Screen res, 1600x900 vs 1920x1080

Since my gateway is dead i believe i will get the answer tomorrow (so i will sell it for parts of no).

I want to know because im interested to buy Sager NP8130 and i cant choose for the screen. to go for 900 or 1080.

beside gaming i study computer sciences and i dont know if i will have any benefit from getting 1080 because i can see more text and the size of them will be smaller.

im reading some posted here at forum but i still cant decide because its a 15" laptop.

i dont have a lot of budged and a lot depends on how much i get from that gateway and x9000 the cpu.

 

Ive got a 1600x900 screen resolution on my M15x laptop. I opted for this because I felt it would last me longer (basing this on the knowledge that 1600x900 uses less GPU power than 1920x1080, so I get more FPS). My head made the decision, but my heart still wants a 1080p screen (becuase I feel Im missing something!).

I tihnk it comes down to personal preference. Some like the 'more estate space' of a 1080p screen, whilst others want to be able to read the actual text on the screen (900p). For me it was financial constraints, the price difference for my screen size was £20, but I need my laptop to last as long as possible. If money hadnt been the deciding factor, then I would have gone for a 1080p screen size.

Boz

 

well the money is a big concern because i am planing to ship the sager to Europe if i can. i had the gateway with 1440X900 screen and a 17" laptop.

that was not very nice but for games it was super great.

i still need some help because also when you code and you see more code its better i believe.

as for gaming i just feel bad because i was playing f1 2011 with a friend on online and the laptop broke down.

all i want is a solid laptop and one that i can game occasionally but not as much as with gateway.

as for what i want to buy is this one. Sager NP8130 / Clevo P151HM1 - XOTIC PC

I have MSDN Academic Alliance so i have a copy of windows 7 and whatever i need. and to get a laptop without os is a good money saver for me

 

If you were happy with your previous resolution, then you'll be happy with a 1600x900p resolution.

If in doubt, hit up some computer retailers in your neighborhood. 1600x900p is the minimum resolution for 17" laptops for most manufacturers.

 

well 1440x900 was a bit small for a 17' laptop but for games it was super super good.

all i want now is a fast cpu because i will use Gentoo linux more because i play less games there and a good screen. all day staring at it and reading code.

as for games i would be happy to run them and play.
so basically i would like an i7 for fast compilations and a good screen. as for gams that i will run them at high i dont care anymore. i dont know if its just my mood that my gateway broke down after 3.5 years.

 

If you need screen real estate, then I think you know your answer

 

900p is better for gaming, at least I can't tell the difference between a 1080p game on a 15" screen and a 900p screen on a 15" screen. I can however tell the difference when I run 900p on a 1080p default screen.

But if you need more real estate, go for 1080p.

 

i belive i need more real estate so i will go for 1080p. i know that i had to scroll a lot and make full screen mode on IDE to view more code. that res was lovely for gaming even with 8800m GTS. very few titles that ware out i could not play maxed out with x9000.

 

For a 15" gamer I'd say go 1600x900, especially if money is a concern. 1920x1080 is very nice (had it before on SXPS 16) and it does allow for more screen real estate, however text and everything will look smaller and the GPU will have to work harder to run the same game (more pixels).

 

Unless it doesn't fit in your budget I would get the 1080p. You can always play in non-native res (and it still looks fine, I have done this) but you can't get that extra screen real estate back. Personally, I always want max resolution possible on my screen but if it does not fit well in your budget 900p is still fine or a 15''.

 

the screen dependson howmuch i get from gateway but even if it will cost 80$ more i belive that is worth as you are all saying

 

i agree. u can always game at a lower res, but u'll never get that real estate back. plus, with the current technology, games downscale very well with little to no image quality problems. if text and icons are too small for u, on a high res screen, then u can always mess with the window's DPI settings to set them at whatever size u want. there's really no downfall in opting for the high res screen.

 

I will go for 1080.

the only problem that i have is how to ship the laptop to Greece :S

 

what about glossy vs matte screen.

i know matte is way much better if you have windows in your room like i do :S

 

I still prefer matte as most modern AG screens are still able to perfectly preserve colors that a glossy is enhanced to do due to a new type of film used. I still think matte is the best option if you are always in a place where there is some for of light protruding towards your position.

 

Some people say it looks "fine" and others say it is unbearable.

 

what is with all the text will look small posts if you dont like the small tx you can turn up the dpi in the display settings you have been able to do this since XP

 

IMO, depends on the game type. RTS, probably noticeable. FPS, probably not going to make a difference.

 

I have yet to see a laptop screen that doesn't look HORRID for modern gaming at non-native resolution, maybe some really old games don't seem much different like diablo 2 but thats because they were developed at very low resolution.

Playing games in windowed mode can eliminate the issue, but may totally ruin the sense of immersion for some people.

 

If you scale down from 1080 to 1600x900 everything will be slightly blurry and dull.

 

Exactly. For RTS games, there's usually a pretty noticeable difference between native and, say, one notch lower resolution. For FPS games, there'll be little to no difference, depending on the game. For Bioshock and Mass Effect 1/2, there's nearly no difference; for TF2, there's a more noticeable difference, etc.

I would go with the 1080p screen, particularly if there's only a $20 difference. A 1080p screen can always be used with higher DPI in office use or lower resolution while gaming, while a 900p screen will always be stuck at 1600x900.

 

what ratio is 1600x900? is it 16:10 or 16:9?

if i had a 1080p (native) screen and had to downscale, i'd go with 720p resolution and just pump up the quality as much as u can. u have to downscale within your screen's native ratio.

 

Uhh, 1600/900 = 16/9, so it's 16:9? 1920/1080 = 16/9, so it's 16:9 as well. It's perfectly fine (and common) to use 1600x900 on a 1920x1080 screen while gaming.

 

lol (sorry). 16*100 = 1600. 9*100 = 900. 16:9.

here are some decent 16:9 downscaling options for 1080p:

1600x900 (~2/3 resolution)
1280x720 (~1/2 resolution)

 

lol thanks.

 

I'm not sure how you define "decent" or what makes those resolutions any better than any others (not that there are really many other options besides 1366x768). With both of those you are just blurring the pixels together.

 

The larger resolution is definitely worth it