1
EDIT: My earlier question was too subjective, so I've rephrased it entirely to broaden out its perspective.
In my opinion, PC games are always targeted to run best on the latest-gen graphic cards, unlike consoles games, which are built to run on the same hardware years after the hardware has been released.
Would choosing a 1920x1080 monitor over a 1600x900 monitor kill my chances of a better frame rate in games a couple of years down the line? Should I decide in favour of the lower-res option for the safety of gaming on the long run?
SNag
Posted 2013-05-17T16:41:09.340
Reputation: 773
Please atleast explain why if you're going to downvote this question! – SNag – 2013-05-17T16:48:19.750
2You realize you can render the game at a lower resolution, right? – SaintWacko – 2013-05-17T16:49:01.143
This question will probably be closed since it's rather subjective, but I would go with option 2. While every graphics card will get higher fps on lower resolutions, my 560Ti is running 1080p on every game without any noticeable issues. I run with the graphics mostly maxed and don't have any problems. I would bet that your 660Ti will keep ahead of software for most of its useable life. – None – 2013-05-17T16:49:38.603
@SaintWacko: Yes I do, but it is common knowledge that non-native resolutions actually makes the game look poorer. I wouldn't want that. – SNag – 2013-05-17T16:51:50.660
This has less to do with monitor resolution, and more with graphics card lifespan due to resolution rendering. – fbueckert – 2013-05-17T17:01:20.417
@fbueckert: Assuming equal usage of the same graphic card on two identical setups, except for the monitor (one higher-res, the other lower-res), which setup would continue to offer better outputs over time? I'm inclined to believe it is the latter, but I'm still confused; which is why this question. – SNag – 2013-05-17T17:06:42.140
That has barely anything to do with monitors; your graphics card doesn't care which monitor is hooked up to it. All it cares about is the resolution it has to output at. 1600900 = 1.44 million pixels. 19801080 = 2.14 million pixels. The lower resolution will last longer because there's less computation required to render the same picture. – fbueckert – 2013-05-17T17:12:31.287
Assuming you're rendering the same resolution on monitors with different resolution; There is no noticeable difference in performance. For modern hardware, upscaling graphics is trivial and might only cost you 1 FPS (out of maybe 100-200). This - of course - depends on how far you are going to upscale; unless you decide to let the monitor handle the upscaling, in which case the GPU has nothing to do, except render the frames. – Nolonar – 2013-05-17T17:13:43.120
1If anything, this is a question for Super User. – Origami Robot – 2013-05-17T17:15:26.067
1@OrigamiRobot: Thanks! Can I have it migrated? – SNag – 2013-05-17T17:24:44.637