1680x1050 or 1900x1200 17"

I still cannot decide even after having read all the information on these forums if I should get 1680x1050 (WSXGA) or 1900x1200 (WUXGA) on my new Sager NP5796. The specs for this laptop are listed below so it can definitley run some of my older/last-gen games on 1900x1200 which includes Battlefield 2, Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat 2, Unreal Tournament 3 maybe, F.E.A.R., Unreal Tournament 2004. I will be playing next-gen games like Empire: Total War, Far Cry 2, and Fallout 3 in the near future.

Things to take into consideration are that I have 20/40 vision (not the worst but not the best). Also, I favor higher detail over higher resolution. Money is not a HUGE issue to me, but I definitely would not mind saving $100. HD Movies are a plus, but not that important to me. I also realize that with higher end games like Fallout 3/Far Cry 2, I will have to downsize the resolution and WUXGA will downsize better than 1680x1050. Like I said, I favor detail over resolution so I may end up downsizing the resolution to 1440x900 or lower a lot in the future to up the detail. In which case 1900x1200 would be better for me.

Please help me decide. Thanks for any help.

 

once you go WUXGA, you do not go back....

a high-end system should have a high-end screen

I sometimes scale down the resolution for certain games (since my videocard is a little older) and it still look fine on my WUXGA screen.

 

Well it really depends...if you are gaming then it would depend of the graphics card.

If you have anything lower than the 8800 series then it might be laggy to play on high details on 1900x1200.

Most gaming notebooks would like fabulous on 1900x1200, but if you want to play on high detail at native resolution then i suggest 1680x1050 for any graphics card model ranging between 8600+.

Good luck

 

definitely get the WUXGA if money is not an problem you can always scale down

 

Yes, this is certainly something of a "hot topic" for all of us.
I'm currently in the midst of ordering my Sager 9262. I had the SAME options for resolution as you do. However, I will have 8800-SLI, so more powerful GPU for gaming to support higher resolution.
I will tell you that I choose the 1920x1200 ultimately, as I figured, "I'm paying this much for a high-end machine, I might as well get the best resolution I can, because that is what I'm going to be seeing all the time".
Now, since you noted vision. I have 20/240 (yea, my vision REALLY sucks), so I can relate (and beyond) your fears of vision. That is for you to determine. I started having to use glasses to read stuff on my computer 3-4 years ago, because anything 1-2 feet away appears 24-48 feet away, too dificult to read. To counter this issue, however, you have two options. ONE, lower the resolution (non-native = more blur. Try and keep the same aspect-ratio to minimize blurring). TWO, raise the DPI settings and other such settings in game. I don't know the command off-hand, but their is a "text size" command that is very useful for STEAM/Half-Life games (which, you seem to predominantly play, as do I). I also value "details" over "resolution", as well. I also hate playing games below 60fps (I aim for 80+).

It's up to you and you're not going to find a "perfect" answer, quite frankly. So, here is a break down.
WUXGA = superior. More "lowering" capable. Also gets "less" blurry when downgrading compared to WSXGA+ (supposedly).
WUXGA = less detail on newer-release gpu-intensive games. Like Crysis.
WUXGA = Still better for anything non-gaming. Can have multiple windows open more easily. More desktop space. Better quality movies, even HD (though, many remark the difference isn't much, as it is still a 17" screen).
WSXGA+ = Better resolution if "detail" is your aim. However, the moment you decide to lower from native resolution (which, you most certainly will with any new-age games), you will find you wish you used WUXGA, as it downgrades more efficiently.

Overall. It's a mixed bag. I lean slightly in favor of WUXGA, however. But, if $ is a concern, it is enough to make them 50-50, so do what you think is best.

Hope that helps.
Happy gibbing!

 

Money isn't an issue so I guess I'll stick with 1900x1200. Also, I want to know about HD movies on the laptop. Do people generally notice a difference between 1680x1050 and 1900x1200 (1080p full HD) movies on their laptops?

 

Go big! WUUUUUUXGA!!

I have a 1680x1050 on my 15.4"

You can always down your resolution to game... but you will never be able to up your resolution past native for all the sexy workspace... ;]

 

Too bad my natural eyes can't keep up with full 1920x1200. I have to use glasses and don't find it all that comfortable.

My 24 inch Dell Ultrasharp uses a 1920x1200 resolution, and honestly after getting the sweeping space in such a large area, it would almost kill me to use that resolution on a 17 inch monitor.

That said, if you are going to be using glasses anyway, you might enjoy the high resolution. Back when I got my 17 inch, I don't think they even offered 1920x1200, the highest you could get was 1680x1050.

I would personally get the 1680x1050, but then again blu-ray hadn't even been introduced onto the market when I got my old laptop.

 

I will go for 1680x1050 if God can give me a second chance.

 

WUXGA on a 17" notebook is not as bad as you might think. it's much better than having WSXGA on a 15" from my experience.

 

I've worn glasses since 3rd grade.

Bothers me none.

 

I have a 1680x1050, and I wouldn't want any higher resolution. 1920x1200 at 17" will give you eye cancer! xD

The added bonus is that I can dualhead with my 22" widescreen at the exact same resolution, instead of having to get a 24" display that costs a ton more and doesn't fit on my desk without the laptop falling off the side.

Saw a 17" 1920x1200 in the flesh once (on some sort of Dell XPS) and just looking at it made my head hurt.

Also don't forget, 1680x1050 is a ton less pixels to calculate, so overall you'll get higher frame rates playing at native resolution.

 

Once WUXGA... always WUXGA!

 

You can always increase the DPI on 1920x1200 resolution. That way you will satisfy your eyes along with your need to high res game.

 

If you haven’t already go see it in person, it’s the best way to tell how YOU will feel about it. I went to a CDW to look at the T61p in both variations. The 1920x1200 was an amazing screen and looked absolutely perfect, but on a 15.4" size it was WAY too small for me. When looking at the windows dialog boxes (which are a fixed pixel size) they become TINY! When I was typing on word at the 100% size, the words were very small and while readable I was worried what it would be like after 10 hours of that, and many sites do design for fonts specified in pixels, making them hard to adjust. Also pictures don't resize well, so keep that in mind to.

The 1680x1050 was small, but an acceptable size for me, and saving $150 sure didn't hurt.

I have to agree with one of the posters above, if you don't have blu-ray or an HD-tuner that will send data to your laptop, do you really need anything more? 1080i/p data streams aren’t everywhere and many videos are released as best at 720p. I remember a top gear video encoded in 720p was something like 4GB compared to 700MB for the 480p version. I can only imagine how large the 1080p version would be. 720p will still fill 68.2% of the screen’s height (1080 of 1200 is 90%) and computers are powerful enough to scale the video nicely as long as you have a dedicated card.