are you 12 or just dumb?

It is less strain on the GPU.

On your end, however, the quality will be diminished because upscaling doesn't add information from thin air. If the GPU is providing limited resolution information, all the screen can do is "stretch."

grow up or fuck off back to >>>/r/pcmasterrace kiddo

What's with all the /v/ on /g/?

>>54892749
This is the stupidest question I have ever seen this week on /g/
>>>/sqt/

>>54892785

that would just result in the normal blurryness right?

that's not a big deal

>>54892770
>>54892790

im 32 tyvm

Never post on this forum ever again.

>>54892823
No, it would result in additional blurriness.

Let's say I want to bring a huge poster to a meeting. Carrying it puts a huge strain on my back. So instead what I do is redraw the poster on a sheet of printer paper. I take that paper to work and then magnify it on the wall with a projector. That projected image is going to look way worse than my original poster because I couldn't capture as much detail when I redrew it on the smaller paper. When I then scale up the re-draw, those losses in detail get magnified. It ends up looking like shit. That's the cost for saving myself the trouble of lugging around a big poster.

>>54892868

the jump from 720 to 1080 doesnt result in the rediculous impact you're trying to use

you're acting like we're compressing a jpg to 16x16 then blowing it up to 1080x1920 again

also being able to run it at ultra will off-set that blurryness 10x over, vs having to fenagle with the settings on the higher resolution

sharp low detailed graphic settings look like shit aesthetically

>>54892923
I'm explaining the mechanics, not the magnitude.

>off-set
This means absolutely nothing which is why I didn't use it in the original answer. If you forget salt in a recipe you can't off-set it by adding sugar. Whether the sugar makes the dish better has no impact on the loss of salt. Whether other graphics settings improve the look of the game has no impact on the need for stretching to occur when scaling up a lower resolution to a higher one. Again, this is an explanation about hardware performance and resolution conversion. It's not a subjective claim about trading one gain for one loss. That's an opinion.

>>54893025

so how much GPU useage is needed in total, when you take the "running at lower resolution" into account but then the upscaling as well

is there a universal mathematical % or does it depend on the GPU

or would it be better to just let the display upscall it

>>54892749
consoles downscale to 900 or 720 often for that exact reason. it looks like ass. if you're going to downscale, make sure it is a even ratio to the screen resolution (UHD to FHD or QHD to HD)

>>54893182
It depends on the GPU, but it's roughly proportional to the raw number of pixels. Literally 1920x1080 = 2.07 million. 1280x720= 921,600. That's only about 44% of the pixels.

>better
If you're really insistent on the subjective part of this, I'll give you my personal opinion. If my hardware can't handle full resolution at adequate quality, I downscale in the graphics settings *and just play in that smaller window.* My monitor is plenty big enough to make that comfortable. Hell I used to play games on a screen which itself was only 15". I lived with it then and I can live with it now. The models are big enough for me to see comfortably and I can crank the settings up all the way.