POST ONLY IF YOU OWN 1920x1200 NATIVE m15x!

Simply wanting to find somebody with an m15x NATIVE 1920x1200 res. screen that can tell me this...

.... Are you seeing any bluriness/lack-of-crispness or lack of sharpness while playing games like Crysis/COD4 """WHILE SETTING THE IN-GAME RESOLUTION TO ANYTHING LESS THAN 1920x1200 (prefer. 1280x800)"""

 

Thats what happens when you play lower resolutions regardless of monitor -.-;

Mods can you change the title the caps are quite annoying...

 

LOL...:laugh:.....yup...

Play at a higher res...certainly in COD4.

 

So... In other words... I'm trying to figure out if I should go with 1440x900 or 1920x1200... advice?

 

This is in reguards to the NATIVE RESOLUTION of the monitor.

 

If gaming is your primary task, then pick 1440x900 (WXGA+). What other res Would we be talking about

 

Yes, we got the NATIVE RESOLUTION part, esp. since it's in all caps, which makes it much more obvious and not annoying at all. This is what happens to all LCDs that perform under NATIVE RESOLUTION.

LOUUUD NOISES!!!

 

ugh.

mainly gaming or office work > 1440x900
mainly 3D stuff, PS, movies, etc. > 1900x1200

 

Just making sure you understood my question I guess.... So, if I chose the 1920x1200... How big of a hit to blurriness/whatnot would I see in 1280x800 or 1400x900 IN GAME res?.. Is it significant?

 

Games perform better at native res...

MAYBE IF I TRY USING CAPS IN WNSIB PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ME INSTEAD OF SOME MORONS? GOTTA TRY THAT SOME TIME!

 

You're playing without any shades of grey though... black/white... plays well/doesn't play well.... I'm trying to find a general answer of "how significant" the difference/blurriness/lack of sharp graphics is... I say this simply because, I'm confident the machine can run most games other than Crysis at 1920x1200.

 

Well, there's no ranking system for blurriness, so I'll just invent one.

Your bluriness factor is 3. Three.

 

A year or two down the line you would have wish you got the WXGA+ screen...

 

I play COD4 on 1920x1200, I don't notice any lag in the game. I will be trying it at lower resolution though .

 

ooo it would be nice to see some blurry-ness factor bench marks...:laugh:

 

Wow... I've just found that some people are extremely stupid.. Feel free to stop posting ridiculous sarcastic answers to a simple question.

 

Thanks for actually taking my question serious MAG13.

 

Loud Noises...

.... I Love Lamp

 

Put it that way you fussy one, I'd rather max out a game a year down the line @ WXGA+ than having to play at non native res to get a decent about of fps.


I love desk...


Also there were so much sarcasm up there...so much, totally.

 

hear hear. everyone keeps saying how they want their m15x to be future-proof but then buy a WUXGA screen...

 

Arighty Mr. Criticism.

First, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a hard question and and easy question if it slapped you in the face.

Second, these answers are free. You get what you pay for.

Third, you're effectively asking us to describe the color "GREEN" to you. Words cannot make an image. Refer to point #1 and realize that this is a hard question to answer.

Fourth, this rant is not just directed to you, but to every other poster who's said the same thing. If you ever post a question and get a multitude of stupid answers, it's because you just asked a stupid question. And yes, those exist - and are asked damn frequently.

/rant

-------------------------------------------------------------

Now with that out the way, I don't have photoshop installed, so this took a good amount of time.

First image is unscaled 1280x1024, second image is that downscaled to 800x600 and stretched. Pretty much would be analogous to using 1280x800 on 1920x1200. If you want to notice the blurring, look at the letters down right.



And from now on, THIS IS OFFICALLY BLURRINESS FACTOR : THREE.

 

I just tried COD4 on 1280x1024, AAx2 and I didn't see a difference at all in gameplay except in the menu (it wasn't blurry but not as sharp as on 1920x1200).

 

YES CAPS CAPS CAPS IT SHOULD BE NOTICIBLE AND TO SOME ANNOYING IE ME! BUT FURTHERMORE IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT GAMES USUALLY LOOK BETTER AT NATIVE RES AND LOWER SETTINGS then at a shrunken resolution with maxed out quality.

" Originally Posted by Allenj3 View Post
Wow... I've just found that some people are extremely stupid.. Feel free to stop posting ridiculous sarcastic answers to a simple question."

Someone is staying up past his bedtime.. Someone should call his mom and tell her hes under the sheets with his notebook.

 

Negative btw. I'm at work. Working hard obviously. And FYI I don't have the laptop yet. But thanks for the info.

 

Basically to some it is annoying. Like me. I am UBSESSED with sharpness due to Photoshop training my eyes >.< but to many they dont care about any lack of sharpness for "higher quality"

 

I actually do care about the quality/sharpness..... but at the same time, the quality/sharpness will only be compromised with games like.. well.... only Crysis... as nearly all other games should be playable at 1920x1200. And from what I hear from MAG13... COD4 loses only minor graphic qualities when ran at 1280x1024 on a 1920x1200 native monitor.

 

If you're running COD4 at 1280x1024 on a WUXGA screen, you're doing it wrong. Your aspect ratio isn't even matched up, unless you're blind, it's going to look like crap.

 

I think the CAPITALS indicates that hes blind?

 

Alright, enough with the personal attacks. All that's going to do is get this thread closed. I think the point has been made.

 

Well.. whether he was playing on something ridiculous like 1280x1024 or 1327x644 haha... I'll take his blind word for it that there was only minor.. and yes, I chose the word minor.. also meaning, not very much.... lol.. distortion to the graphics... In other words, considering its a strong system, I'll stick with the 1920x1200 most likely and deal with the "minor distortion" in wicked-demanding games like Crysis.... And in the mean time, I'll run all other games in 1920x1200 and be happy.

 

you do that. just don't complain in a year.

 

Yea, when you realize that the 8800 isnt what it is now and games are more taxing causing you to play at higher res with lower settings to get decent fps and no blur...well...i think you get the idea.

 

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.

 

If you do a benchmark test with a low resolution on 3dmark06, with two different computers with 2 different native resolutions, the computer with the LOWER native screen will ALWAYS perform better than the one with a higher resolution. The performance is significant, and by a couple hundred points.

Look at chaz's review, he had the high 1900ish resolution on the M15x he reviewed and it benchmarked at 9200ish points while most who have the 1440ish resolution SCORED 10500 points.

To the TS, here is the facts, a computer with a HIGHER RESOLUTION will always stress the computer more when your running a game at LOWER resolutions. And running a game like Crysis or any future games with new gen graphics at 1900ish resolution is going to KILL the performance. Now if your going to be playing games like COD4 and Team Fortress 2 FOREVER then you won't have to worry about is as the M15x can handle playing these games in high res.

In conclusion, if your a gamer and want to play new games in the future, get the 1440 Resolution.

 

yea, we he said.

 

I have the 1080p screen and it scored 10758 3dmarks (crazy I know, I think this is the highest score an m15x has got

Edit: Just to note that my m15x stayed 2 weeks in testing

 

best take that with a grain of salt. AW allegedly runs their 3dmark tests at 1280x800... which would explain the high score quite nicely.

 

True but this is the official resolution most run the test on. My point is, what explains the high score on the 720p screen is because they don't have the 1280x800 res so they run the test at 1152x768 (something like that) which obviously will get a high score. Remember the tests are not being run at naive resolution.