Unigine Valley scales well, the opensource Quake3-ish games do not with AMD Catalyst. Looks to me like AMD is hitting the CPU bottleneck much faster than nVidia. If true, the upcoming OpenGL driver optimizations to reduce the overhead in AMD Catalyst should be very beneficial. We'll see if we learn something at GDC this week.
See, free games have a use: Ultra HD (4K isn't the same thing, it's a bit larger) with one middle-end card, smoothly.
In any game, larger resolution improves graphics.
IBM T221 about a decade ago... Agreed though, 16:10 on a rotateable mount destroys all.
Originally Posted by amehaye
It's simply more versatile across all types of media and workload, just as 1920x1200 is compared to 1920x1080. You can have the video full screen with the controls still visible. In games and video 16:10 uses more of your field of vision then 16:9 does. Fit more documents on screen at full size with application toolbars etc.
Originally Posted by zanny
16:9 came about as a cost cutting measure, just as gimping out most screens to 1366x768 A.K.A. The Devil's resolution is a cost cutting measure.
The Meizu MX4G = 2560x1536 @ 5.5" 542.81dpi, get me a desktop screen that get.
You're preaching the choir, I'm just saying it is unlikely we will ever see high DPI 16:10 panels. The only reason we had them a decade ago, that kept them alive on life support to the modern day, is because LCD adoption first took place in the notebook and desktop space before TVs went flat panel. Once that happened, TVs dominated the panel industry and drove it towards 16:9.
Originally Posted by Kivada