1

EDIT: My earlier question was too subjective, so I've rephrased it entirely to broaden out its perspective.

In my opinion, PC games are always targeted to run best on the latest-gen graphic cards, unlike consoles games, which are built to run on the same hardware years after the hardware has been released.

Would choosing a 1920x1080 monitor over a 1600x900 monitor kill my chances of a better frame rate in games a couple of years down the line? Should I decide in favour of the lower-res option for the safety of gaming on the long run?

10
  • Please atleast explain why if you're going to downvote this question!
    – SNag
    May 17, 2013 at 16:48
  • 2
    You realize you can render the game at a lower resolution, right?
    – SaintWacko
    May 17, 2013 at 16:49
  • This question will probably be closed since it's rather subjective, but I would go with option 2. While every graphics card will get higher fps on lower resolutions, my 560Ti is running 1080p on every game without any noticeable issues. I run with the graphics mostly maxed and don't have any problems. I would bet that your 660Ti will keep ahead of software for most of its useable life.
    – Kexlox
    May 17, 2013 at 16:49
  • 1
    If anything, this is a question for Super User. May 17, 2013 at 17:15
  • 1
    @OrigamiRobot: Thanks! Can I have it migrated?
    – SNag
    May 17, 2013 at 17:24

1 Answer 1

0

I think safety is the wrong word here. You are looking for "long term use."

The monitor isnt the issue here, the graphics card is. If you have the ability to get a higher resolution monitor now, there is no reason not to. In the future, if you find your graphics card is not putting out the FPS you want for a game you have a few options:

  1. Replace the graphics card with a better one
  2. Lower the resolution the graphics card is putting out
  3. Reduce the in game graphics options (textures, anit-aliasing, particles, etc)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .