3 ms·
I don't understand the logic behind this complaint. What is so different about playing a game rendered at 900p on a 900p display and the same game rendered at 9
by sjwright 6y ago
I don't understand the logic behind this complaint. What is so different about playing a game rendered at 900p on a 900p display and the same game rendered at 900p on a 1600p display?
- Toutouxc 6y agoExcept a minor loss of sharpness, no difference. I was pointing out the fact that expecting native-resolution gaming from a machine, whose display is totally overkill for its size (for gaming, that is), may not be the smart thing to do. And it was even more absurd in 2012 when people built gaming rigs with 1080p screens and suddenly there was an ultraportable with a 2560x1600 screen (that was so-so usable for 720p or 900p light gaming).
- neogodless 6y agoImagine you have 16 bright circle lights in a straight line, but you want to fill the full string of lights edge to edge with 9 perfectly uniform and spaced circles the same size as the lights? You can't. You can turn the lights on in a very non-uniform manner. Extrapolating that to all the pixels on a screen, and you can't get quite the image fidelity because some pixels need to be partially activated for ideal images. Best case scenario you do exactly half (one fourth the total pixels) for images that align with your pixels, but at dramatically decreased image quality.
- sjwright 6y agoWhat has any of that got to do with gaming in any practical sense? With the barest minimum of smooth scaling, fidelity wouldn’t be any worse on the monitor with higher pixel pitch. Now you might have a point if talking about pixel art games, but none of those will tax the GPU to any extreme level—in which case you could render at a native 1600p or a perfect pixel doubled 800p.