G73 900P or 1080P Screen?

Running Games at 1600 - 900 is going to easier on this Laptop I will not be using it to watch Movies etc mainly gaming and Browsing, is the quality of the 900p Screen has good the 1080p screen has far has Color and Contrast are concerned or is there a big difference?

Dale

 

Here's my take on screens and is completely non substantial when discussing with screen pros. lol, any way 900p, and 1080p your only losing 180 vertical pixels, which is non factor for most things besides giving a bit better colour representation in terms of brightness so Iv read, and for watching of course in Full HD on your LCD, but you can do this with an external if need be. 1600x900 screens are decent in my eyes, I have a 1600x1200, older laptop but its very beautiful screen with a lot of space.

And the raging debate weather getting a lower resolution monitor for gaming is logical to me is unsubstantiated. Screens are ment to be changed for optimal settings for games, why do you think there are settings at all for games in the first place if everything was to stay static.

This is literally about if you want to save the 100 dollars on an upgraded screen, and in this case is totally substantial and logical if you indeed want to save a few bux. Down the road you can get an external monitor with full HD if you want to use your laptop for movie watching.

ps: welcome to notebookreviews

 

The G73 1080p screens are a lot better than the 900p ones, Asus kind of screwed the BB models in that respect. The screen quality is passable and does the job but the 1080p models are better. I heard the BST7 model though has a much improved 900p screen though so who knows

 

1080p, more pixels and standard hd resolution. If you play a Bluray, you will need those extra pixel for true hd.

 

True HD is just a marketing term. 1600x900 is not that far off from 1080p, Blu-rays look fantastic at that resolution and I'd dare anybody to point out the differences on a movie. Blu-rays looks great even on 1280x720 (1366x768) TV's/Screens.

 

I know true-hd is just (sony) marketing, but still more pixels are better for screen. Sometime i consider 1080p not enough for all the windows that i have at the same time. Also agree about 720p, but you must consider also 1080p movies must be downscaled to fit lower resolutions.

 

to be honest i wouldnt be concerned with the slight differences between 900 and 1080 resolutions but more of the fact that to get a 900 reso screen youre gonna have to get the best buy version which have been known (to my latest knowledge) to use screens not quite up to par with the ones equipped with 1080 reso.its not a question of the resolution difference, but the screen quality difference.

not to mention the best buy versions have a crappier warranty, one less hard drive AND bracket (if you consider adding one in the future this might be a problem) plus you miss out on an excellent backpack and decent mouse.

if youre on a budget then i recommend the 900. but if not, well...

 

Higher resolution is better. But, you can't tell the difference too much specially if you don't have something to compare of.

 

TBH, for me, I dont care about 1080p. I do care about DPI though, and a 1600x900 screen vs a 1920x1080 screen both in the 17.3 inch size, the 1920x1080 screen wins hands down. I just replaced my BB AUO 1600x900 screen with an AUO B173HW01 V.0 and it is an amazing difference (1920x1080). DPI is increased, colors are more vivid, and brightness/viewing angles are insane compared the the 1600x900 screen. AUO seems to keep the good stuff for the 1920x1080+ screens.

 

Although the 1080p screen will look sharper and give you more real estate, the 900p will help make the laptop last longer.

On this laptop you gain about 20-35% performance when rendering at 900p rather then 1080p so games will run smoother for longer.

 

I have the BB version and have to say am not very impressed with the screen. Maybe the 1080p models have better display.

 

Thanks for the reply's I have gone for the BST7 version with 740-QM CPU and 900p screen, will have to wait for it to arrive before I can give my own verdict.

 

Bladerunner2125,
FWIW: I just recently compared my 2 month old BB 720-QM model with an AUO139E to a BST7 with 740-QM and an LG screen and I must admit the LG was better. The brightness was better on the AUO but the contrast and clarity were superior on the LG. The viewing angles seem wider on the LG too (slightly).
However keep in mind that BST7 models can come with either panel so be sure to check yours before the return policy expires!
Good luck!

 

Legoheads

Thanks for the info, since I am importing to the UK from the US, returning for a different screen will not be an option, I will just keep my fingers crossed that I get a decent screen?

 

And for gaming?

The Balance between Performance-Resolution:
Any good/major differences playing games at 900p or just stick to 1080p or maybe 720p when it comes to performance? noticeable difference? does it really look better 1080 vs 900p vs 720p?

Or maybe it depends on games.

I have noticed only one thing is that for Crysis Warhead, difference between 720p & 1080p is quite significant. At 1080 the game looks way better, sharper and more polished. hence performance takes a little slap also.. Haven't tried 900p yet.

Your thoughts & comments...

 

No thoughts or comments??

lol

 

i just upgraded my screen and while the games look better my computer is now crashing in sc2 which it never did before. reduce the res to medium settings but it still crashes. very annoying

 

I prefer getting 1080p screens, because they seem to have better quality over their 900p counterparts. Also, I prefer the real estate for working. If I need to raise FPS for some reason (haven't had to so far), I can lower the screen res to 900p and keep the scaling to 1:1. (No stretch)

 

Keep the scale to 1:1 means that your G73 screen won't be fully 'filled', right? :-s
And what do you mean by "prefer the real estate for work"?

Sorry not pro in these things

Regards

 

I prefer having more desktop space. I'm accustomed to 1080p on desktop, so having the same size laptop makes it comfortable.
And yes, 1:1 means having bars on the edges of the image, but the difference from 1080 to 900 isn't that much that the bars are enormous.

This gives me the best of both worlds.

 

Eh as a matter of opinion, I have the newer BST7 BB version and compared directly to an A1 my eyes prefer the slightly lower res. Games perform better also.

 

If I switch to 900p resolution, I'd have the same exact performance as you, which was the point I was making.

 

Thank you Chastity for all info. I really appreciate your input.

Back to 'Amnesia' now ;-)

P.S: on 1080p, high settings and 2x AA its performing pretty, pretty well no hiccup, stuttering or anything equivalent until now.. And I'm on stock bios (206), stock vbios, stock driver, stock everything (except for Realtek, updated the audio driver) I'm just at the beginning so we'll see if this good performance will remain valid until the end

 

If it was merely about being able to switch to a lower resolution no one would be having this conversation. The fact is, when ever you switch down a resolution, the graphics become blurry and never look as good. Personally I hate playing at non native resolutions, I can't stand the lack of definition, increased blur and I dislike any black bars around my game.

You might get the same performance but you will never get the same image quality.

 

@LaptopNut: You apparently missed the whole part about using 1:1 scaling. If you do that, you don't have the blurring.

 

Yeah but its still scaling. the 1080p screen at 900p will never look as good as the 900p screen at 900p.

 

1:1 scaling = no scaling. It's just as crisp, since you are using the same native dot pitch.

Here's an example of it enabled:

http://pcaudio.org/pics/scaling.jpg


So the image quality would be just as sharp, just smaller, since a true 900p screen would be mapped out to 17.3" It would be the equivalent of using 1600x900 on a 15.3" screen. The upside is you need only do this is if your FPS is poor @ 1920x1080, or perhaps you want to use higher Antialiasing settings, and it's causing too much of a performance hit. I just like the idea that you have options based on the task at hand.

 

I recently ordered a G73-A1 (should be here by Friday).

Before buying, I compared the 900p screen (Best Buy) to the 1080p version at a local PC shop a few days ago. Frankly, the difference between the two screens was unbelievable and had nothing to do with resolution.

The 1080p has absolutely excellent black levels. Rich, absence-of-light, inky, blacks. As a result, the contrast was quite remarkable. The display has almost a 3D quality thanks to the black levels (much like my Kuro plasma).Color saturation was also quite good as was brightness uniformity. Seeing that quality of display sold me instantly.

By comparison, the 900p was a sadly bordering on netbook-quality. Poor viewing angles, washed out blacks (grey really), and muted colours.

Oddly enough, Amazon's 1080p model was cheaper than the Bestbuy's version.

 

I didn't miss the whole part about the 1:1 scaling, that is why I also mentioned not liking the black bars you get when you do that due to the smaller image. Although I don't like that, others might not be bothered at all.

 

I'd probably be annoyed by the bars too but it's a viable option. If the BB version of the G73 had Bluetooth it would be near perfect with that lower res screen.

Cheers,

 

That sounds quite ridiculous and a result of the placebo effect or lighting conditions. No LCD screen produces Kuro levels of blacks, let alone one in a laptop. Hell, most Plasmas until the 2010 Panny G25 didn't produce Kuro levels of black, either.

I own the 900p model and found the snobbery on various forums over the 900p to be quite laughable. A typical 24" screen is 1080p, so how can any person with non-cybernetic eyes turn their nose up at a 17" screen at 900p? Pixel density is still vastly better than a regular 24" screen. And the gaming performance is of course going to be better at 900p, assuming you want to use your full 17" of real estate, with less pixels to push - an important consideration given the rather moderate graphics power notebooks are equipped with. If you want the extra resolution for multitasking, that at least makes sense, though I have no idea why anyone would rely on a laptop of any sort of multitasking.

Personally, I have no problems with the image quality. I've owned an S-IPS monitor and I own a 2008 Panasonic Plasma and a 2009 Panasonic Plasma, so I can appreciate image quality. There is nothing about the 900p screen that has ever prompted me to blanch at it. Then again, I use it to play games and not watch Avatar so maybe I'm too busy enjoying myself to observe black levels.

 

My laptop is a 15.4 with a 1920x1200. I turn my nose up at even "full HD"

Seriously thought, for non-gaming I wouldn't want anything less than 1080 on a modern 17+" laptop. On something like a 15.6 or a 14.1 I can see 900.

Of course I'm a resolution junkie and ticked off that my 1920x1200 screen is likely to be my last.

 

Well I should be getting the 900p G73 Next week according to the USPS Tracker, if I open the box and its full of water I will know right away that the Screen is washed out.

 

For some odd reason this made me lol hard.

/evil eye.

 

No offense but that's the biggest load of crock I've read all day. No way your laptop screen can even begin to compare to a Kuro Plasma, there's just absolutely no way. Even to this day even other Plasma's have a hard time comparing to the Kuro, no way an LCD, let alone a laptop LCD, can even get close. You're experiencing massive placebo from all the posts on this forum or something.

Edit: I see the guy above me already covered that, meh.

 

Matrices “No LCD screen produces Kuro levels of blacks…”.
KuroLionheart - “no way an LCD, let alone a laptop LCD, can even get close”
My Kuro 5080HD 0.006fL

Plenty of LCDs have at least met or surpassed my aging Kuro. Here’s a few:

LCDS
Vizio VF551XVT 0.002fL
Toshiba 46SV670U 0.001fL
Sharp LC52XS1U 0.001fL
Sony XBR8 0.001fL
LG 47LH90 0.001fL
LG 55LE8500 0.0058fL
SS LN55A950 0.003fL
SS LN55B8000 0.004fL
SS LN55B7000 0.002fL
SS UN55B8500 0.001fL

KuroLionheart - “No way your laptop screen can even begin to compare to a Kuro Plasma, there's just absolutely no way”.

My Kuro 5080HD 0.006fL
Asus Hannstar (1080p) 0.04fL

As I clearly stated, “The display has almost a 3D quality thanks to the black levels (much like my Kuro plasma)”. 0.006 and 0.04fL under normal viewing conditions could most certainly be described as “much like” (as both are operating under our ability to perceive even significant changes in luminance).

On the other hand, take a look at the 900p and 1080p numbers.

Black Level:
900p: 1.27cd/m2
1080p: 0.17cd/m2

Contrast:
900p 190:1
1080p 1024:1

Those numbers alone clearly demonstrate the 900p panel is significantly inferior in black levels and contrast, the two most important elements of picture quality.

I’m glad your happy with you 900p panel, many would be. I, on the other hand, prefer to have the best display possible (particularily when the alternative is simply not adequate for me).

 

I always recall in the days before Color TV I would stick transparent Candy wrappers over my eyes one Red one Blue to get TV in Color, I was really happy with the effect so maybe I will be pleased with my 900p Screen?