shawty1984's forum posts

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

You should be comparing 720p and 1080i on a HDTV, not 1080i vs 1080p.

GTR12



No you shouldn't.

While I agree, 1080p is better for moving images (all though I've never had a a problem with 1080i material through a 1080p TV/Monitor) 1080p and 1080i are near enough the same thing, they are both 1920 x 1080 resolution, just one is delivered in a different way. As already stated, if you have two still images, 1080i and 1080p should look identical. Why would 720p which has a resolution of 1280 x 720 be better than 1080iwhich has a resolution of 1920 x 1080?

Are you mistaken that 720p TV's that 'can do' 1080i also, which then shows up that 1080i looks the same as 720p? Because 72op TV's that can also 'do' 1080i, don't actually do 1080i. Any TV with a resolution below 1920 x 1080 can not do 1080i/p as it simply does not have enough pixels to fit on the screen. A 720p TV simply downscales the 1080i/p image to 720p. This is why a lot of people get confussed when they see 720p/1080i TV's and they simply add 1+1 and think that 1080i looks the same as 720p.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

If my memory serves my correctly, 1080p is 2 Million pixels and 1080i is 1 Million. Big difference it seems, but barely recognizable to the human eye(like 30 and 120 FPS).

Zevante101



1080p and 1080i are both the same thing. They both have a resolution of 1920 x 1080. It's just the way they are delivered that is different. If you have a still image of 1080i and 1080p next to each other, they will be identical.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

1080p is technically a higher resolution than 1080i.

Blade8Aus



Erm, no it's not. They are both 1920 x 1080 resolution. And don't bother coming back with the nonsense that 1080i is only half the frames or whatever it is. The resolution is still 1920 x 1080 and has to be to fill the screen.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

Your question doesn't really make sense. A smaller screen is better in every circumstance for gaming anyway. I have a 32" TV and I hate the f***ing thing! With gaming, it's allways good to have a good clear view of everything on screen at the same time, bigger screens restrict that. And just by commonsense, on smaller screens the 1920 x 1080 pixels on screen are more compressed, meaning better quality whereas on a bigger screen there spread out more.

Defy_The_Fallen



Nonsense, you just sit further away. It's like sitting right at the front and at the back of a cinema. Also nonsense about the resolution. Again, it depends on viewing distance. 1080p at 20" is the same as 1080p at 100" if sat at the correct distance from both, it really has nothing to do with because the pixels are closer are together.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

Budget is low. If you were comparing 720p vs 1080p, I'd say go with the bigger tv as none of your games are 1080p anyways. However difference between a 32" 480p and 720p 24" is clearly evident and I 'd say go with the newer tv.rastan


How do you know some of his games are not 1080p? As far as I'm aware, he hasn't listed them?

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

While screen size is important to an extent, the difference between 480p and 720p is HUGE.

480p = 337,920 pixels on screen
720p = 921,600 pixel on screen

There's almost 3x the amount of detail (rendered pixels) in 720p vs 480p. The difference is night and day.

In short, the smaller screen at 720p will have much much better image quality than a 32inch screen running at 480p.

ndawgdrake



If sat at the correct distance, sit to far away and they will both look the same. As I said in my first post, no one can answer this unless we have the viewing distances.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

If your going for a smaller TV, go for 720p, anything equal or greater than 32 inches go for 1080p. Also do your research, i.e look at reviews, from several sources. Chris_53


Nonsense. Maybe you need to do your research before trying to give advice.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

Higher resolution, all other aspects of image quality being equal, trumps sheer size for me. In fact, I find it rather baffling that they'll make 30" 2560x1600 monitors, but anything bigger instantly downgrades to 1920x1080. Anyway, with an Xbox 360 as the source, the actual game resolution is only 1280x720, sometimes slightly less and then upscaled. You wouldn't get much benefit out of a 1920x1080 display unless it could display HD movies at that resolution.NamelessPlayer


Why do people talk crap on here.

Size is very important to determine what resolution you would need, they go hand in hand.

Also the Xbox 360 can also do full 1080p for SOME games, just like the PS3 can. It can also do 1080p videos. Also I think you will find games like Halo are not even 1280 x 720, so god knows where you get your information from, but it's wrong.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

Don't know why this popped my mind, but I wanted an answer to this. My friend has something like a 32" TV in his room with his 360 hooked up. It isn't HD however, it's SD, so probably 480p. Now, I'm going to be getting an HDTV in the near future, probably 24-26" and was wondering, which would look better?

(The TV will be 1080p by the way, but I'll probably put the 360 in 720p).

EDIT: Don't mind that last paranthese, my real question should be, which looks better: A 32" TV at 480p or 24" at 720p.

I'm getting a 1080p regardless as Wii U and all other next gen systems will display in that.

Nozizaki



No one can answer this unless you give viewing distances.

Why would you put the Xbox 360 at 720p when the TV will be 1080p, makes no sense.

Avatar image for shawty1984
shawty1984

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 shawty1984
Member since 2007 • 938 Posts

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Kaszilla"]

the xbox 360 has a better gpu, more vram, and can push more polygons

Snugenz

Cell. The xbox and PS3 have the same ram they are just divided differently,unless you are talking about the 10 extra MB. If you see the xbox 360 specs it say 500 million,while the RSX move just 275 million,almost almost half,the problem with this is that raw specs basically mean nothing,the xbox 360 GPU has to handle all on the xbox 360 basically,while Cell help the RSX in a huge way by taking work load out of it,the result is simple. Since the Xenos has to do all the muscle flexing on 360,it raw power gos down way down,if you remember the xbox was say to push 125 million polygons but with effects it was more like 30 million,that is a huge drop,because once AI,physics,effects and all that stuff is implemented,the polygons on the 360 go down,i would say probably lower than 200 million. On the other hand Cell is handling anything from post processing effects,to AA,AI and many other stuff that other wise would cripple the RSX even more,so the RSX can do more while Cell take care of the rest,that make the RSX navigate closer to its full raw power in theory.

You're forgetting the 360 GPU also has that 10mb of edram at its disposal, and that the 360 GPU has access to the full ammount of ram in the 360 which the RSX doesnt.

So there's more trade off's that you failed to mention.



You also forgot to mention that half of the PS3's ram is much faster, but meh, who cares?