1600x900 for 17 inch notebook?

Is there ALOT of difference between the quality image of a 17 inch notebook between 1600x900 and 1920x1080? If the difference is small then i would go for the 1600x900 as that would stress out my GPU and CPU alot less. But on the other if the quality of a 1080 is mindblowing to a 1600x900, then i dont wanna miss out that either!ps
I tend to play high end games and movies in 720p size.

 

Difference in 'quality'? I would say yes. (1600x900 screens are meh in late 2013...).

If you're buying a notebook for the next 3-4 years, then don't miss out on the screen real estate that will make a difference (especially at a 17" or larger size).

Go see some examples in person if you can - the 1080p 17+" screens are in a different league imo.

Good luck.

 

1600x900 panel: cheap crap that manufacturers cram in to save cash. Low end displays, it's not the resolution itself, just that manufacturers don't bother using premium 1600x900 17" lcds if such a thing even exists.
1920x1080: The extra resolution adds come crispness to the image displayed, but the biggest advantage is that those are usually of a much higher quality so you get a much better quality display in the end.

 

Like the tijo said, the extra resolution is not that noticeable (at least for me), but the build quality of the LCD it's completely different.

 

Personally, the difference in resolution is night and day for me (real estate for Excel spreadsheets, etc.), but if you're not a resolution junkie, get the 1080p for the better quality alone.

 

Get the 1080p, you'll regret it for a multitude of reasons if you don't.

 

I use a 900p 19'' monitor on a daily basis. Doesn't bother me the slightest.

 

As noted the 1600x900 panels on 17.3" notebooks are the "bottom of the barrel" i.e. most inexpensive panels, hence they're found in the most inexpensive notebooks. Low color gamut, poor viewing angles, low contrast - few redeeming qualities outside of the fact they keep price down.

1600x900 on a screen as large as 17.3" is actually rather poor. I'm in full agreement that 1920x1080 is the way to go for larger-than 15.6" screens.

 

Everyone cracking on the 1600x900 panel but the one i have an eye for is stated that its an high contrast screen with 60% real colour (TURBINE HW17) compared to the 72% real colour of 1080 panels.

 

What color space is "real colour?" sRGB? Adobe RGB? NTSC? Just seems like some arbitrary number Bob at Marketing came up with.

I used to have a 1600x900 panel on my ASUS G73JH. 900p 17" panels are like 768p 15.6" ones. Bottom-of-the-barrel is definitely the right word to describe them. Mine had awful viewing angles and was generally just the worst laptop screen I've ever used. I used it only for gaming since the lower resolution gave me better FPS, but for everything else I used an external 1200p monitor.

 

Looking at the Turbine HW17, it's a 0 euro upgrade for a 12% higher color gamut screen with higher resolution? If it has better color gamut, high resolution and is high contrast (as listed), then I ask why not?

 

Because of the lower fps gains ill get with that high res.

 

1600x900 on a 17" panel is like 720p on a 50" plasma.

Either way, you have pixels the size of beverage coasters.