Hi all! Quick question about the resolutions that Guru3D use for their reviews: Why is it that they don't include 1080 as one of their standard resolutions to test at? 1920x1080 accounts for 32% of the market according to Steam Hardware Survey. Even 1366x768 would make sense (23.6%). Resolutions that Guru3D currently test at and their market share: 2560x1440 - 0.97% 1920x1200 - 2.47% 1600x1200 - 0.33% 3840x2160 - 0%!! All of these resolutions combined only account for 3.77% of market share... Would it not make sense for their reviews to be as relevant as possible to the most amount of people as possible? I understand that 4K will become more and more popular, and that 1440 is also becoming more popular, but the omission of 1080 from their reviews is just bizarre to me! Anyway, if there is some logical explanation for this, then someone please let me know
Posting the same thing in 2 different sections is not a great way to start out around here.I think 1920x1200 is close enough to 1080 to give you a good idea. Edit: It appears you were told to instead of a mod just moving it which is a little odd.
Agreed it seemed odd, and they never did 1680x1050 either which was a widely used 16:10 resolution back before 16:9 displays became the norm and used 1600x1200. Not that it matters much I suppose as its always an indication of performance unless you the the exact configuration used in the benchmarks.
I always like that Hilbert tests at 1920x1200 , that's what I use. It's too late for him to start adding in new ones though. There wouldn't be numbers to compare against for older cards.
One is TV the other is PC (ya some are smoking good stuff .)basicly it should mean everything is not optimize for 1920x 1080 .it is optimized for 1920 x 1200 !confused ?me too !go play neverwinter .and play with setting .I bet even cryptic was baffled .it all end up with a bit of play to have different result since ms hasn't had the time to optimize everything in windows for invariant tsc and probably would never have bothered if ballmer had stayed.
The resolutions used represent what most enthusiasts are using imo. The difference between 1080 and 1200 is neither here nor there!
Like a few of the guys have said: 1920 x 1200 is roughly 1080p 2560 x 1600 is roughly 1440p, which I'm running, as is hallryu and quite a few people. 16:10 is far better IMO, but the 16:10 2560 displays are imba expensive for what you get extra.
My advice: get one 1920 x 1080 p ,get one 1920 x 1200 p (make sure it can do 0 to 255 and 100% sRGB (for gaming)and lastly get one ycbcr HDTV 1920 x 1080i (for movies)and all for screen need are covered ,till your better half yell to you :46 inch ultra high definition please (3940x2160p)
