1900x1200 .vs. 1440x900 (HELP!)

I'm basically wanting to know this... I'm not really worried about the extra $300.00 cost for the higher res screen... what I'm wanting to know is... If, say... while playing games like Crysis, the resolution of my choice while in game is not affected by my choiceof 1900x1200 (1080p-- alienware says 1200p).... As in, the 1900x1200 screen truly IS AN UPGRADE to the computer.. and, so long as I choose the correct in-game resolutions, that my game performance (FPS) will not be affected..? .. Can anyone post on this OR send me emails reguarding my question directly at [email protected] .... Any info would be greatly appreciated (as I've already ordered my m15x at 1900x1200.)

 

Higher resolution will deeply impact fps, especially that high of a resolution, and especially in a game like Crysis. I think that resolution is a little extreme for gaming, that resolution is better for multitasking than gaming.

 

You'll be fine. If you decide to play Crysis at 1900 x 1200, then your performance would take a huge hit, but as long as you keep the in-game resolution the same, there would be no difference between playing any game on a higher or lower resolution screen.

 

Yes as pointed out the game performance is determined by the resolution the game is set to run in.But a 1900x1200 will make dead pixels harder to find

But if u don't use it,don't waste the money

 

1920x1200 is probably overkill for a 15" screen when it comes to gaming. I doubt that you would notice much difference between the high res screen and the 1440x900 screen with most games. There is a noticeable difference when it comes to 17" and larger screens. Also as mentioned, certain desktop applications benefit from the higher resolution, even with the 15" screen.

 

Thanks to everyone who just posted.. redrubber..

Again, the main topic is actually "Will the 1900x1200 version of the m15x affect Crysis/Other Games when the IN-GAME RESOLUTION is set at lower res."... In other words.. will my game performance at 1078x760 or whatever the hell it is take a hit simply because I paid an extra $300.00 for the 1900x1200 version.

 

Nope. Having a 1900x1200 screen just means you CAN run it that high. Running it at 1078x760 won't make a difference whether you have a 1900x1200 screen or a 1078x760 screen.

 

This makes me happy in the pants .. Thanks for the info red.. haha

 

No worries, it's why we're in this forum. Enjoy your new laptop!

 

That is def. what I'm hoping for. I went out and bought Assassin's Creed, COD4, and Crysis.. lol ... I'm just hoping it ends up being EASY TO ENJOY it!.. At Nearly $4,100.00 after tax and shipping, it should be. The fact that I bought this laptop to play games while at work (because I have nothing better to do) is pretty funny. haha .

 

Actually, if you play it at lower resolutions than the panel's native (1920x1200), it'll look stretched out and start to get blurry on any screen.

 

i wish i have 1680x1050 instead. it is so damn small!! (and i am talking about 17" WUXGA)

 

... sigh.. and you're positive of this?... THe 1900x1200 isn't simply an upgrade for the screen so that it can be MAXED at that resolution?

 

Yeah, I'm completely sure. 1920x1200 is the screen's pixel density, if you tried playing at a lower resolution, like 1280x800, it'll stretch it out to fit all of the pixels on the screen, making it blurry and less crisp.

 

How blurry/less-crisp are we talking about here...?.. Will it be something I'll have to TOLERATE.. or will it be nearly unnoticable?

 

Well, on my 1680x1050 monitor playing at 1440x900 is barely tolerable for me, but if I try 1280x800 or lower, it becomes very blurry and loses any sharpness or crispness. Whatever you have hooked up to your PC now, try adjusting the resolution so it's lower and you'll get what I'm talking about.

 

@MICHAELSD01, my experience is that as long as you kept the same ratio with the native resolution, it wounldn't be blurry at all. happened to me in test drive unlimited and BF2142. (I don't know why)

 

So in other words... What would be the correct ratio for 1900x1200 smaller resolution?... I mean.... 1920/1200 --> 1.6000

soo... on a 1280x800 resolution (16:10) and OTHER 16:10 ratios such as
1680x1050... I shouldn't see stretch/display problems?

 

Well, there's no stretching problems, I was referring to how it stretches the pixels to fit the resolution. It won't look stretched, but you'll lose a lot of detail and all of the crispness and sharpness.

 

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're talking about... I'm just not sure of how "bad" the detail is flawed at lower resolutions... I wish I had some kind of picture comparison to see..

 

What are you using to get onto the internet now...?

 

actually they happened to be same crispness and sharpness as native resolution. weird huh?
@Allenj3, I can take some screenshot for you as well if you would like to.

 

Yeah, that is really weird. On every notebook and desktop I've used, the picture always looked significantly worse if you aren't using the screen's native resolution.

 

Sorry Just now caught up... I'm actually at work.. on a pieceof**** AC713 1024x768 native resolution desktop monitor... But yes, I'd GREATLY appreciate pictures.

 

Try changing the monitor's resolution to 800x600 and tell me what you think. Pictures won't really be a good way to show the difference. Even going into BestBuy and changing the notebook's resolutions to something lower than their native would be a good way to show how much different the picture looks.

 

Yeah I can see what you mean.. Though I can't really see any graphics like in a game... I understand that the pixels are actually larger to fit the screen size. I play Counter Strike 1.6 at 800x600 and I realize the incredible graphic difference at 1024x768 on my monitor at home. But at the same time, 800x600 is much smaller than 1024x768... as in, I'm not so sure it has much to do with the native resolution of my screen rather than the fact that I'm using only 480,000 pixels instead of 786,432.

 

Though I can clearly see your point... I think that has simply come down to a "see it to believe it" picture comparison... lol.. the science of it says one thing, but I'm hoping for the best still.

 

Ok so... I believe I just figured out a way to test our theory.... By downloading a picture at 1940x1200 resolution.... I then.. using paint, stretched the image to 67%/67% (as in 1280x800 of 1940x1200) and stretched it to the background of my monitor --- currently seeing extremely minor detail loss if any at all..

 

see it like this. if you play a game at native resolution, one "dot" in the game equals one pixel on your monitor. if you play it at a lower resolution, one in-game "dot" gets stretched and has to be displayed by two (or more) pixels on your screen. this means that the pixels have to be different colors because they have to cover more "dots".

imagine a black "dot" next to a white "dot". at native res, that's what you're gonna see on the monitor, a black pixel and a white pixel. lower the res, and one pixel will have to show both "dots", and will have to display the color gray, because one pixel can't display two colors, so it has to use the "average" (or whatever you want to call it).

thus you lose accuracy and clarity. which is why 1440x900 is better for gaming, because it's easier on the GPU and most games don't use 1900x1200 as native res anyway.

 

Hi.

games should be run at the screen native resolution if you want the best picture.

if you play a lot of games got for the 1440x900.

regards

John.

 

To the OP: The blurriness is caused by interpolation and pixel mapping where the pixels on your high density 1920x1200 screen are used to approximate pixels on a 1440x900 screen or whatever resolution you're running the game. This means it's taking multiple pixels on your screen to try and draw single pixels on the lower resolution. This isn't a perfect process and it's impossible to pixel map perfectly so you end up with a type of blurriness that is a common effect from running games in a non-native resolution. This is a factor that all of us who own WXGA screens took into account before we bought the laptop.

Personally, I find 1920x1200 even too small on my 17" XPS, and it's definitely uncomfortable for me on a 15.4", but other than that, I didn't want to run my games at non-standard res because I hate the blurriness effect. This effect is minimized by using a resolution within the same aspect ratio, but it's still very much there. I also wanted maximum longevity with this gaming laptop and that's difficult to do when running at 1920x1200 which generally pushes the video card much more when running newer games, ala Crysis. Plus, if you really need a higher resolution at some point, you can always hook up an external LCD. I use a 24" 1920x1200 Dell LCD when I need it.

Anyway, 1440x900 is perfect to me and I don't need any more screen real estate for my purposes but it depends on what you use the laptop for. As people have said, if you are doing programming, or graphics intensive work then you might benefit from the higher res, but it seems to me that work of that nature would benefit much more from a larger external display.

 

So, I realize you're asking whether performance will be compromised by running the lower resolution on a higher native res LCD. The answer is definitely no, but you will have the blurriness effect that comes from interpolation and that you will not be able to ever get rid of. If that is an acceptable compromise, then it looks like you're fine.

 

Also, to the OP. You can't take screenshots of this effect or recreate it within photoshop. We're not talking about "jaggies" and loss of detail when downsampling an image resolution. It's a result of the pixel mapping that goes on within interpolation and you can't print screen something like that.

 

Resolution has always been my personal main factor in playing games. Back in the days when I would game on my old laptop, and as it slowly degraded into obsolescence over the years, I would always try to max the resolution before maxing out other things like textures and other effects (i.e. I would play a game at 1280x1024 at all low settings instead of playing at 800x600 at all high settings). To me, I always found the resolution more important.

So, what's my point? To me, I would definitely go with the 1440 (as I did) if you're gonna be doing lots of gaming. I would also say that there's definitely a noticeable difference between resolutions of the same aspect ratio, in my opinion.