Is Gaming At Less Than 720p Really That Bad?

[xCloneECKO]

I guess that pixel density also matters. Look at some smartphones screens, the iPhone 4 ran a weird, not so good resolution, but it looked quite good thanks to the size of the screen, and the ppi (pixels per inch)

If you're running 720p or less, I would get a small monitor, so pixels don't get so stretched, you get a better ppi/dpi

Take a look at this site, it calculates that based on your resolution and screen size: http://isthisretina.com/

I still believe that 1440p/4K is better, but if you have a 1080p monitor, and you just take more distance between you and the screen, you will notice less pixels, and still have a nice experience.

For more budget oriented people, buying a smaller monitor would probably be more beneficial then. Pixel density is another point I didn't bring up, its probably one of the reasons I find 480p on my phone acceptable.

[RichieXtheXboss]

It's not that its bad, just gaming at 1080  + is soooo much better.

and is pretty cheap 

you can get a 1080p monitor for 80usd nowadays 

[Doughnutnator]

For more budget oriented people, buying a smaller monitor would probably be more beneficial then. Pixel density is another point I didn't bring up, its probably one of the reasons I find 480p on my phone acceptable.

Exactly, when I got my PC I looked for the smallest 1080p monitor. I guess that it's the same for sub-1080/720 screens, they're dirt cheap, easy to find and almost in every size.

Just imagine a 21.5-22" 1440p/4K monitor, the pixel density would be insane.

[YT2002]

Honestly, if someone doesn't mind playing at under 1080p, and don't have the budget, they can go ahead. What us gamers (and especially the PC enthusiasts) need to know is that graphics doesn't make a game 10x better. This is why Nintendo had success with the Wii and DS, sure the graphics were nothing mind blowing, but the games were fun on them (besides the shovelware). However, i believe that you need a playable frame rate to actually enjoy and play the game. Personally I think for modern games it detracts from the experience.

[Misanthrope]

I had to go back to single screen 720p for  the work laptop (well that stupid 763p resolution but close enough) and I tell you, took me a while to adjust. But otherwise yes I've been gaming on PCs for a while and I remember that back in the day, getting on a 1024*768 19 inch CTR monitor after years of 15 inch 800*600 felt so good, like I could actually see quite a bit more of the battle areas and map in Baldur's Gate II no more constant screen scrolling to try and target enemies and such.

 

I imagine in a few years when I upgrade to 2k or 4k it will feel the same. 

[Doughnutnator]

I had to go back to single screen 720p for  the work laptop (well that stupid 763p resolution but close enough) and I tell you, took me a while to adjust. But otherwise yes I've been gaming on PCs for a while and I remember that back in the day, getting on a 1024*768 19 inch CTR monitor after years of 15 inch 800*600 felt so good, like I could actually see quite a bit more of the battle areas and map in Baldur's Gate II no more constant screen scrolling to try and target enemies and such.

 

I imagine in a few years when I upgrade to 2k or 4k it will feel the same. 

You'll never get 2K/4K because we don't get nice things in our country. #CuántosMásPeñaNieto

[EChondo]

Just play at your native resolution. Lowering your resolution below your native is what makes it look like ass.

 

1280x720 on a 1920x1080 display looks horrible, but 1280x720 on a 1280x720 screen looks fine.

[LokiFire]

I used to have a 1050p screen with a 7770, no one ever caught me at 480p because i never said haha, was able to crank eye candy nice and sit far away from the screen with a controller and enjoy UBER tier FPS .

 

No longer a problem with the 580 OFC.

[YT2002]

SNIP

Actually, that PC that you said was for the casual gamer would be fine at 1080p from medium to high settings

[sobe]

Reddit PCMR, cancer of the internet. Biggest douches over there.

 

I'd just like to point out that the majority of us over @ PCMR are tolerant of any and all, including consolers. The dipshits that belittle others because of what platform they prefer or how good their pc is, we do not condone their statements. You can't avoid douchebags though, no matter where you go.

[jjohnthedon1]

Below......

and gaming at 1080p + 144hz + 1ms = erection

Gonna keep a roll of bounty if i get a 144hz with G/Freesync.

Xb270hu with sli 980ti's = jizz everywhere

[kgorringe]

CSGO isnt one of those games where 60FPS really  cuts it, youre gonna want to be getting 200 or more for the game to feel smooth and enjoyable.

Anything over 60fps doesnt even matter unless you have anything higher than a 60 Hertz monitor.

 

200 FPS is useless because high end gaming monitors only do 144 hertz.

 

Infact having a FPS higher than your monitor can support is actually bad for your game, thats why vsync, and gsync is a thing, it limits your game to 60fps, 120fps or 144fps depending on your monitor.

[Swndlr]

Anything over 60fps doesnt even matter unless you have anything higher than a 60 Hertz monitor.

 

200 FPS is useless because high end gaming monitors only do 144 hertz.

 

Infact having a FPS higher than your monitor can support is actually bad for your game, thats why vsync, and gsync is a thing, it limits your game to 60fps, 120fps or 144fps depending on your monitor.

I take it youve never played CSGO before...

There is a noticeable difference in smoothness/choppy-ness when playing at 60 and 300 frames per second regardless of the refresh rate of your monitor.

[eLucid]

Bad? No

 

Are you missing out on the full experience though? You bet your ass you are.

 

Honestly, it's 2016 so there's really no excuse to not have a 1080p monitor by now.

[kgorringe]

I take it youve never played CSGO before...

There is a noticeable difference in smoothness/choppy-ness when playing at 60 and 300 frames per second regardless of the refresh rate of your monitor.

I have 300 hours in CSGO and I can confirm, there will be and never will be a difference from 70 fps and 300 fps on a 60 Hertz monitor. Because with a 60 hertz monitor guess what framerate you're actually seeing, 60!

[SkilledRebuilds]

RMA = Using Onboard sometimes... Wasn't that bad. Not ideal, but thats a given.

It was either 1024x768 or the Resolution below that... I know that much.... (I can't remember 100% exactly which it was and it wasnt shown in video)

 

Played like this for 5 weeks, almost everyday until RMA came good.

Can deal with it.

[Swndlr]

I have 300 hours in CSGO and I can confirm, there will be and never will be a difference from 70 fps and 300 fps on a 60 Hertz monitor. Because with a 60 hertz monitor guess what framerate you're actually seeing, 60!

Speak for yourself.

[ivhyn]

Anything over 60fps doesnt even matter unless you have anything higher than a 60 Hertz monitor.

 

200 FPS is useless because high end gaming monitors only do 144 hertz.

 

Infact having a FPS higher than your monitor can support is actually bad for your game, thats why vsync, and gsync is a thing, it limits your game to 60fps, 120fps or 144fps depending on your monitor.

Pretty much what i have just observed in CS:GO.

I have a 144Hz Asus monitor, a 980 and a Rival 300 (400DPI, 1000Hz, 2.3 in-game sens), so I jumped into a CS:GO custom game and played around with the FPS settings (Rivatuner has a 200FPS cap btw) - i set the fps to 144 as a starting point and then worked my way up to 288 and 576, back down and from 144 to 576... I couldn't feel a difference in shooting, aiming or moving.

Pretty much what's happening is, that your monitor shows only one refresh while there have been 1 or 3 new pictures inbetween that were not shown, therefore giving you no feedback of what's happening in game. It may have a luck advantage in game when you spray down an oponent and a shot hits when there's no monitor-refresh, but I don't know if that's the case often.

If I can't reproduce this phenomenon with a setup that's pretty much perfect for a game, I don't know what can.

Maybe it's just me and I need two setups to compare, or a larger pool of test suspects...