How good are HDTV' s?

Is it worth buying a HDTV just for use with my 360? Seeing as tho i only have about 20 inches of space to work with, is it large enough to apreciate the graphics. are the Graphics significantly improved??

If that' s all the space you have, why not get a computer monitor and a VGA adapter?

We' ve been through this before I think. If space is an issue then get a 19" -20" monitor. If you shop right you can get all the necessary ports you need, and then some.

How good are they? I' m certainly glad I' m playing all of my games in HD. It helps performance in multiplayer games, & makes the HD designed text in a lot of 360 games easier to tolerate.

10 times better than normal TVs, don' t ask stupid questions.

lol, it' s not 10 times better and it wasn' t a stupid question. It' s definitely worth the purchase if you have the money, but not playing in HD isn' t going to ruin your gameplay experience.

You' re both wrong. If you do the math the vertical pixel count makes (1080p) HDTVs a little over five times better, but who' s counting?

Actually when you compare the exact resolution of SDTV (720x243x60 at best) and HDTV (1920x1080x60 at best), then HDTV is 11.851852 times better than HDTV. Sure, if you used a 480-sized frame on NTSC instead of 486, it' d be exactly 12 times better. But NTSC does 486 lines.

That means the Playstation 3' s graphics are 6 times more detailed than the Wii' s (which runs at 480 lines). Probably even more because it may run at 640x480.

That means the Playstation 3' s graphics are 6 times more detailed than the Wii' s

Maybe in the land of TurboGrafx* you could make a statement like that where everything is 2D, even then you' d have to consider your color palette and other hardware tricks. Modern GPUs are doing a little more than pixel output though. Even when 360?Ps3 game are rendered in SD def. it still looks far far better than anything on Wii. As it should, The GPUs in 360 and PS3 are several graphic generations ahead of what' s in Wii. Aside from raw power, the most notible missing ability in Broadway is " programmable shaders" , which are what allows parts of the GPU which used to be limited to simple fixed tasks to do all kinds of advanced visual tricks. Essentially allowing you to do more with what you have.




*I know almost nothing about TurboGrafx, so please don' t kill me if it can render a polygon.

Hell, I' ll congratulate you for spelling it correctly.

But I think 6x is a fair assessment (in terms of sharpness and detail). If the 360 and PS3 were limited to 480p, it would seem like they were even further ahead of the Wii in abilities. The HD resolution sure takes a hit on the GPU. If you like crap, then you may have a PC game or two. Launch one and watch how much worse it does as the resolution increases (keep changing it). The Xbox 360 and PS3 should be limited to 320x224. Then they could run everything at 60 frames per second. Huzzah! :)

I see what you' re saying but the difference between Wii and 360/PS3 is greater than you might think. Although I don' t know what you mean by " sharpness and detail" exactly. The GPU in Wii is not one GPU generation behind it' s more like 6 videocard generations behind. The GPU in GameCube was designed back in 1999 (approx.), Wii just has an overclocked version of the GPU. Every videocard generation performance has easilly doubled over the previous generation.

I have a 8800gtx

I don' t currently have a lot of games to test and i can' t download any demoes since my connection is still screwed up. But I' m getting about 70-90fps with battlefield 2142 @ 1280x1024 with 16xAA 16xAF, maxed out settings. My cpu is actually bottlenecking my GPU and holding it back (AM2 X2 4600+ 2.6Ghz). If I had a C2D I would be at a steady 100 frames per second, I' m not crying over it though. I' m waiting a year before upgrading my mobo/CPU.

Day of Defeat Source, I get near 300 fps, everything maxed out at the same resolution.

half-life 2 I think I was getting well over, 100 fps at the same settings, maybe closer to 170, I can' t remember.

Anyways, we' ll see what Bioshock does to my computer. It has high recomended PC specs. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8113

But I' m getting about 70-90fps with battlefield 2142 @ 1280x1024

A well designed game should give you a constant framerate throughout the game. I don' t like to see framerates changing. I notice it with my eyeballs and it looks stuttery to me. I' d rather have a constant 30fps than a game that runs at 30 and goes faster when it can. Damn computers. Leave the games to the big boys. You can keep the Warcraft stuff, though.

a HDTV is basically 4 time sharper at the image quality then a standardtv.

When it comes to games,well some games focus more on 3d effects and textures then resolutions quality.
basically some games looks much better in high res compared to others.

Just look at the pc,some games with high res looks like crap while some using low res looks ten better,so its all up o the graphc engine etc.

But sure,some games will be breathtaking with a HDTV.

GRAW,GoW and AC6 are a few.

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

HDTV' s suck! If you sit 50 meters away from your television (as I do) you won' t see the slightest difference between SD' s and HD' s. It' s sooo overrated.

Wii DSLite
Nintendo
Playing = Believing

Actually when you compare the exact resolution of SDTV (720x243x60 at best) and HDTV (1920x1080x60 at best), then HDTV is 11.851852 times better than HDTV. Sure, if you used a 480-sized frame on NTSC instead of 486, it' d be exactly 12 times better. But NTSC does 486 lines.

That means the Playstation 3' s graphics are 6 times more detailed than the Wii' s (which runs at 480 lines). Probably even more because it may run at 640x480.

Smart ass.

Day of Defeat Source, I get near 300 fps, everything maxed out at the same resolution.

I can' t even imagine 300 fps.

I can' t even imagine 300 fps.

you dont need too, as the human eye cant process anything faster than 60fps if I am correct.

Change is inevitable. Except from a vending machine.

Viva La Revolution! erm, I mean Viva La Wii!

You' re wrong, but not by much. It depends on the human, and it has more to do with the brain than the eyeball. Going out and stealing a homeless person' s eyeballs and replacing your own with them will not alter how many frames per second you see. Anyway, the threshold isn' t too tremendously far above 60fps. It' s probably around 100 or so. If your computer game is giving you 300fps, then your monitor MUST be set at a refresh rate of at least 300 Hz to even realize that. Is it? Nope. Most LCD monitors max out at 60Hz and do not change refresh rates... everything is converted to 60Hz.

A well designed game should give you a constant framerate throughout the game. I don' t like to see framerates changing. I notice it with my eyeballs and it looks stuttery to me. I' d rather have a constant 30fps than a game that runs at 30 and goes faster when it can. Damn computers. Leave the games to the big boys. You can keep the Warcraft stuff, though.

Having steady frames per second is near impossible for PC games unless it' s capped, or you have a huge bottleneck somwhere in your PC.
As you mentioned, my LCD is at 60hz (up to 75hz if I wanted). When I turn V-Sync on I get a steady 60fps with everything maxed out. However, once you reach 90 fps and up it becomes unnecessary unless you see big dips.


I didn' t really buy my videocard for the games I already own though. I bought it for games like UT III, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, Hellgate among others.

There is a point to getting more fps than your monitor can output. It gives you more accurate physics and hit detection.

The human eye is not the limiting factor.

When I used to use a CRT with refresh rates that go above 200 I could tell the difference between 200 and 220 fps. I wouldn' t be able to just walk into a room and be able to tell the exact fps, but I could easily tell the difference if there were 2 sitting side by side or it changed right front of me.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

It' s probably around 100 or so. If your computer game is giving you 300fps, then your monitor MUST be set at a refresh rate of at least 300 Hz to even realize that. Is it? Nope. Most LCD monitors max out at 60Hz and do not change refresh rates... everything is converted to 60Hz.

Yeah, I figured that was what had to happen, but I really don' t keep up on the PC world at all, so I don' t know an amazing amount about the subject.

why dont you walk into a curreys or whatever and have a look at the hdtv' s there if you want to see a differance? I am sure they might be playing march of the pegiuns on dvd but still some might be set up correctly with a hd source.

Change is inevitable. Except from a vending machine.

Viva La Revolution! erm, I mean Viva La Wii!

I am sure they might be playing march of the pegiuns on dvd

I walked into Best Buy yesterday & saw a fantastic 40 or so inch LCD tv off in the Home Theater section. I go to turn them on, hit the button & see the brilliant rainbowy cracks dancing from a single point on the TV. Some idiot wanksta threw the ' mote into the TV.

I lolled.

ORIGINAL: nekkid_monkey

lol, it' s not 10 times better and it wasn' t a stupid question. It' s definitely worth the purchase if you have the money, but not playing in HD isn' t going to ruin your gameplay experience.

I can' t watch anything thats not in HD. It hurts my eyes. It' s not an option for me to play or watch anything in Standard Def, it just doesn' t do anything for me anymore, I rather not watch it.

ORIGINAL: Joe Redifer

Actually when you compare the exact resolution of SDTV (720x243x60 at best) and HDTV (1920x1080x60 at best), then HDTV is 11.851852 times better than HDTV. Sure, if you used a 480-sized frame on NTSC instead of 486, it' d be exactly 12 times better. But NTSC does 486 lines.

That means the Playstation 3' s graphics are 6 times more detailed than the Wii' s (which runs at 480 lines). Probably even more because it may run at 640x480.

Shouldn' t it be 640x480x30 for SDTV

NTSC SDTV has a maximum of 720x486x30 (non square pixels). That' ll get you the same result as 720x243x60 since I was using the full 60fps as an example.

I' m pretty sure DVDs and games only support a minimum of 640x480i so thats what people go off of when comparing.

I dont think theres been 240p games since SNES or PS1

I submitted a reply which is above yours, but your reply was made before I pressed " submit" on mine. Weird. But NTSC isn' t based on a set number of horizontal pixels, but the frequency of the signal maxes out at about 720 wide. It may even be able to get a few more on there. DVD resolution is 720x480x30, max. They are very versatile and you can program them for 30p or 24p display or 60i display. Authoring DVDs is part of what I do for a living.

Nintendo Fanboy: pfft who needs hdtv' s? I play my Wii on a 14inch black and white tv. thank you very much.

Change is inevitable. Except from a vending machine.

Viva La Revolution! erm, I mean Viva La Wii!

HDTV' s are super!!!

Even if you break 2 legs from a crab it still runs!
What you gotta do is find its weak spot and do massive damage at it.

Wrong. HDTVs are XtREmE! How XtREmE are they? HDTVs make Tony Hawk riding down Mount Everest on a unicycle doing rad tricks while being chased by evil ninjas on tricycles with racing stripes and spoilers look pussified.