LCD monitors at non-native resolutions -- OK?

[Tom Trombone]

I don't have a lot of experience with LCD monitors and I have a question
about resolutions. Nowadays is it OK to run them at non-native
(specifically, lower) resolutions? I'm running an ATI 9600XT videocard
(old, I know,) usually at 1280 x 1024, and I'm thinking of replacing my
19" CRT with a 20.1" LCD -- maybe the ViewSonic VX2035wm, whose "Optimum
Resolution" is 1680 x 1050. However with my old videocard I might want to
drop it back down to 1280 x 1024 for general work, and even lower for the
few games I play. Would the image quality be acceptable at these lower
resolutions, both in ordinary 2d work and in 3d games?

At work I use an old Dell 2000FP whose native resolution is 1600 x 1200,
and I usually run it at a lower resolution than that with no problem, but I
don't know if I can expect that of LCD monitors in general.

Thanks for any info.

System specs:
- Asus A8V mobo with Via K8T800 Pro
- 1GB (2 x 512) DDR400 RAM
- Athlon XP 3000+ cpu
- ATI Radeon 9600XT videocard
- onboard audio (Realtek AC97)
- Windows XP Professional SP2
- On-board RAID controller running two SATA 320GB WD drives in RAID 1
(mirror)
- 500 watt Antec SmartPower 2.0 psu

 

[Clint]

Well, it's "ok" to do it, in that it shouldn't damage anything. But you
probably won't get an optimal image. I haven't noticed this being an issue
in the games I play, but I wouldn't plan on doing it for text/real work.

BTW, I run my 19" Dell CRT at 1280x1024, and my Viewsonic VX2025wm at
1680x1050. At those resolutions, things are almost exactly the same size
(i.e. icons, text, etc). If you take the measurements of the monitor and
figure out the pixels/inch in both directions, I think you'll find they're
pretty close. So what I'm saying is that you may not need to run in a
non-native resolution.

Clint

 

[Tom Trombone]

Thanks. The main reason I'm concerned about possibly needing to run it
at lower-than-native resolution is not the on-screen size of objects,
but the age of my videocard, and the fact that 1680 x 1050 is NOT one of
the card's listed resolutions (although I have found reports of people
using it at this resolution with no problem.)

Personally I'd be fine with leaving it at 1680 x 1050 if the 9600XT
could handle it; I just don't want to take a "step up" in monitor size
and a "step down" in performance. (And it's an AGP only mobo, and I
don't want to upgrade to a PCI-E one just yet...)

Tom

 

[DaveW]

LCD's, by their very design, give their BEST image at the native resolution
they are designed for. If you run at a lesser resolution then the image
will CONSIDERABLY suffer. The LCD was not designed to be used that way.

 

[Tom Trombone]

LCD's, by their very design, give their BEST image at the native
resolution they are designed for. If you run at a lesser resolution
then the image will CONSIDERABLY suffer. The LCD was not designed to
be used that way.

The thing is, at work I usually run my old Dell 2000FP (native resolution =
1600 x 1200) at 1280 x 1024, and I think it looks fine.

I notice that when everI change its resolution, it displays an "Auto
Adjustment" message for a few seconds, during which time I can see the on-
screen text go from looking pretty awful to quite good. Do all/most LCD
monitors do this? I'd be quite happy with that Viewsonic I'm considering
if it can do the same thing.

 

[JAD]

The thing is, at work I usually run my old Dell 2000FP (native resolution
=
1600 x 1200) at 1280 x 1024, and I think it looks fine.

I notice that when everI change its resolution, it displays an "Auto
Adjustment" message for a few seconds, during which time I can see the on-
screen text go from looking pretty awful to quite good. Do all/most LCD
monitors do this? I'd be quite happy with that Viewsonic I'm considering
if it can do the same thing.

most have a turbo tune or auto best. I use a few at different res. than
native. I find that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.