Is the gaming performance on 1680x1050 on the 1520 gonna be worse than 1440x900 and the other lower resolution Dell offers?
-
It depends on what video card, total RAM, and other factors.
Generally, having to render at higher resolutions is more 'costly' in terms of performance. -
Santa Rosa 2.0ghz
2GB Ram DDR2
8600M GT -
If you have to game at native resolution, and you plan on playing newer and upcoming games, I'd recommend getting the 1440x900 resolution at the maximum, though the 1280x800 resolution would be more suitable. It will definitely make games a lot slower playing at the same settings on a 1680x1050 rez versus the lower rez options.
-
1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
1280x800 = 1,024,000 pixels
That's around 72% more pixels to push around. That's not to say you would see that much of a performance drop but it gives an idea of how much more "work" the GPU has to do. -
Yeah, I'm just curious as to if it's noticeable or not.
-
Oh yes, it'll be noticeable.
-
hmm could be wrong but i think he is saying the screens resolution... like uxga or whatever that is. But wouldn't the performance of the gaming depend on the resolution the game is set at not the screens max resolution
-
Yeah i'm saying if I get the 1680x1050 screen, will game performance be worse than if I had the 1440x900 screen.
-
Yes, that's why I said that it will only matter if you want to game at native resolution, which is the resolution of your LCD. Some people don't like gaming at non-native resoltions, since a laptop's LCD screen, unlike a traditional CRT screen, does not scale very well, and can become "blurry" or "fuzzy" when stretched to a lower resolution.
-
Newer games may not run very high at that resolution, but older games work good.
I was playing HL2DM at ~60 FPS with everything maxed at 1680*1050, I just turned off AA and AF because they aren't really noticeable at high res to me, old, but gives idea of what can be played.
Game performance on 1680x1050 compared to others
Discussion in 'Dell' started by bmnotpls, Jul 27, 2007.