1600x1050 or 1900x1200? Which should I choose?

Hey..

Which resolution should would you suggest for gaming? I am buying a new Clevo M860TU laptop and will be installing an nVidia GTX 280m graphics card.. Researching benchmarks and it seems most of them are in the 1600x1050 resolution and I don't know how the 280m will handle games such as Gears of War, Assassins Creed 1 and 2 when it comes out, DiRT 2 when it's out and Race Drive Grid, Fallout 3, Bioshock 1 and 2, etc..

So which monitor should I order with the laptop? 1600x1050 monitor or 1900x1200? My current laptop runs in 1440x900.. It seems to be satisfactory. Is 1900x1200 really much better? Or will 1600x1050 do?

Opinions please Thanks, Matthew..

 

It is all matter of personal preference. I prefer the higher resolution, and use DPI settings to make fonts easier to read.

The 1600x1050 is good for games.

cheers ...

 

1600 is definitely better for gaming because the lower resolution will make your game run faster. You can buy the 1920 one and then lowering the resolution but the picture quality wouldn't be as good.

 

Is the image clear at 1600x1050 on an 15.4 inch monitor? For instance, both 1280x800 and 1440x900 are 16:9 resolutions, yet 1280x800 looks awful on my monitor but 1440x900 is clear?

Sorry I'm a n00b..

 

The image is clear if you set your monitor at its native resolution. The reason 1280 looks awful is because your monitor native resolution is 1440.

 

1280x800 and 1440x900 are 16:10 resolutions. In fact, every resolution mentioned in this thread so far is 16:10, MatthewRuddy. Be careful as you may cause a riot in the 16:9 protest thread.

1680x1050 is a decent resolution for games. 1920x1200 is just as good, but slightly sharper. I would rather have 1920x1200 over 1680x1050 to have the additional work space. And if I feel my GPU can't keep up at 1920x1200, I'll downscale from native to 1440x900.

 

I agree with the above. Personally, I'd go 1920X1200, but a lot of it is really just personal preference.

 

Dont waste your money on 1920x1200

You will be kicking yourself in the head when you're eyes will be popping out of your head from eye strain. 1920x1200 is WAY too high of a resolution for a laptop screen. Everything will be too small and changing DPI settings in Windows does not work well and does nothing for graphics. Zooming in on webpages makes them blurry due to lack of native resolution.

 

As sirmetman said, it is a matter of personal preference. I have used 1920x1200 for four years on a 15.4 incher and I enjoyed every minute of it. Maybe it's just my narrow Asian eyes that helps me focus on the tiny letters on the screen.

 

sorry, 16:10 is what I meant.

So it seems to be a personal opinion, however.. if I were to buy an 1900x1200, would a game look clear at 1600x1050? Or would it look better on a monitor of native res 1600x1050? Or the same on both?

 

1680x1050 would look a little choppy on a native 1920x1200 screen because the image is not downscaled from a factor of two. 1680x1050 is 87.5% of 1920x1200 while my favorite downscaled resolution, 1440x900, is a straight 75% of 1920x1200.

 

It would look better with a monitor of native resolution 1600x1050.

 

It would look much better at native 1600x1050 ALTHOUGH you better find a laptop with a powerful graphics card to run games at 1600x1050

 

Okay.. And how do you feel an nVidia 280m would handle high spec games at 1900x1200 compared to 1600x1050?

For instance, the GTX 280m can be compared best probably to the 8800 GTX (280m being slightly better).. and in the link below you can see the 8800 GTX scored roughly an average FPS of 40 at highest settings at 1600x1200.. How do you reckon it would perform at 1900x1200? Would it drop much?

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxNiwzLCw=

 

You pretty much answered your own question. 1920x1200 will perform slower, though still similar to 1600x1200 on a GTX 280M. At 1680x1050, the card will be able to play all games.

If games is your thing, go with 1680x1050. But if you want the generous desktop real estate, go with 1920x1200. However, this decision is entirely up to you.

 

The GTX 280m is quite a bit more powerful than the 8800GTX.

8800GTX = 9800GT < 9800GTX < GTX 280m

 

I think 1920x1200 is pushing it on a 15" laptop. I'm all for more space but just imagining my 24" monitor with same resolution but 9" smaller would be tough to use.

I had a 1920x1200 on a 17" dell 9300. That was pushing the limits really.

 

I'm going to assume you mean the mobile versions of those cards, correct?

The link to the [H]ard forums comparison was for desktop cards.

 

I was comparing the mobile GTX 280 to the desktop 8800 GTX.. According to the specs on the nVidia website the specs seem very similar.. if not better on the 280m..

The 280m spec seemed to be between the desktop 8800GTX and 9800GTX cards..

 

This is essentially a cross post which is against forum rules. Since this topic is more appropriate for the gaming and graphics forum, this thread is closed. Please continue discussions here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=394924