1366 vs. 1920, am I in for a surprise

I've read a lot of threads about 1366 vs 1920 as well as "What laptop should I buy" threads that ALL suggest getting the full HD display over the 1366 display. Just about everyone makes subjective statements such as "don't get the 1366 panel, it's crap" or "...it looks like crap", etc.

Well, I've ordered an HP DV6tse laptop and DID upgrade to the 1920 display with the 7690M gpu, however, my wife's HP has a 1366×768 panel and integrated graphics and I think it looks just fine if not great. Bear in mind that I'm normally on a Dell 8600 15.4" 4:3 screen that I believe only has a 1280×800 resolution; am I really in for a treat with this full HD laptop screen?

Thanks.

 

The issue isn't per say 1368x768 exactly, but most manufacturers use the cheapest panels, and 1368x768 is the most common resolution, so quality is really lacking. Most have poor viewing angles, poor contrast, as well as a poor color gamut. 1920x1080 usually are higher end panels. But then again not all 1368x768 panels are created equal, my ThinkPad X220 Tablet has a 12.5" IPS panel which partially makes up for the low resolution.

For normal usage, 720p and 1080p hardly makes a difference. If you do spreadsheets and code alot, then you need as much vertical space you can get. But average Joe Schmoe wants the cheapest laptop you can get, so they'll sacrifice screen quality to get a cheap notebook.

 

What Tsunade said, most laptops have low quality panels at those resolutions as a cost saving measure. There are good 1366x768 panels, but you usually find those on higher end notebooks.

 

The 'cost saving' measure is idiotic.
Higher quality and higher resolution displays are negligible in terms of manufacturing costs but are branded as 'much more expensive' because they can be.
Simple.

To that end, the lower resolution is usually applied to a lower quality panel although if I'm not mistaken, there have been rare matte based panels with 720p.

 

I think you are, but that's just me I like having more pixels. You may need to turn some games down to lower than native resolution though, as that's not the fastest GPU out there, but I haven't found that to be a big deal, and I'd much rather do that than lose the screen real-estate of the FHD display.

 

consider this, you have one 15 inch panel with 1366X768 pixels and another 15 inch panel with 1920X1080 pixels. Which one do you think will offer more clarity? Right, second one.
Also, more the number of pixels, more screen estate you have to do work. 1366 is ideal for small screen like 12 inch display. But as the display size increases, its advisable to go for larger resolution because if you use small resolution on a large display, all you will get is magnified display with big fonts, big taskbar etc. It looks ugly and you get no advantage of a 15 inch screen. also if you go for smaller resolution on a 15 inch + screen, you will get those big round pixels which causes jagged fonts that is easily visible. This is why good laptops usually offer 1920X1080 as ideal resolution on such displays as it is the only resolution that fits it.

 

For smaller laptops lower resolution is nice, running games in lower resolutions gives you that slight extra FPS but it's a small screen anyway so there's no loss of visual quality.

 

Cool, then I'm glad I did go with the 1920×1080 screen. The 7690M gpu isn't the best card, but I am not a gamer so it's probably way overkill for my use. All in all, I'm really looking forward to this new machine.

 

Spoiler

1080p



768p

I don't know about you, but I like not having to scroll as much on 1080p

As already mentioned several times before, the quality on 1080p panels tends to e much better than the cookie-cutter 768p displays.

I thought that 768p was just fine as well in my last laptop (Toshiba Satelite L505, 15.6" 768p), but when I moved over to 1080p int he W520: Once you go 1080p, you won't go back

 

If everything you run is coded for dpi rather than pixels and not every program is ;-)

A simple example, if a website is designed with 1024x768 in mind with some fixed pixel image, how would it look like in a 2560x1600 15" screen ?

more pixel doesn't automatically give you more real estate, only more pixels. Bigger screen with more pixels give you more real estates.

 

If you even randomly open an excel workbook on your laptop you know how much of a pointless debate the 768p vs any higher res is.

 

it is pointless because this thing cannot be viewed by the pixel alone, and I do work with lots of excel and 1920+ is my min resolution BUT that must be on a 24+ monitor, not a 15 ;-)

 

chimpanzee, you're assuming the user has poor eyesight.

 

I am not assuming anything but a perspective for people to consider. I for example no longer have 20/20 but in my normal day activities, i don't need glass. So to 'enjoy' that 1920 @ 15, i need to get a pair of glass whenever i use my computer. That to me is a worse solution than a lower dpi setup.

I have mentioned multiple times this is a very subjective thing and tend to stay out of it but whenever i saw something that imply 1920 is a no brainer, i would voice it again because it is not. In fact when i bought a laptop for my mom, i explicitly search for a 17" one with 1440x900 as that is the optimal for her.

 

No, more pixels gives you more real estate, so long as your eyes are not rubbish.

15.6" 1080p = 40" 1080p

 

our eye are not a 10x optical zoom lens . Though they are your eyes so do whatever you want with it.

 

You usually have a notebook much closer though, so I actually find using my notebook easier than the 40" TV.

 

you are saying what i am saying

basically, at at specific distance there is an optimal size for our eyes(which is different for each person and we can zoom back and forth a bit which as one gets older, the capabilitiy diminish), nothing is better or worse, just don't tell me that there is, universally.

 

Then update your prescription, unless you have a specific eye condition there is no reason why your vision should be worse than mine since I use glasses.

 

didn't i say that i don't want to use glass ?

 

Well then you need to get over wearing them then. That's a fault of you and certainly not average.

Image a legally blind person saying that the world should be based on their level of sight.

Your eye sight is faulty, correct it.

 

huh ? since when I said the world should base on my eye sight ?

I don't want to have my life determined by a 15" 1920 monitor either though. My eye sight is faulty for a 15" 1920 display but there are more than one way of fixing it, get a glass, don't use a 15" monitor or use one with lower dpi

As for wether it is average or not, you have to do better research to claim it, one way or another. I never say it is average or not.

 

You know what, lol, ok if you have bad eye sight don't invest in HD equipment. I would have thought that was obvious.

I can never understand how people can go through life without their senses at the best they can be though.

 

I can never understand why people think that there is only one way of approaching a problem either

BTW, talking about HD I am still watching an old CRT SD TV as all those things I watch are still SD, mostly british TV series where HD would just make Helen Mirren look even older ;-)

EDIT:
BTW2, I do use 24"+ 1920+ monitor 90% of the time, sounds to be better than a 15" 1920.

 

Ok, keep it factual going forward. Thanks.

 

Well I just got my new lappy and I have to say, 1920×1080 is super sweet. Some of the text is really small, so yea, good eyesight would be needed but I'm able to up the browser text size and icon dpi and it's SUPER clear. Fantastic screen!!!

 

good to hear my next laptop is gonna be my first 1080p screen too in a comp