Hard drive vs higher resolution

320GB (7,200rpm) SATA Hard Drive with 17.3" WideHD+ (1600 x 900) WLED LCD

Or

750GB (7,200rpm) Serial ATA Hard Drive with 17.3" WideFHD (1920 x 1080) WLED LCD?

The 750GB is £85 more expensive than the 320GB. 1920x1080 is £70 more expensive than the 1600x900.

For gaming, which should I pick? I'd be installing up to 10 games or so each using several GB like Witcher 2.

 

Get the higher Resolution one, becuase HDD you can upgrade it manually, beside it is also cheaper too, for the screen you cant just upgrade it after order it.

If you can just select the 320GB with the 1080p screen and upgrade the HDD manually. Save you money.

 

Hmmm I already have a 5400rpm 500GB WD Scorpio Blue hard drive, model WD5000BEVT but I don't know if it's SATA or IDE. Think it's compatible with the Alienware M17x R3? I can currently fit it inside a Dynamode 2.5 inch hard drive enclosure.

 

No question, get the higher resolution. That 500Gb drive is likely to fit too.

 

Take the higher ress. The HDD is easy and cheap to upgrade later on. The screen is expensive and hard to upgrade.

The screen is one of the most important parts of the laptop.

 

Hard drives are cheap and easy to upgrade. Screen resolution are expensive and difficult to upgrade. Get the HDD later.

 

Definetly go with the screen. Like everyone else has said, the HDD is the easiest thing you can upgrade on your laptop, the screen however, is a son born to unmarried parents.......

 

But will I really notice a difference between those two resolutions when playing 3D games? My old laptop runs on 1280X1024 on a 17 inch screen and it seems big enough.

 

I feel 1080p is a must for 17in machine. But thats just my preference.

 

Generally there's a quality difference along with higher resolutions, so yes.

Also, you shouldn't use games as your primary base for which resolution to get. Games aren't the only thing you do with your computer, even if it IS an Alienware

Resolution makes a significant difference for everything outside of games, and you should never trade it for a hard drive upgrade (of all things). That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard

 

I'm pretty sure if you asked this question to a million other people, you will get the same answer:

HIGHER RESOLUTION SCREEN

There's not even a shadow of a doubt that the screen upgrade is the only logical option. 320GB is already enough space, and if you do need to upgrade later, upgrading the hard drive is a lot cheaper & easier to do than upgrading a screen.

Plus, if you get the 750GB and you don't utilize the space, then you won't receive immediate benefit from it anyways. It will just be dead space sitting there until you end up using it. On the other hand, if you upgrade the screen, you will be able to enjoy the benefits every single second you are using your laptop, starting from the moment you receive it.

Screen - 1
Hard drive - 0

 

Also, if you don't think an upgrade from 1600x900 to 1920x1080 is significant, let me do the math for you:

By upgrading, you don't just get 320 more horizontal pixels, and 180 more vertical pixels...

You get 633600 more pixels. So it goes from 1,440,000 pixels to 2,073,600 pixels. That's a 44% increase in screen space. This means, you will be able to see 44% more while you do everything. You won't have to scroll as much. You'll be able to fit more windows on your screen. It will be glorious.

Don't confuse monitor size with resolution. You can have a 1000 inch screen, but if it only has a 1600x900 resolution, it will still be useless. Sure, everything will be gigantic, but the things you will be able to fit on the screen will be the same as if you had a 10 inch screen with 1600x900. An increase in resolution, however, means that you have more pixel density, AKA you have more pixels in the same space. Which means your screen will be able to show more things on it at the same time.

 

^^^^^^This. Awsome post +1 rep.

 

True, but 1920x1080 on a 17" screen means the windows you do see are small, very small in fact. If you have good eyesight it's a non-issue. If you don't (like the inlaws have, they couldn't read my old laptop screen), it's a curse rather than a blessing.

It also means you video card has to render 44% more of a scene, thereby reducing framerates. How many people can run crysis at full whack in 1080p? Not many, relatively speaking, so they need to drop to sub native resolutions which gimps quality.

Both the 1600 and 1920 60hz screens will also suffer on BDROM playback too. The 120Hz option is MUCH better in that regard, it's like watching a dvd on your laptop then the same one on the TV - the TV is orders of magnitude better!

I'm arguing devil's advocate somewhat. I want the 1920x1080 120hz screen on the M17x. I'm just stating the cons as well as the pros you have already described

Additional pros - the 1920 screen is brighter and with better contrast than the 1600 screen. The 120hz screen is better still, even ignoring the 3d aspect which by all accounts is good for gaming.