1280 x 800, 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050?

I plan on buying a 17" notebook pc. Which resolution is the best for this size of notebook, 1280 x 800, 1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050? Thanks for any input!

 

I don't think 17" notebooks even come in WXGA (1280*800), that would be brutal and pixely. I would go for the last option, since more real estate is good.

 

definitely 1680x1050 for 17"

 

Wouldn't texts and icons on a 1680 x 1050 be too small for the eyes?

 

I'm dissapointed 1280x800 isn't offered on 17" laptops. I have exactly 96ppi on my 4:3/17"/1280x1024 display.

 

Does anyone have screen shots of the different resolutions?

 

I would only look between 1680 X 1050 or 1920 x 1200. Any lower resolution totally defeats the purpose of a larger screen. You can always set the resolution lower than the max that the screen supports. If you do cad, or video/photo editing, go with the highest resolution panel, so you can have all of the toolbars out, and still have plenty of editing space.

K-TRON

 

Ewww, non-native resolutions.

 

What resolution is this? 1280x800?

 

I had this same question and a few members provided me with some excellent screens in this thread:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=203606

I ended up ordering a 1440x900 res and found the real estate really limited for trying to put a Web browser next to Wordpad or another Web browser. I returned it and just ordered the 1680x1050 res about an hour ago. I've only been able to find the 1680x1050 res on a 20" monitor but so many people here have this res even on their 15.4 screen size so I just pulled the trigger and went for it.

 

I would go 1680x1050 because you should always use native resolution while in windows, besides if your worried about the text been too small you can change it through appearance settings in the desktop properties panel.

 

Wow! What a nice thread for my question! Thanks a lot for the input! I think I will opt for the highest resolution. Will the high resolution affect the performance of the graphics card?

 

I chose 1440x900 due to gaming.

I only run native res. Anything else plain sucks on an LCD.

The higher the res, the lower the performance. Especially with a bandwidth crippled 128-bit mobile GPU, I can use all the frames I can get.

The choice was easy.

 

Can you elaborate on that please? I don't really get you.

 

get the highest you can. 1280 x 800 is good for the 13.3 im using right now, but i would never think to get a res this low on a 17".

 

Its no different than any other computer. The more pixels your GPU has to render, the slower it will perform.

If you have it doing work at 1920x1200 (2,304,000 pixels) as opposed to 1440x900 (1,296,000 pixels) there will be a huge difference in performance. On a mobile GPU, that's probably enough to choke a game that usually runs fine at the lower resolution, forcing you to turn down visual details.

On older games it will probably not be a problem. Most games released in 2005 and earlier will probably run alright. However just about anything released through 2006-2007 is definetely not going to be smooth at 1920x1200 unless you have an 8800M card.

 

tangch - In my (what seemed like an endless) search, I read the higher resolution puts more of a strain on the graphics card. Since I don't have this res in front of me just yet, I can't say any more than that but the games I play only run at 1440x900 without having to edit the .ini file of each game.

I can't remember the search terms I used to read more about the strain on the GPU but from what I read based on my needs for the laptop (work and light to moderate gaming), I really felt like I made a mistake with the 1440x900. That's just me, though, and I second-guessed myself throughout the entire decision!

Maybe "higher res" and "strain on gpu" would be good search terms.

Ah, found this PM another member sent me when I asked about this too that may help answer your question:

"If you only intend on doing 'Light gaming,' then get the larger res screen. You'll have a larger work area, and a better computing experience. If you plan on doing heavier gaming, go for the lower res screen (Smaller screen -> Less strain on GPU -> Better FPS)"

 

I think the 1440X900 is perfect for a 15.4" and you'll be happy with 1680X1050 for a 17". Good luck.

 

I think for standards 1440x900 is best for 17inch, but I would got for the highest resolution.

BTW, can you actually get a 1280x800 on a 17inch?

 

Generally, 1280x800 is best for 13 and 14 inchers, 1440x900 for 15.4 inchers, and 1680x1050 for 17 inchers, sometimes 1920x1200.

 

I will only do some light gaming. In between my notebook would most likely be a HP dv9700t. I hope the 256 MB 8400GS will be good enough for "light gaming". Or should I choose the 512 MB 8600GS?

No, I can't find any. At first I thought there is such option. But why would you need such a low resolution?

Is there any 1920 x 1200 on a 17" notebook? I haven't heard of any.

 

I know Dell's Inspirons have 1920x1200 as an option. I came *this* close to buying an Inspiron 1720 but I wasn't crazy about the all silver around it after seeing the sleek black and silver of the HP. I know the Vostro 1700 is all black but the deal just wasn't as sweet as the DV9700T with the big coupons and I've never seen a Vostro in person.

As for the graphics card, I've seen some people here in the forum that say the 8400M GS runs games well and others say it's an older card. I had the 8600M GS on the one I sent back and I liked it a lot. I never knew the games I played on my old laptop's ATI graphics card with 128 MB of dedicated could look so good on a newer graphics card.

As for the 512MB of dedicated on the 8600M GS from HP, a lot of people here have said you'll never use the 512MB on the card. All I know for sure is the DV9700T with the 8600M GS rendered a home movie in a few minutes as opposed to my old ZX5280 that rendered the same video file in 20 minutes.

Have you ever seen any of these resolutions in person? I could only find the 1440x900 in town on the 17 inch notebooks but saw the 1680x1050 on a 20" widescreen desktop monitor. Of course, that's not a like for like comparison at all but it's the closest thing I could find so I just had to blindly go for the 1680x1050.

The good news for you is that if you get the higher resolution and you're unhappy, you can always return it and order another one. I know that's a pain because you only want to have to order a laptop once but even though my coupon code from December had expired, the returns department configured a replacement for me using the same coupon code. I just called them up before my 21 day return period expired and they sent FedEx out to my house to pick it up and everything was taken care of. No restocking fees or anything to have to worry about.

Good luck with whatever you choose. I think you'll find through any previous threads that most people say screen resolution is such a "personal choice." It was by far the hardest decision for me!

 

Yea, choosing a screen resolution is such a headache for me too. So far I have only seen the 1400 x 900 resolution on the dv9500. As for the graphics cards, I really don't know how big the difference between 8600GS and 8400GS will be. I hope the difference is quite big. Or else I wouldn't spend an extra $100 on it. You are right, people in the forums have been saying that the 512 MB is useless because the card itself has only a 128 bit interface. IMHO it's not worth the extra $100 if the 512 MB card can't even be fully utilized. Unless it really performs a lot better than the 8400GS.

 

Not quite - the 512MB can certainly be used. The problem is, the games that will utilize that memory will hit your system hard only having a 128-bit wide memory bus.

It can certainly be used though.

 

People have been saying that only 256 MB will be utilized even if it has 512 MB of memory. But I doubt that because nvidia certainly won't introduce it to the market if the 512 MB 8600GS has no advantage over a 256 card. I believe the extra memory of the 512 MB card will somehow benefit the overall system performance. Not sure in what sense though.

 

I posted this before, but I think it applies to this situation as well.

I'm somewhat confused about changing the dpi. People say if the text is too small to increase the dpi. My concern about this alteration is doesn't this defeat the pro of increased screen real estate if you're increasing the size of everything? (It doesn't look that great either.) I would think the pros of the WSXGA is the increased contrast, more screen real estate, and sharper images. The cons would be decreased size of text and other objects on the screen & unless you have a good graphics card, you'll have to reduce the resolution you play your game at. With a WXGA big object and text size. The con would be decreased screen real estate. However, I'm strongly biased towards WXGA. I see no reason outside of screen real estate to get a WSXGA or if you don't have a good TV. I would much rather watch a DVD on my TV then on a WUXGA laptop. Plus, the screen real estate comes at the cost of decreased text size to fit everything. I wouldn't care if I could fit 5 windows on one screen if I couldn't read anything. For me, when I think what do I primarily use my laptop for, it's to read. So why get something with smaller text? To make my eyes worse? Another thing is that some people suggest state that at least you can adjust the screen resolution to something lower with a high res screen. That is true, but don't think that you'll get as clear an image running at non-native resolutions. Also, if you have to run at non-native resolutions most of the time (this applies to people who heavily use a lower res), why even have a high res screen. Lastly, I don't even need multiple windows on the same screen at the same time. When I multi-task I just minimize screens. That said, some people love WSXGA. ** It is ALL PERSONAL PREFERENCE.** The best thing to do is to go to the store and look at some yourself.

 

It will not improve overall system performance, it is mainly used up with high res textures in games, and when using anti-aliasing.

 

tangch, you seem to be close to making a decision so you may not need this info but I'll be sure to update this thread when I receive my system to let you know what I think of the 1680x1050 res. The core of my biz is writing and editing HTML code so I'll let you know if my eyes are bleeding after day one.

(My system's scheduled build date is by Feb. 15 so there's a bit of a wait.)

 

No. I have 1920x1200 (WUXGA) on a 17", and I cannot imagine getting a lower res screen. In fact, I would prefer WUXGA even on a 15.4". It looks great.

Note that I do not play games...

 

I almost hit the confirm button for the dv9700t today. But I decided to put it on hold. Let's see if it's a pain for your eyes
I used to do some HTML coding in Dreamweaver. My current 4 years old Compaq has a 1024 x 768 resolution screen display. The screen is just too small to accommodate both the web page code and design when the Split Mode is switched in Dreamweaver. Partly due to this, I decided to purchase a new notebook with a screen display that has more real estate.

 

I've got a 15.4" at 1280x800 I'm working from right now. The 1440x900 on the 17" was very comparable. I just wasn't crazy about having to mash my windows up against each other in odd widths just to be able to see 2 at once so I'll let you know if I made the right decision with the 1680x1050.

If you're wanting to go for it, then go ahead and confirm that order for the DV9700T. With the $500 off coupon, I'd hate for you to miss out on the great deal because you were waiting on me (if you are).

I'll admit, I'm nervous about the screen res now after jin07's post. He made a lot of sense but I just see a lot of people who've even opted for the 1920x1200 on a Dell 15.4" and I just have to believe that people have to be able to read the text or it wouldn't be so popular. Hope that's not just wishful thinking!

 

Seriously, go to a store and check it out yourself. Yes, you can read text on a high res screen. The question is if your eyes can deal with that kind of stress on a regular basis. To get a very rough comparison read the Latest Laptop Discussion column on the left. If you're okay with that as your standard text size, then you should be fine. Also, since its a WSXGA (1680x1050) on a 17" screen it will probably be similar to a 1440x900 on a 15". I'm not entirely sure on that, but I think that's about right. Let me say it again, screen res is highly preferential. It sounds like a higher res screen might work for you because you want more screen real-estate. If the resolution makes the text too small, you could get dual monitors at a lower res to increase screen real-estate.

 

jin07 speaks sense. I'd go to some stores and check things out. Personally I like big readable text and found 1680*1050 way too small on a 15.4". I have 15" 1024*768 and a 19" 1440*900. Perosnally I'd take 1280*800 on anything up to 15.4" and 1440*900 on 17" or 19", then 1680*1050 on 21" or higher.

I know I'm in the minority though, most power users these days like as much res as possible. You should be able to find some 1440*900 17" notebooks in stores, so take a look and get a feel for them.

 

This is sad. Higher res = clearer and more pixels. Noone is forcing anyone to keep font size small. For the same physical font size, a higher res screen will have more pixels, making it more readable.

 

Anyone worried about 1920x1200 and gaming should bear in mind that using non-native resolutions for games is not really that bad.

e.g. BioShock at 1280x800 looks absolutely fine and it does not detract from the gameplay in any way.

Adding a custom mode of 960x600 is also a perfectly workable solution for demanding games. Being exactly half of 1920x1200, the scaling is even. Half the resolution means a quarter of the (video) RAM usage (for the displau) and quadruple the performance.

I did squint quite a lot at my 17" 1920x1200 at first, but that is because I'm used to a 24" display at the same resolution. I got used to it very quickly and wouldn't swap for a lower res if you paid me

 

I already addressed in a previous post my opinion on what I believe are two of the more common ways to increase the text size of everything: dpi and resolution. Do you have a better way? It doesn't matter how many pixels a letter has or how sharp it is if the letter is too small to read. Besides, it is not without reason that in my previous posts I bolded, italiced, and underlined that screen res was preferential.

 

I sure wish it had been that easy for me. Costco, Best Buy, Circuit City and Office Depot are all we have around here for computer stores and no one had a 17" at 1680x1050. They only had 1440x900. The closest I could get was a 20" widescreen desktop monitor at 1680x1050, which I know isn't an ideal comparison at all.

This resolution decision has kept me up at night so I hope I like what I'm getting! Since I have seen the 1440x900 and even ordered it before I at least know what that was like to work on.

I see a lot of threads where people are saying they have horrible eye sight but they love their 1680x1050 res so that's going to be my daily mantra until Feb. 15 when mine arrives.

 

Don't worry about it. You could easily end up loving the high res. Think, what's the worst that could happen. You get it and you hate the high res. If that's the case, just return it for a lower res model. It's not that big of a deal. I wouldn't lose sleep over it or repeat a mantra. Just think, you could really like it.

 

Very true jin. You are certainly the voice of reason!

 

What jin07 said does make sense to me. I would love to go out and take a look at the stores. But there isn't any 17" 1680x1050 on display in my place too. I have only seen the 1400x900 on a 17". IMO returning the notebook after purchase is not a wise move because I need to go online everyday. It will mean longer delay and a waste of time.

 

Tell me about it tangch. I've had to return 2 because of problems so I've been dealing with this since before Christmas. Too bad I didn't get the 1680x1050 on the second one because I could have had one of each res to test out. The devil is in the details, eh?

 

imho.. my G2S-B1 17" comes native 1920 x 1200..

glossy screen, bright as all hell... i cannot imagine living with any less real estate on my desktop... its freaking incredible!! i'm perfectly confortable viewing all pages on any resolution... i luv it!

 

tangch, as promised I've received my DV9700T 17" notebook with 1680x1050 resolution and I've tested it out.

I LOVE it. The real estate is wonderful and the text is perfectly easy to read. I'm in my thirties, do a lot of typing and I'm not having any trouble reading the screen at all.

I got the laptop Monday morning and went to the Internet right away. The test is a little smaller and I even scaled it to a custom 100 DPI to see if I liked it better. I didn't. I like the fonts just the way they are and now when I get on my desktop the text seems too big. ha!

So this res is going to work very well for me. I put 4 windows up at one time to do my work and don't have to have anything hiding behind another window. I can easily see what I'm typing, can easily read these message boards and other sites and I'm loving it!!

Let me know if you have any questions about this screen res and I'll be happy to answer.

 

That's good hear. See no worries. You ended up liking it after all.

 

Wow, great to hear that you are enjoying your piece! It seems that I am going to get the 1680x1050 for my dv9700t too. By the way, if it's convenient for you, could you please post an image of an internet browser that has the homepage of Notebookreview.com open and scrolled up to the top? I would like to see how much I can see and how small the text would be with the 1680x1050 resolution compared to my current 1024x768.

Anyway, have fun with your new piece!

 

Atleast 1440x900.

I have 1280x800, but my notebook is 15.4".

 

tangch - Here are some screens. These are all taken at the default 96 dpi. The next step up is 120 dpi but I customized it at 106 and thought the text was actually too big so I went back to 96!

Also, I know others have said you can change your res down and here are your options:

1680x1050
1400x1050
1280x1024
1280x720
1152x864
1024x768
800x600

Of course, those lower numbers are freakishly large! I even tried 1400x1050 and didn't care for it.

Apologies in advance for the big file sizes. I had to do the screens in Paint because I haven't put on PaintShop yet. Also, be sure the image is showing at full size in your browser or it will look really terrible and you'll be wondering what I was thinking when I said I like this res!

jin07 - Yes, see you were right! I just needed to calm down, take a deep breath and wait for it to arrive to see if I would like it.