How bad is playing at non native resolution?

Whats the pros and cons of choosing a 1680*1040 vs 1440*900 screen?

The main reason of choosing the lower res one is to play games at native resolution since laptops graphics cards wont handle high res well (looking at mid range laptops here).

So is it worth choosing the lower res model to play games at higher graphics settings? Is playing at non native resolution look really poor?

Thanks.

 

I play at non native resolution, works fine for me.

Id say get the smaller screen, i dont really have time to justify my answer as im off to lectures though

 

I really cant even notice a difference when using s lower resolution and I do a lot of graphic design... Its all subjective and I dont think that unless you are trying really hard you wouldnt see a difference until you got dizzy from staring so hard...
I personally believe the people who notice the difference are just so used to using much higher resolution and then coming down in resolution obviously you are going to lose... resolution... I dont think those blurry arguements are substantiated in my opinion

 

Differs from person to person, some users on this forum describe playing games on non-native resolution as the equivalent of pulling teeth without anaesthetic using rusty pliers, others like the two posts above are more measured in tone.

I think the OP will definitely notice a difference between playing at native vs non-native, but after a while it won't make a difference since your eyes get used to it.

 

Non-native resolution will be fine, don't worry

 

Whats the screen size anyway?

 

potentv has summed it up pretty nicely here.

As long as you can keep a similar aspect ratio you probably wont notice a thing.

 

Well i much prefer using native res when gaming. But on a 1440 900 screen it is IMPOSSIBLE to notice the diffrence between 1440 900 and 1280 1024. There is just no diffrence. But all the same i dont notice a diffrence between FPS rate at those resolutions or lower resolutions for that matter.

Go for the lower res screen. It will look better at its native then a higher res screen will look on a lower res screen.

1440 900 is just fine.

 

I, and many people, would probably strongly disagree. First off, the aspect ratio is completely different, that alone makes it very noticeable. Secondly, using non-native resolution always makes a difference - it is just a matter of subjective acceptability on behalf of the user.

As for the performance - well, 1280x1024 has essentially the same number of pixels as 1440x900, so there should be no noticeable difference. But if your video card is straining at these higher resolutions, decreasing the res will definitely make a big difference.

 

Depends on the game. Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect looked great even at 1280x800 with my 1680x1050 display, whereas TF2 looked horrible if I ran it at a non-native resolution.

 

Well i see aboslutey no diffrence between 1280 1024 and 1440 900 but a big diffrence in other resolutions. Guess its personal preference. But nothing can beat native res.

 

I wish I could say the same - I'm a big suck about playing at native res, so I end up playing at unnecessarily choppy fps sometimes.

 

there is most certainly a noticeable difference

i only play in native res now

 

i know how you feel cheffy. i too only play at +1400 900 BUT im also tired of ppl saying crysis is not playable at high 1440 900 when it is on a 6860. And i like looking at the beatiful sharpness of games.

 

With increasing resolutions and be able to play the game at similar fps, you need a better video card. I can never game at my native resolution as my card is outdated. Time to buy a new one I think.

 

To be fair, crysis came and blew everyones expections away and it will still be really hard to play the game at native on some machines... also depends on what kind of games you wanna play... I know some people who have wasted a lot of money buying the latest Clevo machines by just playing CS:S and old computers for a lot cheaper can max it it out...

 

My favorite debate...

If you're only going to be doing gaming, then I recommend the lower res (1440x900) screen...

However, for me, I always buy a higher-res screen (1920x1200 nowadays) so I can have a lot of information on the screen at the same time when not gaming...for example, I'll have multiple Adobe Premiere windows up when I'm editing video...

There is a drop in quality when you use non-native resolutions, but the quality depends on the quality of scaling by the video card...mid-scale notebooks will have mid-scale cards and the scaling may not be as good as high-end cards (the Catch-22)...as suggested, another factor in the scaling quality is aspect ratio...if you have a 16:10 screen, stick with 16:10 resolutions...

I have a handful of games that I have to run at 1280x800 (Crysis, World in Conflict, Oblivion) and the drop in quality is obvious but not painful... (and I don't just mean the image quality due to a drop from a higher to lower resolution, but the drop from lower resolution displayed without scaling to a lower resolution scaled up to fill the screen)...

You also have the option on most cards/laptops to disable the scaling...then you'll get the lower resolution screen with black borders on it...it preserves the accuracy (no scaling) but you end up playing on a much smaller area of your screen...

That's how I did Far Cry on my old 1600x1200 laptop...ran the game at 800x600 and played on an area that was half my screen size centered in the middle...this gives you a few extra fps since the card doesn't have to use cycles to do scaling algorithms...

 

BTW far cry2 scales very well.

 

Native resolution is sharper on LCD monitors. There will be those who say they have 1920x1200 screens, and they see no difference when they game at 1440x900; I call shenanigans. When I had a Vostro 1500 with the 8600gt, I went with the WXGA (1280x800) screen, so I wouldn't have to drop the screen res often. When I did need to lower the resolution, for a situation like Mass Effect on ultra-high settings, my only 16:10 option was 1024x640, and the difference was clear as day. My eyes would adjust to the change, but returning to full WXGA was always a marked improvement in picture sharpness.

I now have a WSXGA+ (1680x1050), and any 16:10 res below 1440x900 tends to look blurry to me.

I'd rather maintain my native res and lower the graphical settings.

 

that sums it up best

 

Can someone post pictures of a game running in native resolution and non native resolution, for comparison purposes?

Thanks.

 

As soon as I get my notebook back from the manufacturer on Wed., I'll do just that. I'll run screens down through WSXGA+, WXGA+, WXGA, and uh... 1024x640.

 

It's not that poor. Besides, if you'll get the lower one [1440x900], you might even still have to play at an even lower res [1280x800]. So I'd say just get the WSXGA [1680x1050]

 

The problem for me is I get this irritated feeling if my notebook can't run a game with maxed out graphics options at 30 fps or higher with the stock hardware that came with it. I feel something is incomplete and that's why I try not to buy games that I know I won't be able to run in all it's glory.

 

Agree, my 1705 chokes on Crysis at 1900x1200 native. I run this on my dusty old 7900gs at 1280x800 in non scaled mode. This keeps things native sharp but puts black borders around screen..not acceptable to some

Ahh, IWMTV, we think alike