Which TV for it..

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by shonboy, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. shonboy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    #1
    Hey i'm about to buy a TV for home and considering that i have a macpro from late 2011 i'm wondering whether should i get a 1920x1080 full hd TV or look for a 2560x1600 one since this model can support such a resolution. I haven't checked any producst or prices yet, i'm only asking hypthetically, can a intel core i7 2.4 GHz, ati radeon hd 6770m, 4gb ram macbook pro run stuff like games at that insane resolution seamlessly. I understand they won't run as well as on my native 1440x900, but will they run on a bit lower settings and will there be a big difference in comparison with regular full HD. Also, what will the impact on the battery life be, etc...Tnx in advance...
     
  2. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #2
    You should ask that question on the MacBook Pro forum

    I don't know anyone who runs a tv with a Mac Pro.
     
  3. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #3
    I've never heard of a 2560x1600 TV. Usually they are 720P, 768P, 1080P, and some day 4K.

    If you mean a computer monitor, then I'll say that 2560x1600 is a fairly challenging display resolution for a mobile GPU. You'll almost certainly have to dial down the output resolution and/or quality settings for some games and many more in the near future.
     
  4. shonboy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    #4
    My bad..

    Sry for the wrong section. Yeah i meant a computer monitor, and i figured about the effects going down with resolution going up, but i was interested in weather or not was it worth it. Is such a high res really better than a regular full hd?
     
  5. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #5
    I suppose that question comes down to personal opinion.

    In my experience, for gaming, there are noticeable improvements up to 1920x1200 or so. This is mostly when you need a lot smaller pixels to render far away distances with any sort of detail. I have a 2560x1600 screen but don't really see any benefit over my 1920x1200 screen.

    Especially with a lot of movement on the screen you cannot tell the difference. Heck, a lot of console games get by with such limited resources because they drop the resolution down to as little as 480P when panning, and very few people notice.

    There are a few exceptions that might benefit more noticeably, such as X-Plane or some games where you can get a very high resolution texture package, but these are rare and I don't know much about that.
     
  6. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Location:
    DC
    #6
    "Bring out your dead!" *bang* "Bring out your dead!" *bang* ... :)
     
  7. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #7
    That depends on two factors. Your proximity to the monitor and the size of the monitor.

    I typically sit about 80cm from the monitor (eye ball to screen surface) and 1080 is fine! IMO, at 80cm from 25" and under screens 1080 is just right. I do not want more. However, if it's a >30" screen then the extra res is needed actually! Or, I need to move back another 70 or 80cm - and that's not comfortable for me.

    This is of course for use as a computer monitor. I don't watch TV and haven't for decades so I wouldn't know about that specifically - but I'm sure the same variables are relevant.
     

Share This Page