1440x900 vs. 1920x1200 (on the m15x)

Hey guys, just a quick question for those with m15x's. I was originally planning to get the 1440x900 screen because it's cheaper and it would be easier to see everything, plus I'd have better gaming performance at native resolution. The only problem is that it's glossy, which I don't really like, and it gives me less desktop space. Does anyone have any info as to how small things look on the 1920x1200 screen? I mean, my 20" desktop monitor is 1680x1050, and some things looks small even on that. I just really don't like glossy displays. If they made a matte version of the 1440x900 I'd definitely get that, bust sadly that's not the case. Anywho, any info would be helpful. Also, if anyone has comparison pics that would be great.

 

Here is a solution, this guy will custom cut a sheet to fit your screen. It makes your glossy screen non glossy

 

On a further note, has anyone purchases the m15x with the 1920x1200 screen?
How do you like it for gaming and doing normal work on the system? And could you please put a screenshot of it in its actual size so we can see how it looks?

 

you know, you could just change the resolution of the screen down to make it acceptible. even though some people say this distorts the screen, i really doubt it will be that bad considering that the distortion will be about .05mm in pixel conversion from the say 720-1200p.

then when you want to watch movies, or play games, you can change back the resolutions.

 

you might also be interested in this info

Specifications of the Area-51 m15x 15.4" 1920x1200 WUXGA display:

Manufacturer: LG Philips
Model Name: LP154WU1
Surface Treatment: Hard coating(3H) Anti-glare treatment of the front polarizer
Outline Dimension [mm]: 344.0 (H) × 222.0 (V) × 6.5(D, max) mm
Resolution: 1920 horiz. by 1200 vert. Pixels RGB strip arrangement
Contrast Ratio: 500:1
Clearview Technology: No
Pixel Pitch[mm]: 0.1725 mm × 0. 1725 mm
Number of Colors: 6-bit, 262,144 colors
Luminance[cd/m2]: 210 cd/m2(Typ.), 5 point
Weight[g]: 705 g (Max.) without inverter & bracket
Power Consumption: Total 6.27 Watt(Typ.) @ LCM circuit 1.85 Watt(Typ.), B/L input 4.42 Watt(Typ.)
Viewing Angle
Up: 40°
Down: 50°
Left: 60°
Right: 60°
Response Time[ms]: 30 (Max.)

Specifications of the Area-51 m15x 15.4" 1440x900 WXGA display:

Manufacturer: LG Philips
Model Name: LP154WP1
Surface Treatment: Hard coating(2H) Anti-glare treatment of the front polarizer,
Outline Dimension [mm]: 344.0 (H) × 222.0 (V) × 6.4(D, max) mm
Resolution: 1440 horiz. by 900 vert. Pixels RGB strip arrangement
Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Clearview Technology: Yes
Pixel Pitch[mm]: 0.2301 mm × 0.2301 mm
Number of Colors: 6-bit, 262,144 colors
Luminance[cd/m2]: 250 cd/m2(Typ.), 5 point
Weight[g]: 515 g (Max.) without inverter & bracket
Power Consumption: Total 5.77 Watt(Typ.) @ LCM circuit 1.35 Watt(Typ.), B/L input 4.42 Watt(Typ.)
Viewing Angle
Up: 60°
Down: 60°
Left: 80°
Right: 80°
Response Time[ms]: 25 (Max.)

the 1440 x 900 has better faster response time and it has clear view technology. i think the viewing angle is also better. it also takes less power and weighs less so if you are just going to play games with the laptop i would just go for the 1440 x 900. 1440 x 900 is better for games since the native resolution is lower you can use less gpu power to run the game.

 

wow i wouldnt thing that weight would be different. +rep for you^_^

 

6-bit? Oh, well. I'm using a 6-bit for gaming anyways.

 

I bought the 1920x1200 version and I am overall happy with that choice. Top me the big resolution is most important for work, however I also like gaming with HiRES.

So far I have not experienced any problems.

Keep in mind the following though:

1. The OnBOard-Graphics card only support 1680 as max. resolution. That basically means with a 1920 display, you will see a drop in quality if using that graphics card (might be necessary for longer battery power)

2.) The 1920 only shines if you put the overall system on HighPerformance. That of course kills your battery life, so I never play high-end games at this HIGH resolution on battery.

Rambler

 

I love the 1440 x 900, wouldn't have it any other way, since I know a friend who has a Alienware too & whenever I use it I'm always distracted by how everything smaller looks + you the fact you'l lose a few FPS while playing games if you go for the 1920 x 1200.

 

Are there any long term benefits of having the 1920 x 1200 screen over the 1440 x 900 as it will delay the order by a month? can anyone list out the pros and cons?...i need to get the system ideally before july 5th. did anyone find there estimated shipping date to be ridiculously wrong? ...

 

Wow I didn't realize there was that big of a difference between the two. It seems like the 1440x900 has better viewing angles, is lighter, has a better contrast ratio, and sucks up less power.

 

Hmm, well I'll likely be going with the 1440x900. I just wish it came in matte

 

im going to get that matte potective film for it that i saw somewhere.

 

I love my 1920x1200 screen. Sure things can be small at times, But I hate glossy screens, and when I show friends this screen they are in awe!

 

I much prefer the glossy one, it makes things so much brighter. I always have the brightness on my monitors on full and it never seems bright enough because they're both matte (24" widescreen and a 17" 4:3, both LCD).

 

glossy and matte finishes dont determine brightness. as a matter of fact, they have said in some reviews that the 1200p matte screen on the m15x is much brighter than the normal screen.

 

Pro's:
-1440 x 900 is more visible, easier on the eyes since icons & everything else are normal size.
-1920 x 1200 is sharper & supports 1080p HD over 720p which the 1440 x 900 supports.
-1440 x 900 also will run games a tad faster.
-1440 x 900 uses slightly less power from the battery.
-1440 x 900 supposedly cause of the glossiness it makes the screen brighter, but haven't tested this first hand so I put supposedly but it makes sense I guess.

Con's:
-1440 x 900 supports only up to 720p HD
-1920 x 1200 despite being higher resolution it means everything is much smaller onscreen, its really noticable since its a 15', not so bad on a 17'.
-1920 x 1200 while playing games fps will drop ever so slightly over 1440 x 900.


And I think Glossy or Matte is a middleground, whichever you prefer, me personally I love glossy to bits & would never want to go back to matte screens.


I don't really care about the 1080p HD support on the 1920 x 1200 since most laptops don't even have 720p HD screens + I'm not gonna ever really use its full potential. I would rather have the extra fps while games with the 1440 x 900. The fact everything is smaller onscreen distracts me & never get used to it when looking or using my friends laptop. And finally for extra money for the 1920 x 1200 is it really worth it? Those are the reason I went with 1440 x 900.

 

Don't discount the FPS difference between running at 1440x900 and 1920x1200 though. Remember that the 1920x1200 has twice as many pixels that need rendering than the 1440, so your FPS results with 1920 will be half the results with 1440.

 

dont forget that the 1440 x 900
has better viewing angles
weighs less
needs less power
has clear view technology (whatever that does)
has a better contrast ratio
faster response time
the glossy screen is also brighter since the luminance is higher than the 1920 x 1200

 

Clearview is just AW's marketing term for glossy

 

If you're getting the WUXGA, make sure you get the 8800MGTX. 8700/8600 Can't handle anything over WXGA+!