1024 is crap. It's the new 800x600 and only looks good on 14" monitors.Maxguru said:franly tell me what difference does it make running a game on such high res. rrather keep it around 1024 so that the card dosent take too much out of ur card.. plus u will get better frame rates... for me a game at 1024 res is def. very good... then increasing the res. to 2000+ does not make any visual effect diference.. just taht my HUD's get smaller....
my 2 cents...
saumilsingh said:1024 is crap. It's the new 800x600 and only looks good on 14" monitors.
For me:
17" - atleast 1152x864 2xaa
19" - atleast 1280x960 2xaa
21" - atleast 1600x1200 2xaa
Different people have a different level of jaggies tolerance. I have absolutely none
[D]igital [D]eath said:Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the gun looks like its made out of 100 polygons lol
x86 said:
Any of the 17" CRT like Samsung 798MB/ViewSonic will comfortably do 1152x864@75Hz.x86 said:man r u sure ur right :|
afaik i've never seen any monitor tht goes 75 hz refresh rate with 1152 by 864 except some rare vieesonic ones i guess.
so a 60 hz 1152 by 864 jerks and its such a horrible!!
1024 by 768 looks better as 75hz refresh rate.
The gun model looks likes it was made by a 12 year old.It hasent even been turbo smoothed...shceeee..:no:x86 said:
Chaos said:^^The samsungs will even do 1920x1080.
Try disabling "Hide modes my monitor can't display", set to 1920x1080@60Hz and check yourself . Even CCC detects that as the highest resolution supported by the monitor .hunt3r said:Nah they go only to 1280X1024. They do 1024X768 @ 85 Hz and 1158X864 @ 75 Hz. Only the Viewsonic G76 or Acer Af715 can do 1600X1200.