[Hannar]

I'm trying to determine which of the new Apple Cinema displays best fits my needs at this point. I'd love the extra real estate of the 23" model, but I'm a bit frightened by its massive native resolution. The 20" model is not much better in that regard, but it is a bit more suitable.

My primary use for this monitor will be to play EQII in widescreen mode. It's going to be a game that really pushes the hardware, and while I'll have a hefty machine, I don't see it running well at 1920 by 1200 pixels.

Does the image quality deteriorate severely on these monitors when adjusted to lower resolutions (say, 1280 by 800 pixels), or is the difference minimal.

Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated, and thanks much for your time.

[Weezer]

If you were gonna function in the OS at those resolutions it woulnd't look very good, but the game should be just fine. Obviously the higher the rez you could bump it up to the better, but it should be ok.

[Hannar]

What factors make the OS a more likely source of a problem? I'd have no problem switching back and forth between resolutions from game to OS if need be. I apologize for my ignorance on the subject, I'm relatively new to the LCD scene.

[CatOne]

If you get the Radeon 6800 (you did say a "hefty" machine), it will have NO problem with that resolution.

I tried out UT 2004 on a G5/2.5 with the 6800 Ultra at WWDC. On the 30" display, at 1920x1200 (it was down-res'd because the game didn't support native 2500x1600 or whatever), I saw constant framerates of 110-120 frames/second (no joke!).

In fact, I also played UT 2004 on G5/2.0's with Radeon 9800 in the gaming pavilion on 23" cinema displays, and the frame rates were 60-80 frames/second (which will be enough for you).

So... if you get a good machine (and more importantly good video card like the 6800 Ultra), you'll have enough power to run the 23" at its native resolution.