1920 vs. 1440 side by side pics & comparison anywhere?

I've done a lot of searching on this but seem to have come up empty. I'm trying to decide (like everyone else it seems) on which to purchase with my machine.

I currently use a Latitude D620 that has a 1440 x 900 matte screen for work and it is just fine - I've even played games on it before (HL2, UT3, etc.) and they have looked fine. However, my wife has a 1440 x 900 GlassView Inspiron 6400 and I really like the looks of that.

I like the idea of the larger resolution but then started reading that framerates would really be affected on it (in the area of 10 - 20+) and am not keen on that if it it true... though most of those posts concerned the 8800 card and not the 9800 from what I can tell.

So what I'm looking for is a side by side pic comparison if anyone has been able to do one as well as possibly a comparison of 3DMark06 between the 2 and possibly real world examples of framerate differences using the same game on the 2 different screens.

I am more than happy to weed through posts if this information is somewhere I haven't already looked - just give me a pointer and I'll hunt it down. some of the searches I've already tried are: m15x 1920, m15x 1440, m15x didplay, m15x 1920 vs 1440 (and the reverse), etc.

Thanks in advance!

 

You don't *HAVE* to run games at the screen's native resolution... You could run them at 1280x800 or 1440x900 and they'd look ok (not stretched out like a 4:3 resolution).

Of course, the game you're playing, video card, and eye candy settings will all effect FPS.

 

Right but wouldn't they be scaled so blurriness could be introduced as well as the LCD would need to work harder to do the scaling?

 

LCD doesn't work it all... it just shows what the GPU sends it.

 

The quality won't be as sharp but the LCD wouldn't be doing anything except displaying what the GPU shows it.

 

I play MANY games lower than native resolution and have had no issue with the blurriness of the screen. Initially I thought this would be an issue for me but the dot pitch of the screen is so fine that I hardly notice it. I prefere doing all my work with the higher resolution of 1920x1200, but I game with the monitor resolutions as low as 1200x800 to bring frames per second up.

I would say that blurriness really is an issue if you already have a low res screen and are setting it lower but due to the dot pitch of a 1920x1200 screen, you'll notice the blur much less.

 

I agree with Grey728 and Joelmusicman - you can easily use a lower resolution in a game with a high-resolution monitor. As long as you keep the aspect ratio, blurriness should not be a problem. While playing the game, I doubt you would notice it.

I find that my productivity is directly dependent on the screen resolution - the more resolution I have, the more space I have to work with and the more I get done.

The problem with low-res 1280x800 and slightly better but not great resolutions like the 1440x900 you have is the lack of vertical resolution. Vertical resolution is the most important since the vast majority of scrolling is vertical. WUXGA, or 1920x1200, has one-third more vertical res than 1440x900 - that is very significant. 1920x1200 has 78% more space than a 1440x900 screen.

My advice is to go for the highest resolution you can.

 

Sounds like a very compelling argument - something I have not yet seen in any threads on this subject... most seem to lean towards "1440x900 is a beautiful screen with more vibrant colors and 1920x1200 is not vibrant and will drop framerates on a noticable level".

Can anyone with a 1920 x 1200 run a framerate test with something like UT3 at full native and then run the same at 1440x900 scaled to give an idea of the comparison?

Also, I read that the integrated graphics cannot do 1920 x 1200 - is that true? What is the highest it can do?

 

Running UT3 on my system at native resolution (and SLI enabled) I occassionally dip below 60fps and am more in the 40-60 fps range. Lowering my resolution to 1400x900 gives me a solid 60 fps in any sitiuation in game. I prefere lowering my resolution in this situation because I get disoriented when the framerate drops.

 

An integrated GPU will output up to 1920x1200. Just don't expect to play any new games on this resolution.

 

I'm looking for numbers on an m15x actually - sorry for not specifying.

 

Oh well then if youre also talking about the M15x screen you're right that it might not be as vibrant as the 1920x1200 isn't glossy, it is matte (thank you for calling it 1920x1200 and not 1200P ).

Anyways. I wish I could help but I can't.

 

I can't do a qualitative test of UT3 for two reasons. likely you're looking for the test to be done on the 8800GTX/9800GT, which I don't have, and the second reason is... I don't have UT3.

Beyond that, I can confirm that the Integrated Graphics runs the 1920x1200 resolution fine. in fact, unless I'm trying to play a game, I hardly notice the differences in performance between the integrated and discrete cards. I did however, notice that there is a fairly large inequity in the Intel drivers... the most recent ones seem to run a fair bit faster than drivers that were out as recently as 4 months ago. Something they've done has made windows a more enjoyable place to play.

Just don't ask the integrated to do any heavy 3D lifting.

 

I have a M15x, and UT3. I usually play the game at 1440 x 900 with my 1920x1200 screen. If i play at 1920 the frame rate gets a little inconsistant, Smooth indoors and drops up and down while in wide views outside, this could because im only running 2gigs of ram... not sure. What i can tell you is that the game still looks great and runs flawlessly at 1440..

Reason i got 1920x1200 is because of the of workspace and Matte finish. I spoiled myself with hi res last year with my M5550. I can never go back… I messed on my buddys 1440 screen and it felt way too cluttered for me. My screen on the m15x is bright, and if you mess with the nvidia color settings you can make the colors as vibrant as you want, I tweaked these settings and it looks amazing … not grayish/dull like it was with default settings. In the end its really about personal preference… but IMO its better to scale down a game and have a large workspace than have a tiny bit sharper game graphics and not have the option to scale up your desktop. U can always get a larger external monitor with 1440.

i cant give you pics of the the resolution comparisons of UT3.. if i give you a pic of ut3 running on 1920x1200 your going to see a huge picture that wont fit your screen, a 1440x900 ut3 picture will fill your screen just fine but appearing smaller on mine. both being identical (quality wise)
oh and running 1920x1200 on integrated works just fine.

 

I might be able to get high resolution digital pictures of similar areas of the screens of two m15x's with the different resolutions, and do a side-by-side that way... it'll be a while till I can do it though. I have a buddy who bought an m15x after using mine for only a few minutes and loving it tons ( + he needed a new laptop), but I have the 1920x1200 screen and he has the 1440x900. no game testing can be compared as neither of us has the 8800/9800 cards.

 

Hey, I think I've probably just about got the rig you're looking for in terms of testing, but I don't beleive I have any unreal engine 3 games.

I could only really tell you about:
Crysis
Fallout 3
SupCom
Source Games (L4D, HL2, CSS, etc)
FarCry 2

But yeah, someone would have to guide me through what settings I should be running for tests. For me all those games look pretty good at 1920x1200 and pretty nice eye candy settings, running consistently at 40+ FPS in even the most taxing areas. (Can't be sure with Crysis, which is actually surprisingly dull - haven't played it in TIME).

It's true that once you go up in the res world, it's hard to go back down, even in games. To summarise, I love my 1920x1200 and when I game at the high resolutions the quality overall is enough that my nerd friends can be wowed; in fact thinking about it, the monitor is the thing about my 15x that my chums like most.

 

Which gfx card do you have?

 

Sorry, as for the pic comparisons what I'm actually looking for is a camera shot of the desktop comparison on a 1440 m15x next to a 1920 m15x so that I can see the relation between then.

I guess it doesn;t really matter now though because I *finally* got my Titanium account issues hammered out and placed my order.

 

i have the 9800m gt

Here is my desktop pic...maybe someone can post there 1440 screen. The other pic has slingbox,aim, 2 web browsers, napster, all open to demonstrate the screen space (sorry for semi blurry pic)

 

Oh wait I can do this for you... WOW I'm really dumb... give me a few minutes.

Edit:
God dammit of course AW gives you the stock drivers that don't have enough resolutions.

Basically, to see the difference, someone here with un-gimp drivers (I'm going to upgrade tomorrow night I have a lot of school work) take a picture @1920x1200. Then reduce your screen resolution to 1440x900 and take a picture

 

Got something quickly for you...

http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?p=2692291&highlight=1920#post2692291

 

Not the clearest pics but they work! Thanks for that. Time to update my perscription - need new glasses anyhow since these ones have tons of scratches on them...

Seriously though, I've gone from an Inspiron 8000 to a Latitude C640 to a Latitude D610 to a Latitude D620 over the past 6 years at work and always craved more desktop space. I'm currently at 1440 x 900 on a 14.1"; the wife's Inspiron 6400 is a 15.4 Wide with 1440x900 and while it looks nice, I've always thought everything looked too big for it so that's why I finally opted for the 1920 x 1200 on my m15x. I'm hoping there aren't any delays so that I can get to playing games soon - it's been way to long.

Believe it or not, I can actually play UT3 and Half-Life 2 + Episodes on this Latitude D620 (624 3d marks 3dmark06; GeForce Go 7300; Core duo T7200 2GHz) though I need to drop it to 800x600 with medium to low details to get the best out of it... I'm looking forward to some eye candy for once.