Should I add more 65$ for 1600x900 instead 1366x768 for M14x?

Should I add more 65$ for 1600x900 instead 1366x768 for M14x?

14.1in Widescreen High Definition + (1600x900) WLED with TrueLife
or adding more 65$ for:
14.1in Widescreen High Definition (1366x768) WLED with TrueLife

??

 

depends on your purpose imo

if you're purely using it for gaming/entertainment - then 1366x768 would be the better option as you will get much smoother framerates and can turn on more effects without suffering from slowdowns

if you're using it for productivity (ie excel, photoshop, etc) then having extra viewing space is very handy.

 

I will use from Visual Studio and for Gaming (HIGH ~ ULTRA) so... 1366x768

 

But surley games look better with higher resolution ?

 

Get the 1600x900, higher resolutions always look better for both gaming and productivity...if necessary you can always turn the resolution down for gaming if the frame rates aren't smooth enough

 

Yeah thats my opinion as well, I would never turn down a higher resolution screen.

 

Yes, definitely.

 

cheap price for a higher rez

 

Yes. worth it!

 

1366x768 is a great resolution for gaming, plus you'll gain a fair few FPS.

 

not playing in native resolution looks horrible imo

would you rather play 1600x900 at 26 fps or 1366x768 at 33 fps

those 7 frames per second often is the difference between smooth gameplay and stuttering gameplay

its a choice you have to make

 

Not really, 1366x768 is still considered HD. Plus it didn't look bad on the Asus G53 15.6" laptop which had 1366x768 as its max screen resolution.

 

Take note that even screens with the same resolution can vary in performance. For example, the stock 768p screen on my xps14 is one of the worst in its class, viewing angle is horrible and colors are dull.

As a general rule, go for the higher resolution. You can always set it lower if you need extra fps, but you can't set it higher than it supports when you want quality.

 

1366 is ugly! I had an MSI with that resolution and trying to work in programs such as FL Studio was a nightmare. No room/space for anything! Never will I even go that resolution if an upgrade is offered

 

1366x768 is borderline for 14 inch(For some.). I would be more interested in the quality of the screens and any differences of the viewing angles between them.

 

Yes.

/10char

 

Yes, end of thread If you don't want to spend the money even though its cheap upgrade. Don't do it. However the 1600x900 is probably the perfect res for the 14"

 

Think about m11x, stock resolution is 1366x768 and its a bit small for 11.6" .

14" would be good size for the 1366x768. This is higher than 720p. If you want more room for productivity, get an external monitor. Don't you think a 22" 1080p monitor is a better option to work on your important project with more room than crappy 1600 and looks more comfortable ? Why are you getting a laptop ? Majority is gaming on the go ! At 1366, you get 30% less pixel but you can increase visual effects while maintaining good fps.

14" has limited space and power. We have to do some trade off to maximize benefits.

With our weaker performance, 1366 is the good choice for gaming on the go . We are always gpu limited !

For good work productivity, get an BIG and 1080p (or even higher) external monitor. Better than crammed space of 1600 in 14" .

7-10 fps is huge performance gain. 1366 will look great on 14".

Also, the stock screen is "truelife" screen, which offers better contrast, viewing angel, color than regular Dell screen. Check the configuration page.

Playing game at lower than default resolution looks terrible. If you want extra resolution because the gpu can handle it, we can use external monitor.

 

$65 is a steal. I have tried many 768p notebooks and I just do not find them to have enough vertical pixels for my workspace.

 

I'd go for the 768 for the performance.

 

sometimes people just don't understand how much better it is to run games in native resolution @ 720p than to force down convert from 900p to 720p in order to improve fps. Even if the upgrade cost only $0 dollars. The benefit is not immediately clear depending on usage. Let alone it's 65 bucks.

 

Definitely higher resolution. Yea performance matters. Jus lower ur graphics settings if u haf to. Wan quality i wld recommend desktop and save u alot money.

 

If desktop is a viable option then why are we here ?

Www. DesktopReview . Com

 

I have 1280x800 on a 12" subnotebook and nothing could make me buy one with only 768 vertical pixels. No way to go with that on a "huge" 14" screen.

 

Hey to each their own, but my E14 with the 1600x900 Radiance screen is an absolute work of art. Hands down the best screen I've ever seen on a laptop, even better IMO than the RGB of the R2. The 1600x900 is absolutely PERFECT on a 14inch screen. I could not, repeat, could not get used to a 720pish screen on a 14 inch laptop.

Sure, you'll gain some FPS. But you'll lose some good resolution.

 

It also depends on the screens themselves. My stock 768p screen looks absolutely awful playing games with native resolution. And my swap 900p screen(not sure how good it is but it costs around $72-100 online) completely destroy the stock screen in every single way possible, let it be 768p and native 900p. So unless they use a very cheap 900p screen, I'd definitely go for the 900p screen, just because I can have 900p when I need it and I can have 768p when I need extra performance.

 

The m11x r1 and r2 both feature "truelife" displays. Viewing angle and contrast are poor and are on par with majority of budget pcs. I believe the au display that is most common in the m11x retails for $10 usd.

The image quality is a good bit below the rest of the m-series. Don't hold the "truelife" designation as an endoresment of quality imho.

 

so should I take for the performance (Normal HD high fps) or the big res ( 900 HD Low fps)?? money its not a problem, I only want to know what will be the best for the gaming plus space on the screen

 

1600X900
wouldnt recommend anything less on any computer

 

get 1600 x 900 , good for resell & $65 is worth it , you many switch to lower res when you wanted to , when you feel bored with low res , you may just switch back to higher res.

 

Wow this whole thread is as clear as mud, even more confused now, as both sides have a good argument

 

i think the aspect ratio on today's laptops eliminates too much workspace already. do you often use two windows on the screen at once? Ie: writing an essay in word while viewing a powerpoint for reference on the other side

 

lol

I really think it depends on the purpose and the user

Get 1366x768 if you:
- are an older user with struggling vision (text will be bigger)
- a gamer who likes to be able to play on HIGH at the most frames per second
- don't need screen estate because you don't work with docs side by side or editing stuff

Get 1600x900 if you:
- have good vision and would like to see more on screen
- need to work with multiple documents at once or edit stuff
- are ok sacrificing framerates in games or playing at a lower non-native resolution on the screen

 

where did you get that price?

 

I'm more interested in how the panels compare in terms of viewing angles and contrast.

 

The bottom line is that the GT 555M is more than capable of running games at a native res of 1600x900.

My 260M is still running games @ 1680x1050, and the 555M is both faster and will be running at a slightly lower resolution.

Avoiding the 900p screen is silly.

 

Depends. Want to play crysis, metro, ffxiv, and other demanding titles? I would choose 1366.

 

get it. it's always good to have 2 options. If $65 is not a problem tho. Just downgrade the hard drive to 250 GB, (i think you'll get at least $50 back) because you can always upgrade that in the future.

 

GT 555m is stronger than the GTS 360m from full 1080p Asus 15" gaming laptops and slightly better than the overheating GTX 260m from 15" gaming laptops.

So do not make excuses about 1600x900 lowering the fps that much on the sexy GT 555m.

Only choose 1366x768 if your eyes are messed up or just wants something closer and bigger to the eyes.

 

so significantly better frame rates isn't a concern?

how many FPS can GT555m run crysis warhead on high at 1600x900 at?

what about future games like battlefield 3?

at 1366x768 you can turn up the settings and still get better framerates than 1600x900 with lower settings

 

So by that logic starscream, the gaming 15/17 inchers atm with the gtx 460m should be offered in 1366x768 like those best buy watered down versions than 1080p so that games in the future can be played smoothly in that sucky resolution.

I understand your concern is future proofing but nothing is future proof especially in gaming computers.

 

lol yea, you'r right... I think I should take the 1600x900 and why? First of all and the most importent bigger screen(I mean mroe space on the desktop). another thing is, I can always be able to change back to normal HD when ever I want... so 65$ worth the price!!! changing back to 1600x900 for movies and for space, and doing normal HD for gaming

Thanks guys, I will go for the 1600x900

 

Good choice

1366x768 is ok under 13" but 14 and up got to be higher. Only suckers choose 1366x768 in 14 or 15" laptops.

 

I agreed. This pretty much sums up the truth. Take this man's advice.
But if money isn't a problem then you should get the true gaming class laptop like the m17x or 18x. I mean it's true that you could game with smoother frames on lower native resolution but it's a lot more impressive at higher resolution. And the only way to get good fps at higher res is to get a better laptop. Leaping to m18x will save you all the trouble of deciding between 768p vs 900p because the video card in the m18x is easily capable of 1080p/1200p

 

This right here is bull. Starsteam's comparison is far more accurate. I myself will be going for 13x7. Why?

a) I don't have the greatest vision
b) I want to be able to take notes in lectures without bending down to the laptop
c) I prefer smoother gameplay over prettier gameplay
d) I have desktop that pretty much negates the need for an uber-amazing laptop

 

Higher resolution = Higher DPI = Better

 

@All - please remember the 555 is a low high end card or high mid tier card. Either way I bet your going to take a hit at 900p vs 768. If they only scored 1400 in 3dmark 11... I hope overclocking helps this out a bit. Maybe 1700 3dmark11 peak score?

X

 

I would be extremly disappointed in you if you do not go with the higher rez.
You can always game at 1366 if you want however also at 1600.

To lock yourself in to save $65 would be very disappointing to me. I would never view you the same.

 

Well, personally I've found that many programs are just assuming you're running more than 768 vertical pixels nowadays. Sure, you might never run across the issues but since you might not happen to use that software or go onto those websites.

However, I can guarantee that I quite frequently run into issues on my Fujitsu P1620 8.9" screen at 1280x768. While I wouldn't want a higher resolution on an 8.9" screen necessarily, it still has provided various issues in running certain programs, viewing certain websites without constant scrolling to see the content, and using certain spreadsheets/pdfs/other documents that I frequently use for gaming (open on my portable while playing on my Xbox or desktop PC) and/or school/work. I've had this laptop for a few years now and can say without a doubt that 768 vertical pixels just doesn't work or is needlessly annoying far too often while going above 800 would have been fine.

I just ordered one with the 1600x900 res (the only substantive upgrade over the base model that I got) because 768 vertical is simply unacceptable unless you can guarantee you won't run into problems. Too many software/website developers don't plan on it anymore.

I do intend on doing heavy gaming on this laptop. However, I have to weigh the 3 or so games and the few more that will be released before I replace it that I might play that won't run at max settings at native resolution (ie, running them at lower graphics settings or sacrificing native resolution if absolutely necessary) versus A. the many games that will run great at native resolution with good settings and look better for it and B. the various issues that crop up often enough that it annoys me on my current 768. To me, it's a clear choice.

For those that recommend future proofing with the lower resolution. I would argue that most games for the life of the laptop (I guess unless you intent to take this far beyond 3 years and still expect to game on it) will still be playable at native resolution. As time progresses, you will have to turn down settings on a few more games a little sooner than those with the 1366x768. However, in my experience it would not be a sharp distinction 1.5 years down the line where the 1366ers are still running everything at max and the 1600ers are having to turn down their resolutions just to cope with the game. You'll have to turn down a few more settings on a few more games a bit more often.

 

Get the higher resoution. 1600x900 has 300 brightness level 1366x786 has 200 brightness level. If you need larger text remember to use the ctrl + -/+ key combo.