1920x1080 vs 1600x900 ? Which is preferred?

Just wondering what gamers prefer. Which resolution is better?

I found a lot of ASUS laptops that have nice specs and all but the downside of that was that the screen resolution was 1600x900. I personally prefer 1920x1080 for pretty much everything~

-- And to add on, isn't 1920x1080 the standard for today? Isn't anything below that considered "bad" ?

 

Baka personally prefers 1920x1080 ._. Higher resolution pretty much means Baka doesn't need Anti Aliasing turned on and it'll still look great with barely any jagged edges. Some people prefers lower resolution due to the larger icons maybe but Baka thinks most prefer higher resolutions too ._. Smaller screens will get lower resolutions so Baka doesn't think 1920x1080 is today's standard. For anything above 15.6", maybe. For below that, no.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...upgrades/634541-1920-x-1080-worth-laptop.html
Is 1600.. bad- not necessarily. But Baka makes some very good points that are reinforced by this thread. I had to get new glasses when I went to full HD on 17.3 inch (using native resolution) asus screen, but am very glad I went that route.

 

I would say for a 17 inch screen, go with 1920 x 1080. But for a 15 inch screen go with 1600 x 900.

Sure 1920 looks better than 1600, but your games are going to have much less frames per second as well.

 

Whatever you want. I would get 1920x1080 personally...hell, I would get 1920x1080 on my 12" netbook if I could. But some people prefer lower resolutions, especially on laptops, because it makes things easier to read for those without great eyesight, and lower resolutions are less taxing on your graphics card for gaming.

 

1080p has advantage which reach beyond gaming. I'd accept no less, even on a 15.6" screen.

 

i wish i could still get 1680x1050 for 15" then i would be happy.
blind in one eye so anyone with sight problems could struggle with 1920x1080

 

Even with high resolution on small screens there's always font scaling. It's pretty decent these days. Everything looks so crisp and clean.

I prefer high resolutions, always have 1920x1080 on 14" or larger, although it's pretty difficult to find anything but 1366x768 on a 14".

 

1080p, absolutely

 

I am in agreement here 1920 x1080, but that is ONLY because there are no more 1920 x 1200 screens.

 

Agreed. I'd LOVE 1920x1200 any day of the week. That's what my 24" LCD monitor is. I love it. You can use a double height taskbar even and doesn't cramp the screen like in 1080p. Damn how I wish they still made 1920x1200.

 

I really want a 2560x1440/1600 screen on a laptop and hopefully that is something we will get eventually.

There is mention of Apple doing retina type displays for there laptops so hopefully the rest of the industry will follow along.

To the OP dont take anything less then 1080p as generally the lower resolution screens are just terrible all around and i have seen plenty of all makes and models.

 

Yeah apple wants to put the option for super high res screens on their high end macs.

I hate the "retina" monkier haha, just a higher resolution display tho if I remember correctly, it was more akin to 2840 res or something like that.

 

I hate the whole "retina" thing to, but Apple has penned it that so i just call it like it is .

My 30inch 2560x1600 Dell display did not have retina anywhere on the box but it sure was beautiful.

Sold the Dell screen eventually to get a 27inch 3d Monitor and i boy do i regret it lol.

 

D: non of the above....

1200x1950 minimum...

 

I got 900p on my 17", and I guess I just don't notice it only because I never had a nice screen before. I'd go with 1080p if I did it over again. (But not over a better graphics card)

 

It's a matter of personal preference obviously. I was toying with laptops at the store when I bought mine and I personally liked the 1366x768 screen, didn't particularly care for the Full HD. However you may have a different opinion. Go up to the store and try out the different resolutions on different screens!

 

once you own a 1080p screen, i assure you will never feel about downgrading anymore, gaming at watching movies are just good imo.

 

Well, that's the problem, you shouldn't go into a store like BB to check for best screens, because most of laptops displayed there are targeted at mainstream market and have the generic crap screens.

True, my asus G50 is hooked to a 24'' 1080p samung syncmaster almost all the time, can't work with anything like 1366x768 or 1440x900 screen unless it's a netbook.

 

Feel the same way about my laptop screen, sadly that means mostly any laptop I get in the future except for a select few.

 

inb4 Viking steps in with his 5940x1200 or whatever he
s rocking these days.

 

My old laptop was 1280x820.. now that iv seen 1920x1080 im never going back.. bigger IS always better @.@

 

*Insert Michael Scott joke here*

 

1080 all the way.

But that's not to say that 900 is bad. I've owned a 900 screen before and it was perfectly fine / good quality.

 

I vote 1400x900 or 1600x900..games right? I'm all over frame rate, with or without AA. Non native is nude.

I want the 4k screens when the quad GTX 6000M will do 120+ in any game.

 

1920x1080 with no AA vs 1600x900 with AA maxed. Which do you think would look and perform better?

 

Of course 1080p with no AA will look better, as for performance, it depends on the game, some games will take a harder performance hit from resolution, some will suffer more from AA.

Generally the higher the resolution, the smaller role AA will play, jaggy lines are usually more noticeable on low resolutions such as 1366x768, 1440x900. At 1080p, AA is usually one of the first few things I want to turn off if I need more fps.

 

for me 1080p will look better, more solid and sharper, as for the performance depends on the rig's specs. if you have mainstream, then a lower resolution is advisable and could perform better.

i rather turn down the settings (specially the ambient occlusion or shadows) in exchange of keeping the native 1080p.

 

1080p is flawless.

 

anyone get a good discount on m17 from dell?

 

For now...

 

Depends on the GPU and panel size.. 900p on a 14 is fine. I'd say anything less than a 770M is also just not enough for 1080p at this point depending on how long you plan on it lasting and what games you like.

There are way too many considerations to answer the question but I think I've generalized it.

 

The screen on my Lenovo is a 1600x900 and it suits me just fine. It's my portable computer that I use for movies, browsing, and other lighter tasks. I've never been upset it wasn't a higher resolution because it really doesn't need to be for those tasks. My gaming computer, on the other hand, definitely benefits from a nice 1080p screen.

 

Go for 1080p screen..770M i agree is minimum for a almost maxed out gaming but most people compromise..and put some details lower like shadows,msaa etc,ambient occlusion which kills framerate..i have a 760M which i will probably overclock to a clock of 765M and im very happy cause most games are almost maxed out..and if i reduce to 1600x900 i dont notice a difference or its a very small difference though my native is 1080p

 

Go with what your eyes are most comfortable with, and igore everyone else's comments

 

Are you sure? Cause most people notice the blurriness that comes when you reduce the native resolution of your screen.

 

1080p 10 char ^^

 

Reducing the resolution is different. A 900 screen in native resolution will look better than a 1080 screen running at 900. And blurry is not the right word. Not sure how to best describe it, but not blurry.

I think I saw some youtube videos showing the difference between native and a lower resolution, as recorded by a video camera. I know some who only like native resolution. Others would rather use a lower resolution so they can increase performance. Of course if you can afford it, get high resolution, with a video card that can drive it.

 

not if they're the same size and without scaling. they'll look the same.

 

I think you misunderstood. A 1920x1080 display running at 1600x900 will look worse than a 1600x900 display running at 1600x900. Assuming they are about the same size. The only way 1920x1080 can display 1600x900 is with scaling. This article shows a worse case example with text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution Games without text are not this noticable.

 

I hate how the industry has suckered you all to like 1080p, 16:9 aspect ratio. I prefer 16:10 in a 1920 x 1200 or 2560 x 1600 resolution.

This article tells what most people game on: Very Few Play PC Games At Resolutions Beyond 1080P - AMD and NVIDIA Fight For 4K Dominance - Legit Reviews

I don't game on my 7 year old Dell E1705 laptop which is 1920 x 1200.

 

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, there's nothing sacred about 16X10. Its just one of a dozen aspect ratios that have come down the pike since displays began.

In fact, you could say the same thing abut 16X10 after 4X3. Besides, its not like they've vanished from the face of the Earth. They're just not as prevalent in laptop form.

Dispense with you compulsion with 16x10 and embrace the next generation, the future of displays.

 

depends on the content's native resolution, not the display's maximum resolution. a FHD display can display HD+ without scaling.

 

A 1600x900 screen is the main reason why the Mobility HD 5870 in my G73jh still plays almost everything on high setting w/AA. I would get another 900p screen in a high-end laptop if I could. I even PM'd Justin@XoticPC if they'd put one in regardless of the extra cost to me. He never returned my PM and probably thinks I'm crazy.

..."crazy like a fox", I say

 

Just out of interest, is it glare or non glare? Because the ones ive seen without glare at that resolution of 1600x900 just looks awful even at native. But the glare ones high much brighter colours.

 

It's glossy and bright.

 

Yes, it can depend on the orginal contents resolution. But for games, the orginal content resolution is the same as the resolution the game is running in.

The only time a panel can display different lower resolutions without scaling is when showing black bars around the border, or when the stretch factor is exact integers. So a 1920x1080 display would need an image at 960x540, so then it could double every pixel. If you can explain otherwise, or provide a link, I would be happy to learn.

To the OP, I have gamed at lower resolutions a lot. It isn't a big deal. The only real time it kind of bothers me us with text on the screen, as it can make the scaling stand out.

 

I would pick 1920x1080. I seldom play games on my precision M4700 with FHD screen but in my experience I've never faced any blurriness when resolution was scaled down.
I would think twice before going for a QHD screen though. Such a monstruous resolution on a tiny 15.6 display would pose a problem not only with games but with apps that don't scale fonts well under windows or linux.

 

Opinions will vary, but it's still a solid midrange card. I found that it's not quite fast enough for 60 FPS in most modern games at 1080p or even 900p with decent graphics settings. I had to run BF3 at 720p Low to keep at least 60 FPS at all times. Which is why I sold my ASUS G73JH earlier this year and bought the Lenovo Y500. The 650M SLI in this thing runs extremely cool and is a terrific overclocker, while my 5870 was a dog overclocker and ran on the warm side even after repasting. My 650M SLI at 1120/2250 is 2-2.5X faster than my 5870 at 825/2150 was.

My G73JH was the Best Buy BST7 model with i7-740QM CPU and 900p screen. The lower resolution definitely made the difference between playable and unplayable FPS in demanding games, but otherwise it was crap. Terrible viewing angles, extremely washed-out looking, and overall just the worst screen I've ever used. I only used it for gaming, everything else went on my Dell IPS external monitor which was so much easier on my eyes.

Your overclocked 5870 is between 650M and 750M. At stock 5870 is tied with 650M while 750M is 20-25% faster.

 

Luckily I don't feel the need for 60fps myself, playable will do. For the last few years I've had my mind set on upgrading when the GPUs are 20nm, Intel moves to 14nm and DDR4 arrives. I'm still set on waiting for the GPU die shrink at the very least. As it is now, I don't think I'm suffering too badly yet as far as graphics are concerned. [That's why I started the album. I figured somebody will tell me when my acceptance of my G73's performance becomes delusional.] I'll hold out as long as I don't start feeling completely dissatisfied with the graphics quality of games across the board. If need be I'll start going through my extensive backlog to help pass the time, but I know what hardware I really want in my upgrade and it is now just a waiting game.

...and to get this topic back on topic, the reason I'm content for the time being is my old GPU can still handle 900p well. 900p on a 17" [or 15"] screen is probably [as in I'm not doing the math, just "guestimating"] as good a pixel density as a desktop gamer's [average?] 23" 1080p monitor.

Now if I could just get XoticPC to toss in a 900p screen for me they'd get my business, ...because I will be asking around to gentech, sagernotebooks, powernotebooks and any other reputable reseller to do the same. If one will do it, they'll have my business.