Is 800x600 that much better than 640x480?
GAASH SOFFER
800x600 isnt much of a difference in most games.
Sir Gwynz wrote:
>
> Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
> on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
> better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
> board anyway? Thanks for any info!
>
> sirg...@bellatlantic.net
Jeff Atwood
Come on.. no difference?
The difference between 640x480 and 800x600 is noticeable. However, I'd
rather have more cool effects and more complex 3D models at 640x480 than a
simpler game at 800x600.
Jeff
shadow wrote in message <348d47a9...@news.mci.net>...
>On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 02:06:14 GMT, sirg...@bellatlantic.net (Sir
>Gwynz) wrote:
>
>>Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
>>on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
>>better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
>>board anyway? Thanks for any info!
>
>there is no difference between 800x600 and 640x480.
FingerSnap
actually, 640x480 looks better to me than 800x600 unless
you have a huge 19" + monitor. on a 15", objects and
graphics details are too small. 800x600 is not a very
attractive game rez for gamers with smaller monitors.
as far as crispyness and clarity of the images go, there
is virtually no difference that the average human eye can
detect between the 2 resolutions.
Sir Gwynz wrote in message <348b53bc...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
>Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
>on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
>better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
>board anyway? Thanks for any info!
>
Sir Gwynz
shadow
>Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
>on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
>better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
>board anyway? Thanks for any info!
there is no difference between 800x600 and 640x480.
Dave Fraatz
All other things being equal, from my point of view, you can never have too
many pixels. I think 1280x1024 is much better than 1024x768. 800x600
would be unthinkable, and 640x480 would be cruel.
Of course, if you have to trade off pixels to get performance or 3D effects
that's another matter.
Don M. Bizub
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 640 X 480 AND 800 X 600 !
--
Don Biz
don...@ix.netcom.com
shadow wrote in message <348d47a9...@news.mci.net>...
Tan Kah Thye
Sir Gwynz wrote:
> Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
> on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
> better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
> board anyway? Thanks for any info!
There's a big difference between 640x480 and 800x600 mode.
Especially when you are playing a flight simulation game, you'll get a
bigger view of the world.
--
Please remove '***' from my email address when replying.
Regards
Ken Tan Kah Thye
kent...@mbox4.singnet.com.sg
Steve
Being productive, I couldn't use anything less than 1024x768 res
(although I prefer 1280x1024 or even 1600x1200 if the refresh is
acceptable), but for games, there's not a huge discernable difference
especially for 3D games. Right now, due to current state of processors
and 3d accelerators, there's not too many polygons on the screen at any
one time (compared to say Virtua Fighter 3), so there are sharp corners on
objects and higher resolutions only make that more apparent.
In article <01bd038f$9f845b20$dc3c5ea0@Dave>,
--
--- <A HREF="http://weber.u.washington.edu/~link"> Optik Nirvana </A> ---
I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
-Ashleigh Brilliant
--- NewSIG 2.01 209/266 ---
Eduardo Carvalho
There is a false premise here.
3dfx is NOT limited to 640x480 in all games, only in games that use
z-buffer (such as Quake).
Examples of 3dfx'ed games that run in 800x600: Tomb Raider 2 (when you
disable the z-buffer), Grand Theft Auto demo, Joint Strike Fighter, and
I believe F/A Hornet Korea.
As to whether there is or not a difference: just check it yourself. On a
P166MMX (same configuration I've got) you can run Duke3D or Shadow
Warrior on 800x600. See if it makes that much of a difference for you
(doesn't for me, only in Windows).
And yes, I think you would be amazed at what your P166 MMX can do with a
3dfx card.
-- Eduardo
Sir Gwynz wrote:
> Since the 3dfx seem to be limited to 640x480, would I be missing out
> on much from the other standards that support 800x600?? Or am I
> better off with the lower rez since I'll be running it off a P166MMX
> board anyway? Thanks for any info!
>
Teddy Lam
I think it depends on what games you are playing.
For GLQuake, 640x480 is almost the same as 800x600.
But for Tombraider II, 800x600 is obviously much better than 640x480.
Qaz B Morphin <66h0fa$kng$1...@akron5.neo.lrun.com>...
>I guess the correct answer is it depends on what you do. Many times I drop
>down to 512x384 and gain more performance when possible. In faster paced
>games the slight detail gained by higher rez's isn't noticeable when your
>actually playing the game.
>
>But with that said I'm for higher rez's and higher frames. If you could
give
>me 1024x768 at 40+ frames I'm more than happy to use it!!!
>
>Q.B.M.
>
>
ttammi
Tan Kah Thye <***kent...@mbox4.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>There's a big difference between 640x480 and 800x600 mode.
>Especially when you are playing a flight simulation game,
>you'll get a bigger view of the world.
That is not the case with 3D games. The _size_ of the graphics remains
the same in 3D games, no matter which resolution you use. Even though
Mr DB objects me saying this, in 3D games I don't find 800x600 graphics
usually be that different from 640x480. I've tried it with e.g.
Mechwarrior 2 3Dfx, Interstate'76 D3D, Terracide D3D and G-Police.
Even though these games/demos ran fine in 800x600, I always chose to
run them at 640x480 for that little extra speed. The only difference
I usually could tell when I looked closely was that the edge jaggies
were little less obvious in 800x600.
Of course 800x600 is _preferable_ if it doesn't slow down the game
at all, but I don't think that is the case with any 3D card out yet.
I prefer having more complex polygon models, better looking textures
etc., than just higher resolution. Sega coin ops run at 496x384 or
somesuch, and I don't think you'll find any 3D-accelerated 800x600 or
1024x768 PC game that looks as good as them.
Sean Johnson
That depends upon the size of your screen. If you have a 15" monitor,
800x600 will look pretty good, and at higher resolutions icons and text will
be too tiny for comfort. Likewise, on a 17" monitor 1024x768 is a good
resolution, but 1600x1200 makes things far too tiny and 800x600 looks like
crap.
Sean
http://members.iclub.org/snmjohnson
.
Dave Fraatz wrote in message <01bd038f$9f845b20$dc3c5ea0@Dave>...
Jordan Samuels
ttammi <tta...@netlife.fi> writes:
Uh, what about GLQuake or QuakeII? With a good voodoo card, those
games kick the pants off of Sega coin ops, IMHO.
Jordan
--
Jordan Samuels (312) 554-5749
Software Consultant samu...@il.us.swissbank.com
Swiss Bank Corporation Warburg Dillon Read
"Statements herein may not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer"
ttammi
Jordan Samuels <samu...@il.us.swissbank.com> wrote:
>>Sega coin ops run at 496x384 or
>>somesuch, and I don't think you'll find any 3D-accelerated 800x600 or
>>1024x768 PC game that looks as good as them.
>Uh, what about GLQuake or QuakeII? With a good voodoo card, those
>games kick the pants off of Sega coin ops, IMHO.
IMHO not even near. Just look at those boxy "faces" in glQuake, and
those very lores textures on Quake 2. Just goes to show that Sega Model
2 and 3 coin ops have much more texture RAM and can also process much
more polygons per second, making much more realistic looking
environments. Oh, and those Sega coin ops run at constant 60 fps too.
Jon
ttammi <tta...@netlife.fi> wrote:
>IMHO not even near. Just look at those boxy "faces" in glQuake, and
>those very lores textures on Quake 2. Just goes to show that Sega Model
>2 and 3 coin ops have much more texture RAM and can also process much
>more polygons per second, making much more realistic looking
>environments. Oh, and those Sega coin ops run at constant 60 fps too.
Do they use a specialized display? Or do they run using NTSC? If the
latter, then it's "really" 30fps, or better said, 60 fields per
second.