5GB on the 2nd pic and I've seen higher.

i12XnU8B9JhhE.png

ifriJhze31eLd.png

Holy crap it's gorgerous and I don't even need MSAA at all!

 
#30 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3842 posts) -
37 fps and 19?
#31 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

37 fps and 19?acanofcoke
Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

#32 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3842 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]37 fps and 19?mitu123

Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

Is it playable though? I've just ordered a 1440 monitor. Do you know how much of a hit it is from 1200 to 1440?
#33 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]37 fps and 19?mitu123

Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

What about supersampling? I've tried forcing it through Nvidia Inspector and I don't see the difference.   Are you sure it's on?  How were you able to tell with it on when one you used FXAA and the other 8xMSAA.

Maybe you guys have me confused.  Downsampling works.  It's supersampling that doesn't seem to work.

#34 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]37 fps and 19?acanofcoke

Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

Is it playable though? I've just ordered a 1440 monitor. Do you know how much of a hit it is from 1200 to 1440?

Takes off 10 even a bit above 20FPS it seems. Multi gpus are required for maxing it at that res.

#35 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]37 fps and 19?Elann2008

Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

What about supersampling? I've tried forcing it through Nvidia Inspector and I don't see the difference.   Are you sure it's on?  How were you able to tell with it on when one you used FXAA and the other 8xMSAA.

Maybe you guys have me confused.  Downsampling works.  It's supersampling that doesn't seem to work.

That's exactly what I meant, downsampling works.

Well for AA methods I tested it and looking at the VRAM and framerate is already a difference.

#36 Posted by Marfoo (5994 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]37 fps and 19?Elann2008

Yep, the 37FPS one is with FXAA and the 19FPS one is with 8xMSAA, both at 1440p and it looks unbelievable!

What about supersampling? I've tried forcing it through Nvidia Inspector and I don't see the difference. Are you sure it's on? How were you able to tell with it on when one you used FXAA and the other 8xMSAA.

Maybe you guys have me confused. Downsampling works. It's supersampling that doesn't seem to work.

I guess technically you could use FXAA and MSAA in conjunction with downsampling, but with enough downsampling/supersampling you definitely wouldn't need it. Yeah for some reason with both AMD/Nvidia it's been a lot harder to force certain settings in game. I think it has to do with the fact that a lot of game engines use what's called "deferred rendering" which makes them incompatible with most AA techniques without some extra work on the engine side. Older games that use "forward rendering" usually have flawless compatibility with all modes and can be forced easily.

EDIT: Elann, I did some digging and I found out that the way ATI/NVIDIA do SuperSampling is a bit more complicated than downscaling. For starters, they don't just average pixel data, they take samples from the geometry and texture data seperately. Also they don't use a standard grid sampling pattern, they use a rotated grid pattern which apparently produces better results with the same amount of samples. With that being said there are more samples to take and it ends up being more complex than downscaling (especially if you combine that with LOD biasing), but the overall result should have better quality. Because texture and geometry samples (and presumably shader samples) need to be taken seperately for this algorithm to work, like I said, it may not work for deferred rendering where all this data is not all at one time available (deferred rendering involves drawing the scene in layers, and not all data is available at once during rendering).

Downscaling will remain your most compatible and least costly form of SuperSampling AA, while your driver's forced version will produce better results when it can be used. I wish ATI/NVIDIA had a compatibility and quality mode for SSAA, compatibility being basic downscaling, quality being their complex algorithms.