1280x720 vs. 1920x1080, performance wise

A

Apossum

Guest
Just wondering if I'll take a big hit to performance by jumping from 720p to 1080i. Also, if the trade off is worth it.


Personally, when it comes to game consoles and movies, I don't see the difference, but in PC terms, it looks like a large jump in resolution. This may be a dumb question, but would the jump be more noticeable on the PC?
 
Really not a big difference in the two. You probably won't be able to tell the difference at all. 1080i might have a little blurring for fast paced movies/games though.
 
Also, 1920x1080 is 1080p... which for a PC would be noticable, you probably still wouldn't notice much between 1080i and 1080p.... it's mostly hype and fanboys that praise it.
 
[quote name='DreamSymphony']Also, 1920x1080 is 1080p... which for a PC would be noticable, you probably still wouldn't notice much between 1080i and 1080p.... it's mostly hype and fanboys that praise it.[/QUOTE]


huh? It's saying my TV's native resolution is that, but has "interlaced" next to it...i'm 100% positive this isn't a 1080p set :)
 
I'm biased, and a fanboy, but on my monitor, there's a pretty ridiculous difference between 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1200... it's a lot sharper. As for the performance hit you'll take... yeah, there'd be one. Although with an 8800GTS, I suppose that the performance hit wouldn't be too bad.
 
With an 8800GTS, I doubt you'd notice much difference performance wise. Any particular game you are trying to run here?
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']With an 8800GTS, I doubt you'd notice much difference performance wise. Any particular game you are trying to run here?[/QUOTE]


nah, just wondering if it all my games can look better without much of a performance hit.
 
[quote name='Apossum']huh? It's saying my TV's native resolution is that, but has "interlaced" next to it...i'm 100% positive this isn't a 1080p set :)[/QUOTE]

TV or monitor? Only CRT-based sets provide interlaced native. Fixed-pixel sets, like LCDs and plasmas, are progressive. CRTs don't produce individual pixels, and specific resolutions like 1920x1080 define the number of pixels -- what I'm getting at is any set that is 1920x1080 native would be progressive (fixed-pixel), while other sets can be 1080i native (projection based, usually CRT).



About your other point -- the reason it looks like a bigger difference with PC is because a lot of things (icons, images, etc) have a set resolution. An image that's 100x100 pixels is going to be 100x100 no matter what your computer is set to display. By contrast, with games, when you change the resolution the game renders itself with a different amount of pixels.
 
[quote name='Koggit']TV or monitor? Only CRT-based sets provide interlaced native. Fixed-pixel sets, like LCDs and plasmas, are progressive. CRTs don't produce individual pixels, and specific resolutions like 1920x1080 define the number of pixels -- what I'm getting at is any set that is 1920x1080 native would be progressive (fixed-pixel), while other sets can be 1080i native (projection based, usually CRT).



About your other point -- the reason it looks like a bigger difference with PC is because a lot of things (icons, images, etc) have a set resolution. An image that's 100x100 pixels is going to be 100x100 no matter what your computer is set to display. By contrast, with games, when you change the resolution the game renders itself with a different amount of pixels.[/QUOTE]


funny you mention that. in the specs, it says it's 720p native. but the PS3, 360, and now my PC are saying it's 1080i native.
 
People, stop confusing 1080i with 1080p. 1080i is just 1280x720 pixels at once (that's why sets are 720/1080i) and p is the whole thing.

I'd stick to 720p for games like Crysis and UT3...
 
[quote name='RESmonkey']People, stop confusing 1080i with 1080p. 1080i is just 1280x720 pixels at once (that's why sets are 720/1080i) and p is the whole thing..[/QUOTE]
I'd say you're the one who's confused, unless there's some new math in which 720 is half of 1080. You're close though, you have the concept of progressive right. You don't seem to fully understand interlacing though, but you have some grasp of it.

For the OP, don't run outside your LCD's native resolution or you'll take a quality hit. I assure you that 1080i is not its native resolution.
 
[quote name='Damian']For the OP, don't run outside your LCD's native resolution or you'll take a quality hit. I assure you that 1080i is not its native resolution.[/QUOTE]

What's confusing me, though, is that he never said it was an LCD. He's talking about a couple things that simply don't go together and it's hard to tell where the misinformation is..

[quote name='Apossum']funny you mention that. in the specs, it says it's 720p native. but the PS3, 360, and now my PC are saying it's 1080i native.[/QUOTE]

I assume it's a CRT, then? "Native" just means it can be displayed without scaling.

SD CRTs are native 480i.
ED CRTs are native 480i, 480p.
HD CRTs are native 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i.

There's no such thing as a 1080p CRT.

LCDs (and all other fixed-pixel displays) have only one native resolution, progressive, of whatever the dimensions of its pixels are. It is completely impossible for any fixed-pixel display to have a native resolution of 1080i (as a side note, however, early 1080p fixed-pixel displays were only capable of processing 1080i, not 1080p).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top