1680x1050 vs. 1280x800 Screen

I need help deciding on which screen resolution to go for on a DV5 I will be ordering this afternoon. Does anyone have pictures of the two so I can compare them?

I am thinking the 1280x800 will be better since I will be playing games and surfing the internet rather than watching HD videos.

 

if you plan to multitask, get the wsxga

 

It really depends on your personal preference.

With 1200*800, you'll secure the fact that you can play all your games at native resolution(which you might not be able to get smooth gameplay out of for 1680*1050).

With 1680*1050 though, you get more real-estate on your desktop and can do things such as open two windows side by side or such.

It depends on your personal preference. I mean, I have a 1600x1200 on my desktop, but I still minimize/maximize one window at a time when I multitask(it's just ingrained in my system I guess lol ) so for me, a larger resolution defeats its own purpose. I personally can cope with either, while many people say that once they get a high resolution screen, they can't go back to lower resolutions.

 

I dont have pictures but here is a PM I sent to another NBR member: I see in your signature "future proof resolution 1280x800" and I agree with 100%. I ordered my my Lenovo T61 with WSXGA+1680×1050 and I hate it. It doesn't make images any sharper, only makes print smaller so you can see more things at the same time in a window. I am back to using my older Compaq with 1280x800 resolution which I like much better. I ordered the lenovo because I could still get it with xp and it came with a T9300 cpu for under $1000. Wish I had had the sense to order the 1280x800 screen. I had never seen the 1680×1050 before and .............................

 

1680 x 1050 has quite small pixels and can cause eye strain. Increasing the font sizes is only a half solution since graphics such as a one pixel wide line won't get any thicker. 1440 x 900 is a good compromise resolution but is less common.

John

 

Well, i don't plan to multitask and honestly I always have one window open at a time and I almost almost make it full screen anyway. I guess 1280x800 is for me then...

I wish the DV5 was available at 1440x900 since it seems to be a good compromise, but it isn't.

 

I have only seen the 1440 x 900 displays on 17 inch notebooks.

 

It is available on some 14.1" and 15.4" notebooks - mainly the business versions - such as my Dell E6400.

John

 

Want to trade a T61 for a E6400?

 

I have 1920x1200 on my Dell M70 15.4". Crazy!

 

The more pixels the merrier it is

 

As someone said it is personal preference. I love my T61p with the WSXGA+(1680x1050) res screen, I will never get anything lower. It is sharp and clean and I can fit a reasonable amount of stuff on it at once. I have a real nice Sony desktop monitor with 1280x1024 on a 17" screen and it drives me INSANE. While it looks great, I can't do anything with it. I can't even browse a website and have a small window with a movie or type a document. I personally feel that the lower resolutions are useless for me. In fact I had a T61 originally with 1280x800 and sold it mainly because of this reason, even before I opened the box

SO in the end it is up to you. My first criteria that I looked at when choosing a laptop was which models offered a higher res above the usual 1280x800.

If all you want to do is game, I guess 1280x800 is ok, but later you might want to do something else on your machine, when it's not so great at playing the latest games, and thats when you might get frustrated. Who knows I might even go WUXGA(1900x1200) on my next machine; definitely if it is a 17".

 

Dang, I want a 1920x1200 15.4". I have 1400x1050 on my M6Ne and 1680x1050 on my dv5z. A 17" display is too large, 15.4" is about the limit for "portable" use, IMO...

 

More screen real estate wouldn't do you any good if it would give you an eyestrain and increasing the font size would defeat the purpose of having higher screen resolution. [email protected]" would give you 129 Pixels per Inch, while the 1280 would give you 98 Pixels per Inch. I have my [email protected] which gives me 112 Pixels per Inch and that is about the smallest font that I can tolerate.

Edit: if only they can make an LCD screen with dynamic pixels, we wouldn't even need to worry about screen resolution anymore.

 

1920x1200 15.4" screens would surely be painfully hard to read without magnifying the text? My 1680x1050 is just right for me but any smaller and and might well cause eye strain lol

 

I remember on my Asus G1s, it was 1680x1050 (15,4).. In the beginning it was nice but it became a pain in the arse imo, my eyes (which are good) didnt like it and it.. Obviously it was nice but native resolution wasnt something i used that much either.. Now i have my Nexus A15 with 1280x800 (15,4) and its great.. i sometime miss the space tho, but whatever

 

I got the 1280x800. When I looked at it in the store it seemed fine to me and it was still an extra $75 anyway, so I'm fine. Anything over 800x600 (my current laptop) is fine to me.

 

I have had 1680 x 1050 and 1440 x 900 on my dv7 and 1280 x 800 on my dv6500t. I personaly would go for the 1680 x 1050 because you wont be abel to get it after the fact if you want it. If you decide its too big you can always just lower the resolution

 

But if you lower it then it comes out fuzzy, doesn't it?

 

I went from a 1600 to a 1200 but in a larger screen and to be honest I was worried about it being to "big" but I like it more than having it at a higher res. It doesn't strain my eyes and I don't need to bring the resolution down when playing games.

 

1982 called and wants it's laptop back - J/K

 

I like 1440x900 on my 14.1 inch screen and I think it is the correct resolution. I would not go any lower and would be skeptical about going to a higher density.

 

I agree. You could always lower the resolution.

I don't know about the fuzziness people are talking about when taking it down really, i've never seen that on any flat screen. Always been a clear image aslong as you set the proper resolution-ratio (width:height).

 

It depends on the screen. Some screens cannot scale down well and having stuff at non-native resolution is theoretically supposed to be less optimized(therefore look worse) on an LCD since it has a set number of pixels, unlike the cathodes in a CRT monitor.

 

Yeah i can understand the theory behind it and why it should look worse, but i've never seen it look unacceptable, it's not like this text doesn't look proper or scewed/fuzzy.

CRT monitors also have pixels, but how many i don't know.

 

I don't see how smaller text causes eye strain. I have no problem looking at 1920x1200 on my 17" Gateway.

If the text is too big, just turn down the resolution. Non-native resolution during regular use doesn't look as bad as during gaming.

 

On 17" it would be fine but at at smaller screen sizes it would be a little too much ie 15.4" and less.

 

haha i just realized that the sony vaio P (8 inch screen) has higher resolution (1600x768) than most 15" (1280x800) notebooks currently out

although it will probably cost as much, if not more than said notebooks

 

If I were to call HP, would they be able to change the order before it is built, and I would be able to pay the difference?

I am still doing some research and here is what I have found so far:

1280x800 (WXGA): Less desktop space, easier to read, better native resolution for games, less strain on video card, uses less power.

1650x1050 (WSXGA): More desktop space, harder to reader (helped by adjusting font in Windows, but that doesn't change the browser size, does it?), would have to scale down for games.

So the main question is whether or not 1650x1050 can be scaled down to a lower resolution and from what I have read it seems to depend on the screen. Is there anyone with a 1650x1050 WSXGA screen on a DV5 that can chime in? Also, anyone have comparison pictures?

 

Yeah, that's a very very high resolution. So "than most" ? More than all i would say. That 8" inch screen has 200x96 per inch, that would be a resolution of 3400x1632 on a 17" screen for example. So you see, there's not even a 15" screen that is near that resolution.

 

1440*900 would be acceptable for a 15 inch. If you plan to game then go for WXGA.

 

My previous Vostro was WXGA, while my current 15" is WSXGA+.

I can hardly stand working on the Vostro anymore. I say go for the higher resolution.

I have no eye strain. It's not like the words on my screen are small or anything.

Also, about the screen being fuzzy if you lower the resolution. I just used my notebook for almost two days, without realizing that it somehow got set to 1440x900. Needless to say, it was crystal clear the entire time.

 

I think it's way too much hype about the image getting fuzzy or something bad at all, maybe it's a way for some people to express that they got professional eyes or something "special".
It's like thousand of pixels per square centimeter, so i think it's strange that it would end up being fuzzy if you lower the resolution, it should be atleast the same. Can you even try to make for example 1700 dots in 1(one)cm2? That's like 1280x800 on 15.4". You shouldn't even be able to see those thousands of dots in that small space, if you're not superman.

If it comes to games doesn't it matter if the game could run in widescreen or not and if you have a widescreen-screen or not, as you will notice that the game will look ugly at lower resolutions no matter what screen you have, CRT or LCD i mean.

 

It's a matter of preference really .

I mean, some people really might notice something when down scaling while others can't . There definitely seems to be a difference when gaming at a lower resolution than a native one since many people in the gaming subforum have expressed a difference. Therefore, if gaming is a priority for the OP, the lower resolution would be best.

I mean, many people also express the thing that once you go up to a higher resolution, you cannot live with lower resolution, which is also a matter of preference(since I can switch from 1920*1200 on my desktop to 1200*800 on my laptop without any trouble). This is due to the fact that I do not make full use of the higher resolution really. The OP has expressed that he seems to be like me and minimize/maximize all his windows rather than work them side-by-side, therefore he'd be losing one of the big advantages of a higher resolution(i.e. more workspace).

At this point, the main argument I'd see for the OP to get the 1680*1050 is that if he does in the future decide that he likes/wants to change to a higher resolution, he will be able to. Of course, this will be at the cost of his gaming experience. It will depend on his priorities and needs really at this point.

 

Seriously? You just listed as many advantages as disadvantages! lol About changing the screen resolution, how come on the 1280x800 I tried in the store would look awful on every other resolution? Because it was low to begin with?

My big thing is that I do use a higher resolution (1280x1024) occasionally on my desktop, such as when editing a photo, or something I need to span the whole screen, then I switch right back to 1042x768 on my 17 CRT.

So it boils down to how much of a performance hit I take with the higher res...

Also, would switching my 17 inch CRT monitor (screen is really only 16 inches) to 1280x1024 be comparable in icon and word size to what the 1650x1050 on the laptop would look like?

 

Well you shouldn't just base your decisions on the pure amount of pros/cons(unless it's a huge difference), you should weigh each of them in accordance to you

ANd yes, on an LCD, increasing over the native resolution is bad(if not impossible in most cases). Down scaling will depend on you and the screen itself if it looks good or bad although theoretically, it shouldn't look as good as with the native resolution. LCDs, unlike CRTs, have a set native resolution which the screen performs best at.

You've been spoiled by having a CRT screen which you can change the resolution freely without any trouble concerning the resolution itself(since it depends on the GPU) nor the quality of said resolution

Well you took a look at 1200*800 right? Did that look sufficient enough for you? If yes, then I see no problem in getting it. If anything, the only thing left now is to find a 1680*1050 screen and check that out to see if you prefer it. There really isn't much left to do except that lol

 

I did look at the 1280x800 and it did seem fine at the time. But like I said before I occasionally make my CRT monitor 1280x1024 when I edit a photo which is occasionally. And all this talk with everyone saying they would never want a resolution so low has made me think twice and has me all paranoid.

It would cost me a little more in the long run. I currently have it configured for 3GB (extra $50) because I was $15 short of $999 and I tried to ask them if they could do anything and they wouldn't. So if I decided to get the higher res screen, I would ask them to put the RAM back at 2GB and save $50 and increase the screen resolution for $75.

 

Well that's people's opinions. As I said, I have both a 1920*1200 and a 1200*800 and I really have no problem switching between them .

The main advantage of such a high resolution screen is the real estate, which allows you to have many windows open at the same time side-by-side to multitask, but if you're not one to really use that feature, I don't think a high resolution screen is THAT much of a deal then .

At 1200*800, you're not losing that much space compared to 1280*1024 really.

It's up to you, I suggest once again to go find a 1680*1050 screen and see it for real so you can judge if it's an advantage for you.

As for your config, you can keep the RAM low and upgrade yourself for 30-50$. RAM is pretty cheap to get these days and easy to upgrade. That way, you could get the high res screen if you like.

 

Higher resolution on a 15.4" isn't at all about multitasking for me. It's about how big and ugly the text and programs look on WXGA. I have three 15" notebooks right now, 2x WXGA and 1x WSXGA+, and the difference is a major turn-off.

Once you've seen the two side by side on identically sized screens, you can't unsee it!

But, since you're a gamer, WXGA is the way to go me thinks. You'll get the best performance out of your card, and the best picture quality from your games.

 

Well that's a matter of opinion. I don't know why but my friend's 1200*800 laptop and my 1200*800 seem to have different sized fonts and icon sizes.

But I also think that if gaming is a priority, 1200*800 would be better as you could game at your native resolution and it'd insure your future gaming at that resolution.

 

Well, I'm not just a gamer, I do a lot of internet browsing as well.

Do you know any place that has a 1650x1050 screen on display? I don't recall seeing any in Bestbuy, and every Circuit City closed in my state.

 

Well web browsing has not set screen resolution lol. You can browse on 800*600 as much as on 1920*1200

Hmmm you'd have to go ask, because I'm not exactly sure sorry

Just check on the web at retail stores to see if they even have a 1680*1050 screen res laptop and then you can go to the store and see if they have a demo.

 

Staples has none, Office Max has none, looking at Office Depot now and there like 20 pages of notebooks.

 

Yeah, just called Best Buy and the largest resolution they carry is 1440x900 on the MacBook.

 

I just looked at this website and it has helped out a bit. I think just seeing the numbers was confusing me. This has helped em get a better picture of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg

That said I'm still not sure but it helps.

Edit: Just modified that image to help myself out. 1024 x 768 is what I use on my desktop 17" CRT all the time. 1280x1024 is my monitors limit and while I can clearly read everything, I don't see how I could like anything bigger on this monitor. 1280x800 is the size on the 15.4" screen I have ordered, which seemed fine to me in the store. 1650x1050 is the biggest one which I have never seen in person.

 

Yeah that's about it. As you can see 1200*800 is about mid-way between the 2 resolutions you normally use on your CRT while 1680*1050 is longer(and slightly larger) than the maximum resolution you'd use on your CRT.

So really, it depends on your preference lol

 

yes.......................

 

I just found these 2 great pictures from another post:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b53/Seattle360/album2/wxga.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b53/Seattle360/album2/wsxga.jpg

I can definitely see how the 1280x800 does llok fuzzy. I can now say I would be fine with 1280x800 and the 1680x1050 would make my eyes bleed.

 

Actually, the "fuzziness" we're talking about is when you have a 1680*1050 screen and down scale to a 1200*800 resolution, not when you have a 1200*8000 native resolution screen lol .

If your native resolution is 1200*800, then it should theoretically be the best resolution the screen works at and things should be clear and crisp

So I guess your pick is 1200*800 seeing as you talk about "bleeding eyes"? lol XD

Oh and tbh, I don't really see that much of a difference between both shots other than the actual size of it lol

 

I can't see any fuzziness or something else on the 1280x800 screen either, cannot see anything weird actually. Can someone paint something in and show me where the fuzziness is?


EDIT: are you sure you looked at the pictures in full size?