Resolution question.

Anyone with a 17in notebook notice a huge difference with 1680x1050 vs 1440x900? Im a casual gamer, but an avid multitasker. Is the res difference really that big? I tried it on my 22in LCD and it seems like a small difference.

 

There isn`t a very big one. But on the laptop screen you will notice all the diferences.Anyway,both 1680x1050 and 1440x900 are 16:10 aspect ratio, so they keep the aspect ratio of the screen and reduce jagginess.
I play all the NEW games at my native resolutin/2 , meaning 1920x1200 / 2 , so 960x600 because the image looks better than 1280x800 for example and gives me awesome framerates. And the ability to turn on AA and AF to compensate for the lower res.

 

Basically Im looking at 2 laptops 1 with a better video card and 1440x900 and the other with better HDD, CPU, and resolution with a weaker card. SO basicaly its comes down to resolution and whether or not having 1680x1050 will be worth it over 1440x900.

 

In general HDD and CPU are upgradable while video cards are almost impossible.
With a 17" you will not notice much of a difference quality wise, but to run a game at higher res' will reduce performance.

 

I'm getting the 1920x1200 res myself! And what you've done sounds like a great idea!!

 

Your preaching to the choir. The past 4 laptops Ive had I have done sever upgrades/mods to. What Im asking is if 1680x1050 and a mid graphics card or 1440x900 and a high end graphics card. I do game, but I also multitask alot. The games I play are RTS and WoW. I am wondering is 1680x1050 is much better then 1440x900 on a 17in laptop. I noticed a difference on my 22in lcd at home but dont know if the difference will be noticeable on a 17in laptop.

 

:cry: :cry: :cry: Actually, Prasad007 , you should have no problem running any game at native WUXGA cry: :cry: :cry: not like me) since the 8800M GTX is the king of mobile gpus..., well except for crysis, but you can do wuxga all medium, and it`s still going to be awesome.
Come to think of it, I played crysis low/med/high at wuxga at about 25+fps.
Again, you should have no problem. But when the gpu shows sounds of problems,go to 1680x1050,1440x900,1280x800,(960x600-as I said, I was surprised that this resolution looks better than 1280x800 and even 1440x900 since it`s basically reducing the gpu strain to 1/2 -->wuxga/2 = 4 times less pixels to render <-- and looks perfectly stretched on the screen

 

Yep! Will do that for all games, no doubt! But for Crysis I'll follow what you do... WUXGA/2 (nice way to put it too! ) with (very) high (?!??) detail settings hopefully... And here on my desktop, I'm used to higher detail settings and lower resolutions.... so it's not a problem

 

Go for 1440 x 900. You're probably going to have a better experience gaming wise.

As for multi tasking; 1680 x 1050 is beautiful. You really do get some serious real estate.

To summarize: If you're serious about gaming, get the 1440x900 rig
else (for general computing) get the 1680x1050

 

Yeah the benifit of Wuxga (19x12) is the ability to use the the 4:1 pixels means no interpolation. So great for full res when needed and then good ad 9x6 when over stressed, and then when surfing etc you've got the great large res to display everything. If you have the option IMO nothing beats WUXGA, it's one of the few things I wish I could have had the option of chosing.

 

Man, in college, I'll prolly be doing more coding and the like, than gaming. So I'd need the higher res, plus I'm used to higher resolutions as it is! I also browse the web... surfing, forums and stuff, so..... And, as I already mentioned, I wouldn't mind (from experience) using even the lowest resolution, no matter how horrid that'd look! So the WUXGA is best for me!

 

Also as mentioned 9x6 without interpolation and with the actual benefit of AF will likely look better than interpolated 1280x1024/768.