Does High Resolution Gaming Impact Player Performance?

[-JimmyJames-]

I play Overwatch on PC  at 1440P resolution, recently i was looking at the settings used by professional Overwatch players and noticed almost all use resolutions of 1080P or lower. Why? is there an advantage of running lower resolutions? I see a lot of comments saying it gives you higher frame rate however this inst always true. for example in my case i have a CPU bottleneck   causing my PC to run at around 125-140 FPS on a 165hz Monitor regardless of resolution ( ive tried them all). I've also seen comments saying the lower resolutions aid in aiming as less pixels are used on an opponents characters head for example. 

this being said, are they telling me that if i would bite the bullet and disregard sharpness by turning my resolution down to say 1366x768 i would become a super saiyan MLG god? Can you help the gaming community out and let us know if this is just personal preferance or is there something to these lower resolution trends i see.

this link outlines professional player settings used in Overwatch.
http://on-winning.com/overwatch-pro-sensitivity-settings-setups-monitor-mouse-keyboard-headset/

[WashMachine]

They might use high refresh rate screen on 1080p you get more FPS which is useful if your display is 120hz or 240hz 

[Drak3]

Lower resolutions are less taxing to output. Instead of the GPU using resources to drive about 2x the pixels of 1440p, it can use those resources to push more frames at 1080p.

 

But you won't become better from playing at a lower resolution, especially at the framerate you're already at, assuming good minimum FPS.

 

However, if you're stuck at a specfic framerate regardless of 1080p, 1440p, etc. You've likely got a bottleneck somewhere in the system, or Overhype might automatically adjust settings (higher AA at lower resolution, or Ultra at 1080p and only high on 1440p) if that is an option.

[Shocktruppen]

They use 1080 because it produces a constant  consistant fps, and a higher minimum fps rate.

[KenjiUmino]

15 minutes ago, -JimmyJames- said:

I play Overwatch on PC  at 1440P resolution, recently i was looking at the settings used by professional Overwatch players and noticed almost all use resolutions of 1080P or lower. Why? is there an advantage of running lower resolutions?

if FPS are equal i'd say there is no 'advantage' to not running your monitor at native resolution. 

 

17 minutes ago, -JimmyJames- said:

this being said, are they telling me that if i would bite the bullet and disregard sharpness by turning my resolution down to say 1366x768 i would become a super saiyan MLG god?

people who say this are the same people who tell you to play CS:GO at 800x600 with minimum settings or below because it magically improves your aim. 

 

a load of BS in my opinion. and i suspect the main reason they do this is for the "look at me i am so pro" factor.

if you go to a lan party and look at the setups and the monitors, if there is a crazy expensive tower on the table but the game looks like ass on the monitor, the owner is likely one of these wannabes with too much money. 

 

this same stupid argument can be had when it comes to mouse sensitivity settings. high sensitivity VS low sensitivity VS "you need a mousepad the size of a hockey field and turn your mouse sensitivity all the way down for extra precision" 

 

my advice is: don't care about what others do. you run the settings that you are most comfortable with. period.

 

try out different graphics and mouse settings and keep the ones that work best for YOU 

[LogicalDrm]

Bigger pixels. Easier headshots.

[SageOfSpice]

9 hours ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

Bigger pixels. Easier headshots.

I don't think it'd work like that. Larger pixels would be more inaccurate, so even if it looks like you're shooting somebody in the head, you could very well be missing depending on the latency. With that said, larger pixels could improve response time by portraying a larger relative change on the screen. So take for example a head bobbing just slightly past a corner. At a higher resolution, it may only be a single pixel. At a lower resolution, it could appear to be 4x the size that it actually is, which is something that you're more likely to catch in your peripheral.

 

I usually find that details make a larger difference. The more you can do to help yourself ignore the environment and make character models stand out, the better.

[ivan134]

Your answer is there in your post. If you play tanks or supports that aren't Ana, then you don't care about keeping you frames consistently above 144. If you play tracer, soldier 76, Widowmaker, Ana, Sombra and genji to a certain extent, you don't want your framerate all over place because it fucks with your aim. Overwatch was the reason I switched my i5 6600 to an i7 6700 because it was fps dips were fucking me in all kinds of situations and I mostly play the characters I mentioned.

 

The hitbox reasons come down min maxing your gameplay which is what competitive players will always do. Consistent framerate and proper mouse sensitivity will go a longer way to improving your performance than worrying about pixel skipping.

[LogicalDrm]

On 10/1/2017 at 6:57 AM, SageOfSpice said:

I don't think it'd work like that. Larger pixels would be more inaccurate, so even if it looks like you're shooting somebody in the head, you could very well be missing depending on the latency.

Latency will remain same, no matter what resolution is used, so that part is irrelevant. And its not about hitboxes either. They also remain even when output resolution varies. Its more about making them seem bigger so they are easier to target. As you also pointed out:

On 10/1/2017 at 6:57 AM, SageOfSpice said:

With that said, larger pixels could improve response time by portraying a larger relative change on the screen. So take for example a head bobbing just slightly past a corner. At a higher resolution, it may only be a single pixel. At a lower resolution, it could appear to be 4x the size that it actually is, which is something that you're more likely to catch in your peripheral.

 

[XDXD_4U3IF1P]

Interesting thread,

I think there is something going on re the range your shooting and of course the game your playing, I played alot of Arma 3 and currently play alot of Squad and Escape from Tarkov - 1440p is certainly better than 1080p in those games, everything is clearer to spot in higher resolution.

More flinch based, shorter ranged games like CS:GO and Overwatch can be run at much higher frames the above is not so true.

 

[kilgore_T]

pro is pro at any rez

[KenjiUmino]

On 30.9.2017 at 8:44 PM, LoGiCalDrm said:

Bigger pixels. Easier headshots.

you know that games stopped doing calculations based on pixels somewhen in the late 90's ?

the game does not care wich pixel you placed your shot on.

[LogicalDrm]

3 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

you know that games stopped doing calculations based on pixels somewhen in the late 90's ?

the game does not care wich pixel you placed your shot on.

Tell that to wannabe pro players

[KenjiUmino]

Just now, LoGiCalDrm said:

Tell that to wannabe pro players

i know ... it's like trying to argue with fanboys. you can bring up the hardest and truest facts all day but they don't even listen

[PlayStation 2]

Not in the slightest unless it actually effects game performance, as in frame rate or frame times, etc.

[Mira Yurizaki]

If you already suck at a game, anything you do on the hardware side won't change that.

 

I mean, there are limits, but people are rarely below the minimum.