Resolution in Relation to GPU's and Gaming

INTRODUCTION:
When configuring a laptop today, it is very often that you will find resolution a configurable option, (hopefully all of you know that resolution is the amount of pixels on the screen). When configuring a laptop, most people assume higher resolutions are "better" simply because they are priced higher. This is often incorrect; yes, it is true that higher resolutions offer sharper picture and more room for open windows, however, the higher the resolution is, the harder it is for a GPU to generate graphics. Naturally, this means that a lower resolution will render better performance from one's GPU. Today, only top-of-the-line, very expensive graphics cards like nVidia's 8800 GTX can truly run at best performance with WUXGA resolution. So if you're budget allows it, get a high-end, expensive GPU that can effectively play games on higher resolutions. Otherwise, you can still get great gaming performance with lower resolutions and less expensive cards, like the nVidia GeForce 8600M GT, or the Mobility Radeon HD2600. Resolutions like "WXGA+", or "WSXGA", are not as sharp as "WUXGA", (the difference is only slightly noticeable), but can squeeze more performance out of your graphics card.

DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS:
If you're torn between getting a high resolution or low resolution, my advice would be to get a native WSXGA, which is lower than WUXGA, and will enable your graphics card to perform better, and be better for web browsing as opposed to browsing with WUXGA. For people with 15.4" notebooks, WSXGA will likely be the highest configurable resolution, and to get better performance from a 15.4" notebook, I'd recommend going down to WXGA+.

HD VIEWING IN RELATION TO RESOLUTION:
Also, when configuring resolution, you have to consider multimedia uses outside of gaming. For example, if you have configured an HD DVD or Blu-Ray Disc compatible drive with you're laptop, a high resolution is vital to have best HD experience, regardless of web browsing tendencies and gaming performance. More resolution naturally means a better picture on the screen; for example, HDTV today is measured from 480i to 1080p, (there are lots in the middle). 480i offers the lowest quality picture, while 1080p offers the highest quality HD picture. Guess what? The numbers represent RESOLUTION, 480i being the lowest, and 1080p being the highest. This naturally means that the higher the resolution of you're laptop screen, the better HD picture you will get. But don't expect to be able to configure a laptop simply with a high resolution and Blu-Ray or HD DVD drive and you'll automatically have the best picture. A decent graphics card is vital for generating HD picture on high resolution screens. The current best graphic cards for High Definition watching are from nVidia, and they include a new technology called PureVideo HD. ATI has their own variation of this new technology, namely Avivo HD, however nVidia's is currently superior for High Definition viewing.

TEXT TOO SMALL WITH YOUR RESOLUTION? READ:
If you're not an avid gamer, and you've purchased a widescreen notebook with a large screen to enable yourself to multitask with several open windows, getting a low resolution will defeat the purpose. The lower the resolution, the less that fits onto the screen, making it hard to achieve more than 3 open windows at one time. Now many people will likely argue that higher resolutions, while enabling more on the screen, will cause text to be small and in some cases difficult to read. There is a simple way to fix this problem without switching from native resolution (this is directed to Vista users): Right click on the desktop and select personalize. You will be introduced to a control-panel-like window. To the left of it you will notice a pane labeled tasks, and underneath you will find various options to select from. Click the task labeled "DPI". Click the highest DPI setting possible, which should be "120 DPI", then restart your computer. You should immediately notice upon reboot that text is much more comfortably readable.

REMEMBER:
Remember: If you get a low native resolution, you have no flexibilty to ever increase the resolution to suit your various needs. If you configure with a high native resolution, you have the flexibilty to stick with it when you need it, and then lower the resolution for other tasks, (at the cost of some sharpness).

DEAD PIXELS:
Just putting it out there, the higher the resolution a screen is, the more pixels there are, and therefore the more prone it is to dead pixels. Many companies also don't place dead pixels under warranty unless you have a certain amount, which is usually more than five. Dead pixels can be annoying and obtrusive, and are not user-repairable. However, if a high resolution is ideal for you, don't let the possibility of dead pixels steer you away, as it is not often that the problem will occur. Anyways, the problem is becoming more rare each month.

SCALING DOWN FROM NATIVE RESOLUTION:
This section is vital: When you choose a resolution, you are NOT stuck to operate that way only. You can always change the resolution, but only down. The downside to this is of course a noticeable blurriness. The higher the resolution, the less noticeable the blurriness there is when scaling down to lower resolutions. So for example a WUXGA will achieve a WXGA resolution better than a WSXGA. Most gamers do not actually play in their native resolution, unless their system is insanely powerful. It is therefore a logical option to get WUXGA as a gamer, as scaling down to reasonable gaming resolutions will be easier.

 

Not on the nVidia Gefarce 9850gtx!!!

lol.

But in all seriousness, you hit the nail on the head. A lower pixel density will make a lower-end card appear to perform better than it should be.

 

That's only if you want to run everything at native resolution.

I have a WUXGA screen and almost always run my games at 1680x1050 or 1440x900 (to get decent frame rates).

I chose the higher resolution screen because I thought the overall screen quality would be better, including brightness and contrast ratios.

To each his own I guess.

 

You can run games at resolutions lower than native. I usually game at 1280x800, and keep the desktop stuff at 1680x1050. I don't feel much pain from the lower resolution gaming.

 

How much better does a game look at native resolution? To compensate for non-native resolution, do I need to have higher AA or is it impossible to compensate?

Also, it is not that practical to web surf with too high resolution. It is easier to control font sizes and such when working on documents or similar. Then the resolution will make a benefit.

 

It's impossible to compensate *completely. Of course, AA helps, and the higher native res your monitor runs, the better it can emulate lower resolutions.

 

yeah starting at 1920x1200 and then running 1280x800 or something will pretty much look fine, whereas starting at 1440x900 and then doing 1280x800 on it will be somewhat a downgrade in clarity.

1920x1200 is actually a really good resolution for a gaming LCD, because you can run lower resolutions with less of the adverse affects of interpolation compared to lower resolution screens.

 

It doesn't make sense to buy a WUXGA resolution, when you're constantly switching it down from native so that you can get better gaming performance and surf the web more comfortably. Simply start off with a rather low resolution to avoid the noticeable effects switching from native resolution brings. If you're turn between getting a high resolution or low resolution, my advice would be to get a native WSXGA, which is lower than WUXGA, and will enable your graphics card to perform better, and be better for web browsing as opposed to browsing with WUXGA. By the way, for people with 15.4" notebooks, WSXGA will likely be the highest configurable resolution, and to get better performance from a 15.4" notebook, I'd recommend going down to WXGA+.

 

imamgine in the future what a nvidia 100000 gtx will be like? LOL!

 

by that time laptops will prob have some kind of 3D screen that doesn't involve pixels

 

Well written J-bytes, that should be a sticky.

 

Also, when configuring resolution, you have to consider multimedia uses outside of gaming. For example, if you have configured an HD DVD or Blu-Ray Disc compatible drive woth you're laptop, a high resolution is vital to have best HD experience, regardless of web browsing tendencies and gaming performance. More resolution naturally means a better picture on the screen; for example, HDTV today is measured from 480i to 1080p, (there are lots in the middle). 480i offers the lowest quality picture, while 1080p offers the highest quality HD picture. Guess what? The numbers represent RESOLUTION, 480i being the lowest, and 1080p being the highest. This naturally means that the higher the resolution of you're laptop screen, the better HD picture you will get. But don't expect to be able to configure a laptop simply with a high resolution and Blu-Ray or HD DVD drive and you'll automatically have the best picture. A very high end graphics card is vital for generating HD picture on high resolution screens. The current best graphic cards for High Definition watching are from nVidia, anbd they include a new technology called PureVideo HD. ATI has their own variation of this new technology, namely Avivo HD, however nVidia's is currently superior for High Definition viewing.

 

Just remembered this one:
http://laptoping.com/laptops-with-3d-displays.html

 

I doubt 3D LCD's will available by 2007-2008, (maybe in Japan!), and neither nVidia nor ATI seem in any rush to create 3D capable graphics cards, especially since they're so busy now with Vista and Direct X 10. Maybe 3D LCD will be a patented technology with its own private GPU manufacturer

 

Also, if you're not an avid gamer, and you've purchased a widescreen notebook with a large screen to enable yourself to multitask with several open windows, getting a low resolution will defeat the purpose. The lower the resolution, the less that fits onto the screen, making it hard to achieve more than 3 open windows at one time. Now many people will likely argue that higher resolutions while enabling more on the screen, will cause text to be small and in some cases difficult to read. there is a simple way to fix this problem without switching from native resolution (this is directed to Vista users): Right click in the screen and click personalize. You will be introduced to a control-panel-like window. To the left of it you will notice a pane labeled tasks, and underneath you will find various options to select from. Click the task labeled "DPI". Click the highest DPI setting possible, which should be "120 DPI", then restart your computer. You should immediately notice upon reboot that text is much more comfortably readable.

 

just putting it out there, the higher the resolution, the more pixels there are, and therefore there is a greater chance of dead pixels. many companies also don't place dead pixels under warranty unless there's like, 5 or more. but don't let that discourage you from getting a high resolution screen if that's the ideal choice for you... the problem is becoming more rare

 

True, but the higher the resolution, the less noticeable the dead pixels are in the first place. A dead pixel on a 15.4" 1680 x 1050 screen is very hard to find!

 

It may be hard to find during bright usage. however when the image on the screen is dark, it usually becomes more noticeable. also, once you actually find a dead pixel and know where it is, you're more likely to notice it again.

 

You also want to look at the resolution capability of your desired GPU. Some GPU's don't even support ultra-high resolutions like 1920 x 1200.

 

What would be the ideal resolution for an Asus G1S or any other notebook with a n 8600m GT? For graphics intensive games like FEAR, etc.

 

what size is the screen?

 

How bad/good is the scaling on 1680x1050 WSXGA screen J-Bytes?

 

I believe your Asus has a 15.4" screen. For a compensation between gaming performance, image quality, and desktop real estate, I'd recommend gettinga WXGA+, which is 1440 x 900. You can also shoot for WXGA at 1280 x 800, to further improve GPU performance. FEAR should run on your laptop at comfortable settings, granted you also have at least 2 gigs of RAM and good processor.

 

I was going to recommend the same. 1440 x 900 is a great middle ground resolution.

 

WSXGA (1680 x 1050) for the win
Insane res to have on a 15.4 screen, and I find the text to be nice and sharp, but not too small.

 

Yes, but don't forget that to run graphic intensive programs and applications on a high resolutio will take a powerful GPU.

 

I have to agree, which is why I choose my MBP. 1600x1050 is just too small for text for me on a 15.4" and mid-range cards would have difficulty running the latest games at that resolution.

 

Remember: If you get a low native resolution, you have no flexibilty to ever increase the resolution to suit your various needs. If you configure with a high native resolution, you have the flexibilty to stick with it when you need it, and then lower the resolution for other tasks, (at the cost of some sharpness).

 

But also remember you're paying a premium for the higher resolution laptop screen when you can get an external display for much less cash so if you don't plan on using the display at its native resolution all the time your not getting the best value for what you paid for.

Also, I voted for WXGA because as an avid gamer who takes his games seriously you'll probably want the most FPS with the sharpest resolution and seeing how all these DX10 cards are running games much better at resolutions under 1280x1024 that decision just makes sense.

Off the record, however, I also consider WXGA+ to be the sweet spot for 15.4" screens what with owning a MBP. I'm able to sit at a comfortable distance from the screen and rarely get any eye strain even when using it for 4+ hour sessions. The same cannot be said about my previous 15.4" WSXGA screen.

 

I basically agree, however it is certainly not true that is cheaper to get an external display, rather than configuring with a higher resolution. Especially if we're talking a good display.

 

The poll seems to be quite neutral

 

btw, if you're getting integrated graphics, always opt for a lower resolution

 

so, how does 1440x900 look on a 17 incher? I.E. dell 1720? Will that be nice for general use and gaming?

 

Indeed the poll was 6 votes for each one when I looked. I would have voted, but I do not think that I have the proper amount of experience to really say just yet (I ordered my Sager NP2090 with 1280x800, so I will see how that works out...).

That is kind of what I was going to say. If you really are concerned about multitasking, but want a good screen to play games, why not go with a low resolution and an external display? I mean... you will get twice the real estate won't you? That is why I felt comfortable going with the low resolution (even though it bugged the heck out of me at first). If I find that it is too low I will use one of our ancient computer's monitors and use dual screens. (Or get a truly multitasking machine and just buy a good monitor, be done with it, and have two screens to use without the hassle of small text and pictures).

I would think that if you use the laptop for business and have no desire for gaming (or if you are a heavy gamer and are going to shell out the big bucks for all that extra GPU performance) than a high resolution would be ideal. Otherwise, it would appear to me that a modestly low resolution screen is better.

 

On my 17 inch laptop I run at 1680 X 1050 and it seems to be the sweet spot for 17 inch screens. The text is really perfect at this resolution and games look great too. The caveat is that my Alienware uses an X800 mobility, which (at the time) was a high-end card. Although it trails behind even the 8600gt M these days, what it illustrates is that 17 inch LCDs at or above 1680 X 1050 sit best with high end mobile video cards. So if you plan on gaming at 1680 X 1050 or above, see if you can wait for high end mobile cards for the Nvidia 8 series or AMD/ATI HD2000 series to become available or just get a 15 inch screen.

Then again, I game at medium settings for modern games (except Supreme Commander, which murders my Pentium 4 and X800m) and the 8600M GT is a better performer anyway, so honestly it WOULD run pretty well.

I agree that 1440 X 900 is the sweet spot on a 15 inch, which is why I ordered a MBP.

 

I haven't voted in the poll because for me, I couldn't choose a resolution for a gamer without first knowing what there card is!

 

Agreed, 1680x1050 on a 17" screen is perfect in terms of screen size in relation to resolution.

My next NB purchase will also be a MBP. I have a 19" external LCD at 1440x900, and admittedly it's not the best. It's bearable, but 1440x900 would probably look best in 15", again the sweet spot.

I currently have 1440x900 on a 14.1" and the res is insanely high for that tiny screen, but I like it.

As for gaming, if you're obsessed with it then go for the lower resolution. Frame rates+ while maintaining native resolution. Just wish more games let you play in them in a window instead of full screen, that would solve the problem and we can all buy high res screens.

 

assuming you have an nvidia gpu:

1. nvidia control panel
2. change flat panel scaling
3. "do not scale"

im surprised no one mentioned this before.

i would like to add that interpolation doesn't bother everyone. also, monitors can display their 1/4 resolution perfectly, if that matters to anyone. for example, a 1600x1200 screen can perfectly display an 800x600 image. a 1920x1200 screen can perfectly display a 960x600 image. 1440x900 can perfectly display 720x450. any other resolution will add a degree of blurriness that will bother some people more than others.

obviously- you can also retain a perfect native resolution image of ANY size less than the native resolution of your screen. that means that a 1440x900 screen can PERFECTLY DISPLAY 1280x800, or any other resolution below 1400x900. the trade off that you take for native resolution is physical screen size. your 15.4" 1440x900 display becomes closer to a 14" 1280x800 display. the other pixels are set to black so as to be minimally distracting (very effective- and much better than a standard window where you would see the start bar and icons and colors)

there is also an option to fill the screen as much as possible while maintaining the correct aspect ratio.

therefore, if you have a widescreen monitor, 1920x1200 lets say, you could run 1920x1200 or 1600x1200 (as noted above). you could also run both 960x600 and 800x600, all in native resolution and filling the vertical screen.

food for thought.

 

Excuse my maths ignorance, but what's the lower resolution that a 1680x1050 (e.g. G1S) screen can display perfectly without scaling?

Petrov.

 

again, a 1680x1050 screen can display any resolution less than 1680x1050 perfectly.

you will give up some physical screen size to do this.

if you want to run a full screen image on a 1680x1050 with perfect interpolation, you can 840x525 (1680/2 by 1050/2).

840x525 will look the same as a native 840x525 monitor of the same size. i would recommend the non-scaling option though. accept a slightly smaller screen size and run in 1280x800 or 1440x900.

 

A 1680 x 1050 (WSXGA) resolution will NOT display resolutions below it "perfectly". It will naturally cause a notable decrease in picture sharpness, which is often irritating and defeats the purpose of a good laptop or external monitor in the first place. If WSXGA resolution really could flawlessly reduce its pixel density, wouldn't it be simply the ideal resolution for all, making this thread and many similar ones useless?

 

With 1680x1050 on my desktop 20", I can honestly say that 'centered output' and 1280x1024 is a very nice resolution to play at. I get no blur, and all it does it leave about an inch on either side of the picture black. I play Supreme Commander on maxed out settings at 1280x1024 (no AA) and I never lag whatsoever.

PentiumD 840 @ 3.0ghz
nVidia 7900gs
2GB RAM @ 533mhz.

 

circumstance on external monitors can tend to differ from integrated laptop screens.

 

I don't agree. Normally to upgrade your LCD screen from say WXGA to WSXGA it costs a couple hundred $, where as to get a decent say 22" or less external LCD display it will cost two couple hundred $. Considering you then essentially get two whole displays and video input on the external display I'd say it's quite more cost effective. Not to mention the external display will look worlds better than any laptop display.

 

Uh, I'm not sure you understood what we were arguing about. We were talking about lowering resolution through the monitor, and I was explaining the flaws this can have. You, on the other hand, are talking about upgrading a screen to a higher resolution than its native, which is for one thing, irrelevant, and is anyways likely impossible; if it were possible it would be quite impractical, because a monitor is only designed to accomodate its native resolution. Perhaps you mean removing the actual LCD plate from the casing, and putting in a new one with a higher resolution. That would be very pointlessly stupid, and I will not go into further detail as there are too many reasons. Cheers.

 

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the price difference between a WXGA screen and a WSXGA screen in the initial laptop configuration phase. But that's just me.

 

Hmm... you know, you're probably right. My bad.

 

My TRS-80 has a screen resolution of 192 x 48. What settings do I need to use to play Halo 3?

 

192 x 48? What is it, a junky cell phone?

 

What? Lol

TRS-80, Level 1 basic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80

8Bit Z-80 2.03Mhz cpu, baby. 4096 bytes of RAM!

One of the three holy PC's of the 1977 trinity. (Apple ][, Commodore PET, and TRS-80)