paying more for higher resolution = lower gaming performance?

hi,
im thinking of buying sager NP5793,
and i think the 9800 gts will work well with the 1680 x 1050 resolution.
if i paid extra $95 for 1920 x 1200, does this mean my gpu will have harder time running games at that resolution?

if i want better gaming performance, would i want to stick to lower native resolution of 1680 x 1050?
thanks

 

Yes, your GPU will have to work harder to play games at 1920x1200. I personally would get the 1680x1050 for this reason, same reason I paired a 1440x900 screen with an 8600M GT in my Inspiron 1520 - the 1680x1050 was a bit much for the GPU.

 

Easy answer. Yes but you could just lower the resolution from 1920 x 1200 to 1680 x 1050 while gaming...

 

i have a 22 inch monitor that i use with my desktop computer, and i have 1680 x 1050, and i cannot lower the resolution enough to look nice.
every resolution looks blurry except the native resolution.
i'm afraid that might be the case if i buy the 1920 x 1200. maybe the 1680 x 1050 wont work as good as it being the native resolution.

 

That will be the case, and that is why it's important to play at native resolution on LCDs.

 

im satisfied with 1680, so i think i wont pay extra and stick with the 1680 resolution settings.
thanks!

 

Yes it could lower your gaming performance, but then again like the others said turning the res down will help a lot. Plus having 1920x1200 res for multitasking and non gaming uses is absolutely amazing. Personally I cant using anything less, and if I wanna use my tablet for extended periods of time I have to connect a 19in lcd and use both LCDs for more real estate.

 

yeah but doesnt lowering your resolution make everything not crisp?

 

If you display something on an LCD at non native resolution, it will not look very good compared to native resolution. This is because there is literally 1680 x 1050 pixel "dots" on a 1680x1050 LCD panel and if you display a lower resolution, some pixels have to fill in with the data that's really only meant for one pixel, so it looks distorted.

 

I ve ordered WSXGA with my sager and I love it. I play all games at native res with AA on and they look amazing.

 

so playing game on a 1900x1200 screen at 1440x900 is worse than playin at 14400x900 native lcd screen?

 

yes definitely. u ll notice huge quality drop.

 

Slightly, but then again I do all my gaming at 1920x1200 res on my 8600mGT DDR2. On intensive games like UT3 or AoC (when I played) running at 1920x1200 low vs 1440x900 at low was minimal performance difference if at all and the high res looked alot better.

edit: If you do more gaming or nothing but gaming a lower res would suit you better as 1680x1050 vs 1920x1200 in game isnt too noticeable. Its outside games where my WUXGA+ makes a HUGE difference.

 

Basicallly, remember this: the higher the resolution your monitor, the worse a game is going to look when scaled down. IE: a game running at 1440x900 on a 1680x1050 monitor will look just fine, but it will look worse when played on a 1920x1200 monitor.

Basically, if you plan on getting a monitor for your notebook (and assuming gaming is your top priority), get something along the lines of 1680x1050.

 

i'm pretty sure you are completely backwards lol, scaling works better when going from a high resolution to a low one instead of going from 1440x900 to 1280x800 for example.

 

thats what i thought... hmm

 

Ask yourself the following: what percentage of your time using the notebook is going to be spent gaming? I strongly recommend the 1920x1200 resolution; it has significantly more screen real estate than 1680x1050 (over 1/5 more as a matter of fact), which is very useful for multitasking between several windows and viewing pages/documents where there is vertical scrolling.

I have a 1920x1200 monitor and going to 1680x1050/1440x900 does not look bad at all. When you're in the heat of the moment gaming, I doubt you will notice.

 

It doesn't matter how much you're scaling until you hit something fractional (IE, 1280x800 will look okay on 1920x1200, probably better than 1680x1050 or 1440x900. You cannot scale the other direction (IE, 1920x1200 on a 1280x800 display.) This is not even possible. But the best thing to do is use native, period.

 

the best is to simply hot wire one the the old fat CRT screens and simply run the game at 640x480, than even the x3100 can max out Crysis hehe and u got no blur but a lot of dead weight to carry around

 

1280X800 looks better then 1680X1050/1440X900 on 1920X1200??

Boy, are you wrong there!! All are in the 16:10 aspect ratio but more pixels to fill in a canvas makes the resulting graphics clearer and sharper with the best results in native resolution!

 

Lol! Do new games even support the 640X480 resolution nowdays???

 

Less distortion at 1280x800 because of a more complete fill of pixels.

 

Huh? However manner you look at it, its never a complete fill of pixels even @ 1280X800. There is pixel overlapping done when upscaling resulting in blurry images.

 

No, what I meant was, 1440x900 will look better on a 1680x1050 panel than 1440x900 on a 1920x1200 panel.

Think of it this way, playing a DVD on a standard def TV looks fine (720x480 being scaled down to fit a 640x480 screen), but it looks like crap on a high def TV (720x480 being played on a 1920x1080 screen).

 

wow this thread has really cleared alot up for me.

when i first got my lappy, i had it at 1280*800 and i was like wow, how cna people get a screen that looks so ****ty.

now i'm realising, that it looks as crisp for them as 1680*1050 is for me, they just see less on the screen at one time.!

 

u cannot play any of the newer games at 1920x1200 resolution unless u have a monster rig that can handle it.

vista scales VERY well, especially in games. of course u will be losin a little image quality cuz u'r scalin down from a higher resolution. i play CS @ 1920x1200 resolution and TF2 @ 1440x900. u might be able to see a little less color quality, but as far as crispiness, everything looks great.

i've already taken screenshots in previous threads to prove the WUXGA-haters wrong. most of these guys that put down the WUXGA screens don't have much real experience with them or don't know how to use them well enough. i would take everythin u hear with a grain of salt. cuz most of the stuff u will hear is just "he say she say" nonsense. my last 3 XPS laptops have all had WUXGA. i will never switch back to a lower resolution, ever again.

 

really? I can see a deference between my old lappy with 1280x800 and 1680x1050.

 

I vote 1680 x 1050.

Higher framerates are never a bad thing, and 16*10 is eye-straining enough.

 

Some gamers will notice a difference between playing at native resolution and downscaling to a similar but lower resolution aspect ratio when playing games, it's not as drastic as doing so on your regular desktop and many get used to downscaling for the latest games and raising settings to compensate.

I don't regret my 1680x1050 for my current 15", if you have a powerful enough video card for a 17" laptop then go as high as you can for 1920 widescreen if your eyes can take it.

 

how do u like the WSXGA+ screen? i haven't had a chance to mess around with those too much.

just to clear up a common misconception. WUXGA (1920x1200) screens should be a strain on yur eyes. all fonts, texts, and icons can be set to whatever size u want via windows DPI settings. u can set internet browsers to display in whatever font size u want. the only complaint i have about the WUXGA screen is that there are some web pages that aren't set up to accommodate a 1920x1200 screen yet.

 

Make sure you are using NVidia scaling under the control panel and not monitor scaling. It makes a huge difference when you downscale.

 

Something else you must realize, especially with laptop screens (because they come in a much higher resolution per inch than a desktop monitor) is that the smaller the pixel size, the better the scaling looks. A 17" 1920x1200 screen will look much better showing a 1440x900 image than a 24" 1920x1200 monitor would. Ever since laptop resolution jumped up, I have been loving it. No matter how you look at it, smaller pixels, crisper image, period.

 

Brilliant for web browsing and reading long text files, I can even play older, less demanding games at this resolution and get lots of viewing space. Once the warranty on this machine goes I won't hesitate to get another 15" with at least 1680 widescreen as native resolution.

 

Eye strain is something that would be unique per user. Personally I use WUXGA(1920x1200) on a 17in screen and find it absolutely pleasing and zero eye strain. What I find unbelievably annoying is 1280x800 resolution anything, when gaming its not so bad but I spend 80-90% of my time on a PC multitasking. So having that res even in a dual monitor setup is a lesson in frustration and how much you can take before you snap.

As for the resolution debate Ill revert back to my previous post. If you primarily game and only surf the web/email/office outside of games then a lower resolution will suit you. But if you are like me and spend the majority of your time outside of games then WUXGA(1920x1200) is the best choice hands down. When I game I do at 1920x1200 on my 8600mGT ddr2 and I do just fine, and for intensive games I turn the settings down accordingly.