Which resolution is best for games?

I dont know if WXGA-1280x800 or WSXGA+-1680x1050 is better for crysis,far cry,Cod4.

 

Here my opinion;

Screen size - Res
12.1"-13.3" - 1280x800
15.4" - 1440x900
17" - 1680x1050

 

Which one should i choose?

 

depends on the GPU and the native resolution. The higher resolution will give more clarity, but only if the GPU can handle it. For if the GPU cannot handle such high resolutions and you have to drop it down to anything else, then the 1280x800 native will look more crisp and perform better. First you must see what the GPU can handle, and if it cannot handle games at 1680x1050, then you're better off running the games at a lower, but native, 1280x800.

 

I'd pick the highest res, unless your GPU is just terrible (integrated).

1280x800 doesn't look that bad scaled, or you could just do what I do and run custom resolutions for the really demanding games.

I have 1680x900 added 1680x950 to my res list. It's letter-boxed, but it's still completely playable.

 

As amoney said, you should look at the GPU in the machine. Gaming is best at native resolution and if your GPU isn't a high end powerful one, picking a low end resolution will guarantee that you can play newer and future games at your antive resolution(but with higher details)

 

The best resolution for gaming is the highest that your GPU can handle in the game you're playing and still have around 50-60+ FPS.

 

I have a nvidia 9800m gt.

 

Assuming your laptop has a 15.4" screen the I'd get the WSXGA+

 

Yea I wouldn't really go with this, if I had a choice, I'd pick 1920x1200 in an 8.9" I just love the extra pixels and clarity. But yea, go with what the GPU can handle, a 9800mGT, assuming that's the 256bit one, could run games in 1920x1200 pretty well on max settings sans Anti Aliasing in most games achieving smooth framerates.

 

Depends on the game . I can only enjoy fps with >50fps. Mass effect I have on the highest settings with 20-30fps steady and it feels fine.

 

Yeah, it depends on the game and genre. FPS generally are only fine with at least 60+ although I am used to over 100 in most FPS's.

 

Past 60-70 FPS, you can rarely discern much of a difference with the naked eye(it happens, but in general contexts). Therefore, if you simply want to go from 80 FPS to 90FPS, I wouldn't really think much of it because I personally would not notice much if any difference.

For FPS, 35-40FPS is generally considered playable by most people. For other games, you can go higher or lower depending.

 

To be honest, at typical laptop size (15-17"), I think anything beyond 1440x900 is pointless for games. If you like a lot of desktop space okay, but you're not going to notice more pixels in games at that size.

 

Agreed, you'd see little difference in 1440x900 and 1920x w/e when enjoying fast paced gaming.

 

Isn't the number of actual FPS you see limited by your monitors refresh rate anyway?

 

Yep, a 60Hz monitor refreshes the image 60 times per second, anything beyond 60FPS would be physically impossible to see because it's beyond the monitor's capability. I don't think I've ever seen a notebook monitor that gets higher than 60Hz, so 60FPS should be considered perfect.

 

Yeah, but they've made monitors with higher refresh rates than 60Hz. My desktop CRT goes to 85Hz or 90Hz if I'm not mistaken.

My point was that past 60 or 70 the naked eye will rarely discern much if any difference at all. If 60 is the max a notebook can handle, the 60 is the max one should aim for lol

 

Come on guys.

Resolutions scale down perfectly fine if they are the same aspect. I play at 1280x800 frequently on my desktop with 8800 GT and notebook with 9800m GT even though my screen is 1920x1200. Plus I get all that room at the higher res for desktop work.

I think the guide for recommended resolutions by "Manic Penguins" is good for visibility sake for desktop work just for icon and text size, etc.

My opinion is 15.4" or 17" get 1680x1050 and scale games to 1280x800.