Resolution Scale?

[BiscuitMassacre]

I might just make a fool out of myself because I can't do basic math, but what the actual heck?

 

Ok. So if play my game at 1080P and the set the Resolution Scale to 200%, would that be (1920x1080)x2 to equal 4 million pixels? Or would that be 2x1080+2x1920 [which equals to 2160x3840] to equal 8 million pixels. 

 

I set my monitor's resolution to 1440x2560 and then the Resolution scale to 200% on the LOWEST settings in StarWars Battlefront 2015 and I was only able to get 20-25FPS. Now that could be ~7.3 million pixels or ~14.6 million depending on how your multiply. And it seems just a little low for ~7.3Million considering that I've seen 4k at ULTRA getting the same Frame rate, and 4k is .7 Million more pixels than that!

 

So in short is Resolution Scale calculated like this?: [S=resolution Scale, H=Horizontal Pixels, V= Vertical pixels]

 

S(HxV)

 

or this?:

 

S(H) + S(V)

 

Thanks!

[Electronics Wizardy]

If you run 1920x1080 at 200% it is 3820x2160.

 

 

[BingoFishy]

3 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

I might just make a fool out of myself because I can't do basic math, but what the actual heck?

 

Ok. So if play my game at 1080P and the set the Resolution Scale to 200%, would that be (1920x1080)x2 to equal 4 million pixels? Or would that be 2x1080+2x1920 [which equals to 2160x3840] to equal 8 million pixels. 

 

I set my monitor's resolution to 1440x2560 and then the Resolution scale to 200% on the LOWEST settings in StarWars Battlefront 2015 and I was only able to get 20-25FPS. Now that could be ~7.3 million pixels or ~14.6 million depending on how your multiply. And it seems just a little low for ~7.3Million considering that I've seen 4k at ULTRA getting the same Frame rate, and 4k is .7 Million more pixels than that!

 

So in short is Resolution Scale calculated like this?: [S=resolution Scale, H=Horizontal Pixels, V= Vertical pixels]

 

S(HxV)

 

or this?:

 

S(H) + S(V)

 

Thanks!

I believe it simply is 4.4 million pixels. If it multiplied both dimensions by 2, it would be 400%.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 requires a 4x scale because each dimension is multiplied twice.

[NeoFrux]

When using resolution scaling, the percentage is applied to both width and height, not the total number of pixels, so at 2560x1440 @ 200%, you're looking at 5120x2880, or 5K.

[Aendy]

1920x1080 scaled to 200% = 3840x2160 and also the other way around when using a UHD monitor and use 200% it will look as big as FHD.

 

So the answer is:  S(H) + S(V)

[BiscuitMassacre]

13 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 requires a 4x scale because each dimension is multiplied twice.

 

16 minutes ago, BingoFishy said:

I believe it simply is 4.4 million pixels. If it multiplied both dimensions by 2, it would be 400%.

 

16 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

If you run 1920x1080 at 200% it is 3820x2160.

 

 

Don't know if anyone is good with math or just has the time to do it. I think there is an arch, and doesn't even work like this, But here are some numbers. All base resolutions are 1080 at Ultra

 

25% Scale: 140-145

50% Scale: 135-140

75% Scale: 115-120

100% Scale: 90

125% Scale: 66

150% Scale: 51

175% Scale: 41

200% Scale: 33

 

EDIT: 

 

So if (1080x1920) x 2 is 33 FPS and (1440x2560) x2 is 23FPS, that would be a ~4 million pixel difference for only 10FPS!

 

then again, 2x1080 + 2x1920 vs 2x1440 + 2560x2 is a ~6 million pixel difference for only 10 FPS!

[pyrojoe34]

10 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

 

 

Don't know if anyone is good with math or just has the time to do it. I think there is an arch, and doesn't even work like this, But here are some numbers. All base resolutions are 1080 at Ultra

 

25% Scale: 140-145

50% Scale: 135-140

75% Scale: 115-120

100% Scale: 90

125% Scale: 66

150% Scale: 51

175% Scale: 41

200% Scale: 33

Frame rate is not going to scale linearly with resolution. There is much more that contributes to framerate than just resolution. Having said that those frame rates you posted make sense. Everyone here that is saying 1920x1080 at 200% is rendering 3840x2160 is correct. 2560x1440 at 200% is 5120x2880, 1920x1080 at 50% is 960x540, and so on. You multiply both the height an width by the scaling factor. Some games are weird though and use a naming different system. They might have a slider from 0-100 where 50 is the default (1 to 1 ratio, or 100%) and 100 is 2x supersampling (200%). It still works the same way though you multiply both the height and the width.

[BiscuitMassacre]

3 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Frame rate is not going to scale linearly with resolution. There is much more that contributes to framerate than just resolution. Having said that those frame rates you posted make sense. Everyone here that is saying 1920x1080 at 200% is rendering 3840x2160 is correct. 2560x1440 at 200% is 5120x2880, 1920x1080 at 50% is 960x540, and so on. You multiply both the height an width by the scaling factor. Some games are weird though and use a naming different system. They might have a slider from 0-100 where 50 is the default (1 to 1 ratio, or 100%) and 100 is 2x supersampling (200%). It still works the same way though you multiply both the height and the width.

correct me if I am wrong, but would this make sense?

 

If I want to test if I can run 1080x5760 (tri 1080p setup). I should set it to 1080p x 1.73? 

 

1080x5760 = 6.2 million

(1.73x1080)x (1.73x1920) = 6.2 million.

[pyrojoe34]

3 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

correct me if I am wrong, but would this make sense?

 

If I want to test if I can run 1080x5760 (tri 1080p setup). I should set it to 1080p x 1.73? 

 

1080x5760 = 6.2 million

(1.73x1080)x (1.73x1920) = 6.2 million.

For a straight up pixel count sure. But it still may not be accurate since you're rendering different things in an 3x setup. Scaling 1920x1080 is still 16:9 means (in an FPS for example) your may be rendering more sky and ground (which is easier to render) than things on the edges like you would in a 3x setup. If you increase horizontal FOV for the 3x setup that will also play a role on fps. You may be able to get an idea depending on how the game handles 3x, but it will not be the most accurate representation since different parts of the scene may be rendered differently between the two configs. Does that make sense?

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, pyrojoe34 said:

For a straight up pixel count sure. But it still may not be accurate since you're rendering different things in an 3x setup. Scaling 1920x1080 is still 16:9 means (in an FPS for example) your may be rendering more sky and ground (which is easier to render) than things on the edges like you would in a 3x setup. If you increase horizontal FOV for the 3x setup that will also play a role on fps. You may be able to get an idea depending on how the game handles 3x, but it will not be the most accurate representation since different parts of the scene may be rendered differently between the two configs. Does that make sense?

Yeah, thanks!

 

I just did another test, and I am SOO confused.

 

1080p at 67% Resolution scale is 120FPS.

720p at 100% is 89 FPS.

 

WHAT?
 

(1080x1920)x.67 is 1.4 Million

(2x1080)x(2x1920) is .9 million

(720x1280)x1.00 is .9 million

(1x720)x(1x(1280) is .9 million. 

 

wow.

[pyrojoe34]

1 minute ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

Yeah, thanks!

 

I just did another test, and I am SOO confused.

 

1080p at 67% Resolution scale is 120FPS.

720p at 100% is 89 FPS.

 

WHAT?
 

(1080x1920)x.67 is 1.4 Million

(2x1080)x(2x1920) is .9 million

(720x1280)x1.00 is .9 million

(1x720)x(1x(1280) is .9 million. 

 

wow.

You're over thinking it. There's more at play than just pixel count.

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, pyrojoe34 said:

You're over thinking it. There's more at play than just pixel count.

Then what is? is the same friggin pixel count.

[pyrojoe34]

Just now, BiscuitMassacre said:

Then what is? is the same friggin pixel count.

Interpolation 

[BiscuitMassacre]

14 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Interpolation 

Dang it, my post got deleted somehow. 

 

Anyways, I have figured something out. I typed up a command and now it shows the resolution. 

 

1920x1080 at 67% resolution scale says ~1280x720

720x1280 at 100% resolution scale says ~1280x720

 

PS: also 1080x1920 at 200% is 4k

[Glenwing]

200% scale means all dimensions are multiplied by 200%, not the area. 1920×1080 at 200% scale would be 3840×2160.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I checked my NVIDIA control panel's DSR factors on my 2560x1440 monitor. I'm just going to keep it simple:

• 1.5x: 3135x1764
• 2.0x: 3620x2036
• 3.0x: 4434x2494
• 4.0x: 5120x2880

So if you want to double the resolution both ways, you need 4x scaling.