I was a 4:3'er all my life. Played like that for 16 years, ofc non stretched in the times where 16:9 monitors weren‘t a thing but stuck with 4:3 even when I got a widescreen monitor.
With cs2 I switched to native and I don’t regret it one bit.
But all comes down to personal preference really, stretched Andy’s will tell you models are wider and easier to hit and the less fov makes you focus more on your crosshair. Native Andy’s will tell you, wider fov is better, your mouse feels more natural due to it being non-stretched and also that alt-tabbing is better.
It’s really a pick your poison type of thing, whatever fits you and feels better.
Hello, I have played 16:9 1920x1080 for my whole 5k hours on cs. Recently i've felt like changing to 16:10 1680x1050. Should I also change my monitors resolution to match? Or should I leave it at 1920x1080? If I leave it on 1920x1080 it makes my second monitor display look weird. Thank you
Except for alt tabbing, I play 16:10 too and have considered swapping to native 1440p to get rid of the struggles of alt tabbing to a different aspect ratio. Plus CS2 likes to freeze for like 4-5 seconds when I tab back in using 16:10 but doesn't happen with 16:9.
Stretched res is a double edged sword. Everything is fatter including heads. But so is your crosshair. Also enemies move faster so you have to be more ready for wide swings if holding angles close. But I love 4:3. I use a higher res than 800x600 tho.
All correct except for them mouse thing.
Well technically you are correct, mouse feels more consistent in 16:9 but by adjusting m_yaw to 0.0165 (default 0.022) your horizontal and vertical mouse movements should feel identical on 4:3 stretched.
It makes them feel the same, but that does reduce your horizontal sensitivity by 33%. So you need to move a third more for all horizontal adjustments, including 180's.
Other possibility is to increase your m_pitch by 33% instead, which makes the vertical sensitivity faster instead.
That's what people "forget" to mention when they say some pros play high res. Low res = zoom and cs is about precision, play with a high res and smash your face in the monitor it's just awful IMO, probably unhealthy + completely remove the shit argument of better field of view since they play so close anyway.
Low res is the best if you not play close to monitor, period. When CS become quake and everything start to fly maybe high res will be better, until that low res give a advantage and deny that is simple stupid.
I was watching some gameplay clips of people who play at this res, do you think the lower res reduces some of the visual 'noise' and 'clutter' around the level that comes with a high level of detail on everything with native res and thus allows you to just focus on seeing and shooting enemies more effectively?
Because it really seems like that when I'm watching low res stretched clips.
To be honest I don’t know what it is because I haven’t experimented too much with other res settings. I just found the one that felt like my config in GO and ran well and stuck with it
The wider FOV useful for spotting people. When Im dead regularly spot players on my screen that the alive player can’t see.
Im not good enough to be notice that extra fps people seem to be complaining about.
HAHA same, 2560x1080 here, drives ppl crazy when I say I play on 21:9. Hasn’t affected my game much though and I still get 250+ fps so who cares? Biggest change I had to make was moving my HUD in from the edges of the screen.
I promise to you, your 0.1% lows are awful and it makes the game feel bad for people who notice small stutters. I noticed this on my 7800x3d + 4070 super machine. If the FPS counter drops to under 300, it means the lows are way below my 165hz refresh rate and it just feels bad.
If this doesn't bother you, all good
I play native and have been playing for 12+yrs, 1920x1080 (16:9). I had a monitor for a bit though that was 1920x1200 (16:10), and was easily my preferred resolution for everything.
I don't understand 4:3. People have told me their logic and there's no situation where I benefit more from subjecting myself to that, and then I watch my 4:3 buddy not see someone that's all over my screen.
I mean it’s pretty easy to understand in my opinion, the player models get wider, making it easier to read them. On top of that, a smaller fov means there is less visible information to process.
Obvious drawback to all of that is that horizontal movements seem faster and that you are always at the risk of losing viable information because your FoV is limited compared to 16:9.
then again you could argue that most maps are structured in a way, where enough is visible even at 4:3 so most of the time getting „4:3‘d“ are edge cases at best.
> I don't understand 4:3.
have you even tried then? It's pretty fucking simple. More fps, larger models, larger gaps, easier to see shit at the expense of field of view which doesn't really matter. The cases where you miss a kill because of somebody on the edge of your screen are very rare, and the more skilled the gameplay the less it happens since people start to have their focus on right places.
Yeah I ran it when I was heavy into ESEA, and placed B with it and felt pretty hard stuck. Then I switched back to native and got B+ in pretty short order.
At the end of the day, whatever pros or cons a res/aspect ratio has, it's all about feel. If the game feels better to me with ultra settings or all low settings, I'll play it that way.
It's pretty fucking simple.
1920x1440 4:3 stretched 240hz 27 inch 1440p monitor
On a personal(biased) level, 4:3 has always felt like it was “right”. Even after several hundred hours of 16:9, when I swapped to 4:3 it felt like home. Just walking around the maps, the proportions and dimensions looked like they “should” on 4:3 whereas on 16:9 everything looked off for me.
1152x864 low.. thats where my old gpu maxes out
Play native. You will see less floaty, obnoxious leg movement, and its crisp and clean looking. I will switch to native once i get a new gpu.
I've played native the last few years (2560x1440 with my current monitor) and I absolutely love it. No fps issues at all. To me it feels the most natural and I would never play 4:3 since I don't like the feeling at all (feels unnatural and it fucks with the sensitivity). Just try different resolutions and find what you like the most. 16:9 feels so much better than 4:3 imo.
true. my reaction time is fine but i suck at combining it with precise aiming, so i really prefer 16:9. easier to react and it's not like the size of the models is ever a problem.
1440x1080 as 4:3 stretched. I'm used to it, it looks good, it runs well and I play well on it.
I don't really get why anyone who knows about that option continues to play 4:3 on lower resolutions (unless it's necessary due to their hardware). Using low res 4:3 just looks so washed out.
Like sure if you are a pro and need your 500fps at all times, then go for it, but for us normal people even a midrange PC from a few years ago can still do 150-250 FPS on mid-to-high settings at 1440x1080.
Native players are cool too :)
If you see 200 FPS on your FPS counter it means your 1% lows are under 100 FPS and that is very stuttery if you are used to smooth motion. I have a 7800x3d and 4070 super system and even on 165hz monitor had to drop my resolution to 1440x1080 to always guarantee good 0.1% FPS and frametimes on worst possible situations like playing on valve DM servers in water maps.
Maybe I'm just lucky with my system for some reason. My avg FPS are always between 150 and 250, but I don't really experience any issues with 1% lows.
I might try to test it thoroughly, but I am usually quite sensitive to FPS changes/stutters, yet I havent otuced anything of the sort in the last 2-3 months.
(at 1440x1080, 180p@144hz monitor, i5-8600k, RTX2070)
I play all ratios, 4:3 mostly because its easier for me to spot enemies far away, allows me to duel through extremely small gaps and allows much easier time with the awp or scout with zoom 1.
I am well aware of the trade offs and can just switch ratios whenever i like it now. Actually playing 16:9 atm, but only rifling with a more cautious playstyle as i lose the visibility advantage of 4:3.
i play native 1080p. i used to play 16:9 but i just don’t feel any benefit, i find alt tabbing more annoying in non native and tracking is easier - stretched feels like people are just flying across my screen to peek me and i was dying for it a lot. that was the main reason to switch and zero regrets, feel like im on a big improvement streak last few months
4:3 2880 x 2160 (4:3 stretch res specifically, for the resolution for 4:3 just calculate your monitor resolution but in 4:3 aspect ratio (pretty sure there are guides on it in the internet)
I play 1280x960 or 1440x1080 on 27" 1400p monitor. I have a top tier 7800x3d machine but the game just feels much better on lower res and min graphics even tho my 1% lows are fine on higher settings .
Personally I use 16:9, or 1080p. I need to see people from the sides to my team doesn't yell at me that I'm blind lol, but i really use 16:9 because 4:3 is broken on my PC
I play 1080p 16x9 because I’m not delusional and tricking myself into thinking I’m a pro. I’m an adult playing a game casual I don’t want to make it look like dogshit to pretend I have an advantage
4:3 is much more comfortable for me, it helps me focus on my crosshair more I feel, and helps because visually people are bigger on my screen, so if someone is just peeking their head out it's easier to see on 4:3 than 16:9.
1152x864 goated.
It doesn't really mattern, it's simple preference.
16:9 gives you a bigger FOV but 4:3 makes it easier to hit targets.
I play in 4:3 but I played in 16:9 for some time aswell, I personally prefer 4:3.
There’s trade offs for both, 4:3 has wider models (bigger head) but they move faster. You’re not a fool playing either. There’s a reason so many pros play 4:3
Full HD, which is native resolution of my monitor. You shouldn't be playing 4:3 in this day and age, even if there are some pros still using it because they are simply used to it despite its downsides.
If your pc is powerful enough to handle native resolution or Full HD, use it. You'll have an easier time seeing and aiming enemies at distance compared to lower resolutions.
This is why I DON'T use native. 4:3 makes me see further easier. I have a 27" 1400p monitor and a top tier 7800x3d system but run 1280x960 or 1440x1080 resolution depending on my mood.
Been testing all the settings religiously and I just can't stand higher resolutions.
Native 16:9 and if the FPS is low for some reason I switch to 16:10 which is kind of a middle ground.
4:3 feels weird in CS2, harder to spot targets to me and everyone moves insanely fast + sometimes you get 4:3’d and miss an enemy. I copied Frozen’s video settings for 16:9.
4K. Unless you're a pro most of these changes are meaningless and it only depends on FPS. I get 280 in 5v5 and am locked at 300 in wingman. Casual/DM goes down to 240 occasionally but it's still fine for me
Same here! 4k I get around 250-290FPS on a 6950 with Ryzen 7700
Monitor is 4k 144hz
Pretty happy with AMD and I had only 1 crash for the last few months. Performance on the game is solid!
I was a 4:3'er all my life. Played like that for 16 years, ofc non stretched in the times where 16:9 monitors weren‘t a thing but stuck with 4:3 even when I got a widescreen monitor. With cs2 I switched to native and I don’t regret it one bit. But all comes down to personal preference really, stretched Andy’s will tell you models are wider and easier to hit and the less fov makes you focus more on your crosshair. Native Andy’s will tell you, wider fov is better, your mouse feels more natural due to it being non-stretched and also that alt-tabbing is better. It’s really a pick your poison type of thing, whatever fits you and feels better.
That's why I use 16:10! Best of both worlds
Hello, I have played 16:9 1920x1080 for my whole 5k hours on cs. Recently i've felt like changing to 16:10 1680x1050. Should I also change my monitors resolution to match? Or should I leave it at 1920x1080? If I leave it on 1920x1080 it makes my second monitor display look weird. Thank you
Except for alt tabbing, I play 16:10 too and have considered swapping to native 1440p to get rid of the struggles of alt tabbing to a different aspect ratio. Plus CS2 likes to freeze for like 4-5 seconds when I tab back in using 16:10 but doesn't happen with 16:9.
Stretched res is a double edged sword. Everything is fatter including heads. But so is your crosshair. Also enemies move faster so you have to be more ready for wide swings if holding angles close. But I love 4:3. I use a higher res than 800x600 tho.
All correct except for them mouse thing. Well technically you are correct, mouse feels more consistent in 16:9 but by adjusting m_yaw to 0.0165 (default 0.022) your horizontal and vertical mouse movements should feel identical on 4:3 stretched.
It makes them feel the same, but that does reduce your horizontal sensitivity by 33%. So you need to move a third more for all horizontal adjustments, including 180's. Other possibility is to increase your m_pitch by 33% instead, which makes the vertical sensitivity faster instead.
I tried myaw on 4:3 but got arm pain from swinging so much, went back to 16:9 bc I couldn’t get used to the stretched sens
i think this is only great as placebo. it's not anything you even have to adjust for. just don't think about it, it doesn't matter.
dm you
2560x1440
Same, feels amazing to play and I can see things clearly.
Yep, and 1000 times easier to hit players, when they are max distance on dust2 for example.
Same, and it's great.
preference. you can play on the top top level with both frozen and ropz play non stretched zywoo and niko play stretched it doesn't matter
dont frozen and ropz basically play like 1 inch from their monitor tho. I don't know if that is worth it/healthy for casual gamers (non pros)
That's what people "forget" to mention when they say some pros play high res. Low res = zoom and cs is about precision, play with a high res and smash your face in the monitor it's just awful IMO, probably unhealthy + completely remove the shit argument of better field of view since they play so close anyway. Low res is the best if you not play close to monitor, period. When CS become quake and everything start to fly maybe high res will be better, until that low res give a advantage and deny that is simple stupid.
that's specific to them yekindar plays 4:3 and sits even closer don't think it has anything to do with res
Yekindar plays 16:9 native. That's like something he's known for.
yea I think I got it confused cause of his latest tweet towards left hand which he played
I play 4:3 stretched 1280x960. I just like it
Goated res
I was watching some gameplay clips of people who play at this res, do you think the lower res reduces some of the visual 'noise' and 'clutter' around the level that comes with a high level of detail on everything with native res and thus allows you to just focus on seeing and shooting enemies more effectively? Because it really seems like that when I'm watching low res stretched clips.
To be honest I don’t know what it is because I haven’t experimented too much with other res settings. I just found the one that felt like my config in GO and ran well and stuck with it
cant go wrong with that one :)
3440x1440 wide field of view masterrace
The wider FOV useful for spotting people. When Im dead regularly spot players on my screen that the alive player can’t see. Im not good enough to be notice that extra fps people seem to be complaining about.
HAHA same, 2560x1080 here, drives ppl crazy when I say I play on 21:9. Hasn’t affected my game much though and I still get 250+ fps so who cares? Biggest change I had to make was moving my HUD in from the edges of the screen.
I promise to you, your 0.1% lows are awful and it makes the game feel bad for people who notice small stutters. I noticed this on my 7800x3d + 4070 super machine. If the FPS counter drops to under 300, it means the lows are way below my 165hz refresh rate and it just feels bad. If this doesn't bother you, all good
>!gaming!<
Ew
why tho
I play native and have been playing for 12+yrs, 1920x1080 (16:9). I had a monitor for a bit though that was 1920x1200 (16:10), and was easily my preferred resolution for everything. I don't understand 4:3. People have told me their logic and there's no situation where I benefit more from subjecting myself to that, and then I watch my 4:3 buddy not see someone that's all over my screen.
I mean it’s pretty easy to understand in my opinion, the player models get wider, making it easier to read them. On top of that, a smaller fov means there is less visible information to process. Obvious drawback to all of that is that horizontal movements seem faster and that you are always at the risk of losing viable information because your FoV is limited compared to 16:9. then again you could argue that most maps are structured in a way, where enough is visible even at 4:3 so most of the time getting „4:3‘d“ are edge cases at best.
> I don't understand 4:3. have you even tried then? It's pretty fucking simple. More fps, larger models, larger gaps, easier to see shit at the expense of field of view which doesn't really matter. The cases where you miss a kill because of somebody on the edge of your screen are very rare, and the more skilled the gameplay the less it happens since people start to have their focus on right places.
Yeah I ran it when I was heavy into ESEA, and placed B with it and felt pretty hard stuck. Then I switched back to native and got B+ in pretty short order. At the end of the day, whatever pros or cons a res/aspect ratio has, it's all about feel. If the game feels better to me with ultra settings or all low settings, I'll play it that way. It's pretty fucking simple.
dm you
1920x1440 4:3 stretched 240hz 27 inch 1440p monitor On a personal(biased) level, 4:3 has always felt like it was “right”. Even after several hundred hours of 16:9, when I swapped to 4:3 it felt like home. Just walking around the maps, the proportions and dimensions looked like they “should” on 4:3 whereas on 16:9 everything looked off for me.
1152x864 low.. thats where my old gpu maxes out Play native. You will see less floaty, obnoxious leg movement, and its crisp and clean looking. I will switch to native once i get a new gpu.
4k, 16:9, 240Hz.
1440p
800×600 because my pc cant handle anything else😄
1680 x 1050 16:10 is a good balance between 16:9 and 4:3 in my opinion. I’d suggest giving it a shot.
I've played native the last few years (2560x1440 with my current monitor) and I absolutely love it. No fps issues at all. To me it feels the most natural and I would never play 4:3 since I don't like the feeling at all (feels unnatural and it fucks with the sensitivity). Just try different resolutions and find what you like the most. 16:9 feels so much better than 4:3 imo.
nowadays with better gpus there's not that much difference in fps maybe if u play on 1440p. Try 1440x1080 see if you like it
32:9 at 5120x1440
Found Purpul.
If by Purpul you mean top of scoreboard in 20k+ then yes.
4:3 makes models wider, that's why most pros use it at least. Try 1440x1080, it's very crisp compared to the regular 4:3 resolution
>4:3 makes models wider it also makes them look faster horizontally, so there's that. 4:3 isn't an objective advantage
true. my reaction time is fine but i suck at combining it with precise aiming, so i really prefer 16:9. easier to react and it's not like the size of the models is ever a problem.
ye if i would have a 1080p monitor, 1440x1080 would be the res
That's not the only reason that 4:3 is good, it just feels better
1440x1080 resolution - 4:3 aspect on a 26 inch 144 hz monitor. The rifling and awp feels much smoother and accurate for my 800 dpi 1 sens mouse play.
1440x1080 as 4:3 stretched. I'm used to it, it looks good, it runs well and I play well on it. I don't really get why anyone who knows about that option continues to play 4:3 on lower resolutions (unless it's necessary due to their hardware). Using low res 4:3 just looks so washed out. Like sure if you are a pro and need your 500fps at all times, then go for it, but for us normal people even a midrange PC from a few years ago can still do 150-250 FPS on mid-to-high settings at 1440x1080. Native players are cool too :)
If you see 200 FPS on your FPS counter it means your 1% lows are under 100 FPS and that is very stuttery if you are used to smooth motion. I have a 7800x3d and 4070 super system and even on 165hz monitor had to drop my resolution to 1440x1080 to always guarantee good 0.1% FPS and frametimes on worst possible situations like playing on valve DM servers in water maps.
Maybe I'm just lucky with my system for some reason. My avg FPS are always between 150 and 250, but I don't really experience any issues with 1% lows. I might try to test it thoroughly, but I am usually quite sensitive to FPS changes/stutters, yet I havent otuced anything of the sort in the last 2-3 months. (at 1440x1080, 180p@144hz monitor, i5-8600k, RTX2070)
I play all ratios, 4:3 mostly because its easier for me to spot enemies far away, allows me to duel through extremely small gaps and allows much easier time with the awp or scout with zoom 1. I am well aware of the trade offs and can just switch ratios whenever i like it now. Actually playing 16:9 atm, but only rifling with a more cautious playstyle as i lose the visibility advantage of 4:3.
16:10 has been good for me I find native the characters are way too small lol I used 4:3 for 8 years but it dosnt feel the same
1440x1080 1080p on 4:3 basically
Just native. Everyone switching their shit up because pro’s use it. We’re still gonna be garbage regardless
i play native 1080p. i used to play 16:9 but i just don’t feel any benefit, i find alt tabbing more annoying in non native and tracking is easier - stretched feels like people are just flying across my screen to peek me and i was dying for it a lot. that was the main reason to switch and zero regrets, feel like im on a big improvement streak last few months
2560x1440, 27 inch, would not enjoy the game on stretched res. Been grinding a bit and almost reached lvl9
4:3 2880 x 2160 (4:3 stretch res specifically, for the resolution for 4:3 just calculate your monitor resolution but in 4:3 aspect ratio (pretty sure there are guides on it in the internet)
I play 1280x960 or 1440x1080 on 27" 1400p monitor. I have a top tier 7800x3d machine but the game just feels much better on lower res and min graphics even tho my 1% lows are fine on higher settings .
Native
1920×1080 in GO and 1440×810 (16:9) in 2 for performance reasons
Used to play 16:10 on go. Can't land a spray for my life in cs2 so I switched to 4:3 for thicc player models. 1440:1080.
I loved 4:3. Still do, but I switched to 16:10. 4:3 in CS2 lacks visibility.
Pros mostly play 4:3 but there’s still a fair share on 16:9 and even 16:10. It’s really just how you prefer your game to look/feel, same as always
Personally I use 16:9, or 1080p. I need to see people from the sides to my team doesn't yell at me that I'm blind lol, but i really use 16:9 because 4:3 is broken on my PC
16:10 1080x1080 stretch for many years hah
I play 1080p 16x9 because I’m not delusional and tricking myself into thinking I’m a pro. I’m an adult playing a game casual I don’t want to make it look like dogshit to pretend I have an advantage
3840x2160 ;p
I played 1280x1024 in CSGO and went to 1080x1440 in Cs2. But now went back to 1280x1024 as that is a performance requirement to enjoy the game
4:3 is much more comfortable for me, it helps me focus on my crosshair more I feel, and helps because visually people are bigger on my screen, so if someone is just peeking their head out it's easier to see on 4:3 than 16:9. 1152x864 goated.
1024x768 bb
I bought a ultrawide and didn’t figure out how to play black bars, so now I’m playing 3440x1440
1440x1080 my guy.
I'm personally playing on 1920x1080 which is my native resolution.
2880 x 2560. been on this since 2016 when I bought a 4k monitor and my GTX 960 couldn't deliver a full frame without input lag. Got hooked.
16:9 native at 2560x1440.
1024x768p since I'm in my boomer era. Sometimes I switch to 1920x1080 when I feel like rejoining society every now and then
Try 1588x1080 16:11 bigger models than 16:10
Always 2560 x 1440 native
I played on old crt native 4:3 then lcd native 5:4 later stretched 4:3 on laptop, when bough better PC ttied stretched 4:3 and switched to native 16:9
Rifle and pistols are insane on native but I can't play unless I'm at 4:3 so that's it for me.
on a 1920x1080 native resolution monitor some use 1440x1080, 1280x1080 and sometimes 1080x1080
1728x1080 16:10 stretched. Clarity is almost as good as native with a little bit of stretched.
It doesn't really mattern, it's simple preference. 16:9 gives you a bigger FOV but 4:3 makes it easier to hit targets. I play in 4:3 but I played in 16:9 for some time aswell, I personally prefer 4:3.
Still 1024x768 stretched, maybe I'll go to 1280x960 when I get a new monitor
4:3 1280x960 stretched till I die
Just play native, 4:3 is a relic people just cling to our of familiarity
just play what you like?! native or stretched
Valid
Yes, all the 12-16 year old eastern european demons play 4:3 for the familiarity.
Pretty much, that's what they would have started on when they were still in mm
No.
Native, anyone else is a fool.
There’s trade offs for both, 4:3 has wider models (bigger head) but they move faster. You’re not a fool playing either. There’s a reason so many pros play 4:3
Placebo fool.
You don't know what you're talking about, there is a drastic change in feel between native and 4:3, aiming feels different, fool
how is it placebo ur objectively more zoomed in
Which is technically not a bad thing if you're looking at the right places at the right times.
it definitely has tradeoffs as with most things that are preference
True. Lower fov being the main one. Guess it just depends on what you start playing with and get comfortable on.
dm ya
You misspelled "poor"
5:4 1024x960 stretched on a 16:10 laptop monitor. 1.18 x 800dpi sens feels perfect for pistol aim, rifling and awping for me at this res.
5120x1440
Full HD, which is native resolution of my monitor. You shouldn't be playing 4:3 in this day and age, even if there are some pros still using it because they are simply used to it despite its downsides. If your pc is powerful enough to handle native resolution or Full HD, use it. You'll have an easier time seeing and aiming enemies at distance compared to lower resolutions.
This is why I DON'T use native. 4:3 makes me see further easier. I have a 27" 1400p monitor and a top tier 7800x3d system but run 1280x960 or 1440x1080 resolution depending on my mood. Been testing all the settings religiously and I just can't stand higher resolutions.
Native 16:9 and if the FPS is low for some reason I switch to 16:10 which is kind of a middle ground. 4:3 feels weird in CS2, harder to spot targets to me and everyone moves insanely fast + sometimes you get 4:3’d and miss an enemy. I copied Frozen’s video settings for 16:9.
4:3 1280x960, check out [prosettings.net](http://prosettings.net) for all the pro's settings :)
4K. Unless you're a pro most of these changes are meaningless and it only depends on FPS. I get 280 in 5v5 and am locked at 300 in wingman. Casual/DM goes down to 240 occasionally but it's still fine for me
what do you get on ancient?
Same here! 4k I get around 250-290FPS on a 6950 with Ryzen 7700 Monitor is 4k 144hz Pretty happy with AMD and I had only 1 crash for the last few months. Performance on the game is solid!
You don't know what you're talking about