Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

High Res or High Quality? What do you do??...

A

AndreUK

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 26, 2008
29
1
I much prefer to play games in native Mac OS X (have resisted the temptation to go Bootcamp for several reasons), and my trusty old Macbook Pro still manages to push the pixels. It's a 2008 MBP 17" 2.6 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4Gb RAM, 512 MB GeForce 8600M GT with high res 1920x1200 display, which at the time was flying but now feels like a bit of an old timer in the ring, ie can still punch it's weight but tires easily!!

I have played Half-life 2, Portal, Portal 2, WoW and a few others at 1920 x 1200 at reduced / medium "quality" settings. Recently I started playing Bioshock (as I am an old System Shock 2 veteran). What I've found myself doing is running the game at 1280 x 800 but with all the graphic lovelies set to max / high quality and I must confess I am pretty pleased. I know the text looks a bit blurry, but it is silky smooth and I must admit having all the texture and graphic lovelies turned to max gives it an almost film-like quality.

So I was wondering, what to folks do?…..
- Max Res for the crisp / razor sharp text and blocks but compromise with f-ugly textures and lighting etc or
- Low Res (text and blocks a bit soft) but all the other lovelies turned up to max for a more "realistic" and film-like look?
 
When I do play games I turn everything up, because I can. Then again, I only play games on a desktop, so…
 
Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I've just started Deus Ex, I'll try your strategy of low pixels/high quality. Thanks!
 
Mackilroy said:
When I do play games I turn everything up, because I can. Then again, I only play games on a desktop, so…
Click to expand...

Great answer.


OP, I usually go for high resolution and lower detail since I like having my game interfaces at native resolution. I also feel that you get a better FOV in most games. Try both out and see what you think.
 
I pick a higher resolution and lower graphics on newer games that my iMac can't handle that well. I don't really care what they look like to be honest, blurriness just gets on my nerves.
 
I much prefer maxing out graphic detail as much as possible and lowering the resolution to compensate... but it usually looks best to find a good middle ground... reasonable good graphics details, with reasonably good resolutions usually looks much better than low res with high details, or high res with low details.
 
I never play a game below native resolution simply because it annoys me how it's blurry, so I compensate by lowering the other details if I have to. I haven't had any major problems yet though, just occasionally having to put a couple of settings on medium rather than high for a decent fps.
 
some people must have extremely good eyes... I have a 1920x1200 screen, and even playing games at 1280x800 its not blurry to me at all, but the graphics still look so much better overall with all the details and special effects.
 
If I can do native res with at least medium quality, I'll settle with that. At times I'll even go with low, depends on how bad low quality is. I find that it's easier to push pixels (i.e. go native res) than it is to make the pixels higher quality (shadows, texture packs etc.).

If you're having trouble getting a good setting, often going one notch below native res then bumping the quality up is a good policy. Depends on the DPI of your screen.
 
Thanks for the replies. I think this is a nice strategy that I may employ in the future....

laserbeam273 said:
If you're having trouble getting a good setting, often going one notch below native res then bumping the quality up is a good policy. Depends on the DPI of your screen.
Click to expand...

I must admit that though, that up until now, I have nearly always played native res (ie 1920 x 1200) and just automatically dropped the quality settings. I think Starcraft 2 was the first game were I had to drop both. I don't know why, but when I just started playing Bioshock I dropped the res to 1280 x 800 and went for quality instead. I think for me it's probably game dependant. The slightly fuzziness doesn't bother me in Bioshock and I like the way the game feels dreamlike and film-like, where I know the slight fuzziness would annoy me in other games (anything with a tiny cross hair etc!!).

I do often plug my MBP into a 24" Apple cinema display (also 1920 x 1200) and it still kinda amazes me that a 4 year old laptop can drive this thing!! Although, I may treat myself to a new MBP though when the next upgrade round happens.
 
Depends on the game. Fast/action games= higher resolution. Slower paced games= higher quality graphics.

But I always aim for 60fps. I tone down quality or resolution until I get that speed.


I actually find lower res+AA to look brilliant at times, better than native res and no AA. Gives it a nice soft, cinematic look.
 
So basically youre asking

high resolution - low setting graphics

V

Low resolution - high settings graphics



Well thank goodness most games come with a 'medium' option these days. ;) :)
 
T'hain Esh Kelch said:
Same here. I'd like to see what is happening in the distance, and see what the designers had in mind when they made the game. I can always imagine better textures.. 8)
Click to expand...

Most games are made for 1080p, anything above that is technically moot according to designers ;).

I can run almost all my games at native res on my 27" iMac at 60fps. But the problem with 2560x1440 is how awful all textures look in all games. It actually looks nicer (to me at least) to run games with FXAA at 1920x1080. That way you don't have blurry textures and sharp background objects (a big visual no-no).
FXAA or 8x regular AA.
 
I try to strike a balance between both. However if push comes to shove then I'll go for native res over highest quality gfx.

It does make me wish that these video cards supported 1:1 pixel scaling (or whatever the technical term is called). If you run a game in a lower than native res it will keep the gfx nice and crisp because it doesn't "blow up" or expand the lower res to the higher native res of your display (you get the black bars around the image).
 
Gooter said:
I try to strike a balance between both. However if push comes to shove then I'll go for native res over highest quality gfx.

It does make me wish that these video cards supported 1:1 pixel scaling (or whatever the technical term is called). If you run a game in a lower than native res it will keep the gfx nice and crisp because it doesn't "blow up" or expand the lower res to the higher native res of your display (you get the black bars around the image).
Click to expand...

You can in Windows, there should be options for your graphics card to switch to scaling or full screen. There's an option on my Catalyst Control Centre.
Word of warning - it looks silly in 1:1!
 
Dagless said:
You can in Windows, there should be options for your graphics card to switch to scaling or full screen. There's an option on my Catalyst Control Centre.
Word of warning - it looks silly in 1:1!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check it out. Catalyst is ATI right? I have Nvidia but maybe there is something similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back