Full HD vs 1680x1050 resolution

Hi,
Can someone give me the comparison of the lines can be read?
I'm doing some programming work which requires more lines.
if its not that much different i will just take MSI GX640 rather than G51JX.

thanks

sorry for posting at wrong section

 

There should be close to no difference between 1920*1080 and 1680*1050. The benefit of the Full HD screen is that you can easier have two windows up side-by-side if you need to do comparisons, multitask or whatnot. But, even with a 1680*1050 I can fit two legible microsoft word documents side by side.

 

It depends on your native resolution. If your native resolution is 1680*1050, I don't think you'll see much difference say if you compared to another notebook with 1920&1080.

But if you have native 1920*1080, you'll see significant difference when gaming at 1680*1050.

 

"Full HD" is just a marketing term, it means 1920x1080. In terms of vertical lines compared to 1680x1050, that's a 30 pixel difference, roughly two or three lines of text.

 

I personally find 1920x1080 way to high for 15'' but a lot like it, i guess my vision isn't as sharp as others, but overall i feel 1600x900 or 1650x1080 to be the max that i would be comfortable on a 15'' display, this varies from user to user, but out of the two you have in mind i would pick the MSI, mostly out of still having a 16:10 ratio and that the Asus had some BOSD issues (that might have been resolved, but not sure) and having a better gpu.

 

i would get the GX640... it has way better GPU so u have more power.. alternative is Sager NP8690 if u really want a lot of power and full HD screen..... but IMO , full HD is better.. u get more pixels and space...

 

thats actually a difference of 309 thousand actual pixels.
if your used to viewing native 1080p i believe you will see a significant difference in native 1050p

edit:
oh its about lines read. there should be a minor difference, but then again if your used to using 1080p you will surely notice the difference because of the overall increase in resolution

 

1680X1050 over full HD anyday!

If your gaming that is .

 

I agree with this. I tried Full HD on a 15.6'' and my eyes hurt every time I used it.

 

I had 1920x1200 on a 15.4", while it was amazing, it was just too too small, although DPI on windows 7 made it great, it kinda lost most of the point of getting that resolution. As a fellow programmer, i can 100% say that it all depends on vertical pixels, horizontal pixels after 1280 don't really add much benefit on your standard programming environments (ie like Eclipse or MatLab) When I made the jump from a SXGA+ (1400x1050) to WSXGA+ (1680x1050) I had absolutely no extra feasible programming room, just alot of white spaces on the right, when referencing two documents, the additional 280 horizontal pixels are quite meaningless, code that long are usually comments, and they wrap down anyways.

So it boils down to about 3 extra lines of code, which is useless, although 1080p would be a nice aspect ratio for movies as its 16:9 so you won't get those black bars like on a 16:10.

 

between these 2 resolution is there any big difference for wathing blu ray movies? going to watch some blu ray too..

 

I would take the full HD, the aspect ratio might take some getting used to at first, then I found out that the aspect ratio is perfect when I place 2 visual studio side by side, made especially easy by windows 7's auto adjust to fit 1/2 screen feature.

 

Honestly everyone pretty much covered it. But for me I'd take the GX640 just based on the specs over the Asus.

1680x1050 is pretty good anyways, so I'd say stick the the better performing laptop.

And as to the Windows snap feature, uhg, I hate it. Thats the first thing I turn off. I'm constantly moving windows around my desktop and it would keep going full screen on me, and or just be a butt.

I'm sure some ppl have use for it, but for me, it drove me nuts within the first 5min of just using Win7, thankfully, in the ease of access center there is an option to turn it off easily. So I'm not bothered by it being there, it was a good idea, but for ppl like me that literally always moving windows around the desktop its more of an interference than helpful.