Screen resolution and quality question

Hello everyone. I'm looking into getting a new laptop for entertainment (gaming/movies).

I've been reading that 1366 x 768 resolution is better for gaming than 1920X1080 but I don't understand why. Also, if the screen resolution is 16:10 instead of 16:9, does that make it worse for viewing 720p movies?

The laptops I've been looking into are the Asus N61 (16", 1366 x 768) vs ASUS G53 (15.4", 1920X1080) vs. MSI GX740 (17", 1680 x 1050).

Can someone tell me what's better for movies vs gaming and why?

Much appreciated!

 

A lower resolution is "better" for gaming only in the respect that it takes less power to render lower resolution graphics and therefore you get higher framerates.

 

No, no, no! You're confusing resolution with aspect ratio. The two are related, but not the same.

If entertainment is your primary concern, don't accept anything below 1080p. As for games, you can always go lower.

 

Any screen is fine for viewing any movie of equal or lower resolution.
Your screen or the video will not try and stretch things out of proportion.

doesnt seem very confused to me.

Its reasonable to think that a 16:10 screen would be worse for viewing 16:9 resolutions. Its also true that its worse if you want to watch movies completely filling your screen at native resolution.

 

Don't buy into the 16:9 resolution for any size above 13-14". It really looks terrible. Manufacturers just put HD screen and people automatically thinks it is a better screen. If it is for viewing movies, pay the 100 bucks more for 1080p or higher screen.

 

So you're saying not to get a 16:9 screen but at the same time saying you should go 1080p?

 

I mean like the smaller 16:9 resolutions like 1368x768. I would go with 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1080, or 1920x1200 if you can afford it.

 

I absolutely agree! Anyway, you usually always run your games at a lower resolution than the screen allows.

 

As a wise man once said, you get what you paid for. Sure you can buy a nice i3 notebook with 4 GB RAM for 450-600 bucks these days. But you get a terribad screen resolution. Spend the 100 bucks more for a higher resolution screen, you'll be glad you did, especially for an entertainment notebook.

 

Lower res screens are "good" for gaming because they put less load on the GPU/CPU. Itss like saying gaming at 5FPS is "better" than gaming at 20FPS because 5 FPS puts less load on the GPU.

If you plan to watch movies etc, keep in mind that higher res screens also typically offer better quality, better contrast ratio, etc

 

If performance is an issue, you can always run your game at 1600x900, 1366x768, or 1280x720 on a 1080p screen. At typical laptop screen sizes, the pixels will be so small anyways that you won't really notice the upscaling.

That being said, 1366x768 seems about right on my 14" laptop for normal Windows desktop tasks. Objects on the screen appear about as big/small as they do on my 23" 2048x1152 desktop monitor. Any more pixels and things would be too small to read comfortably.

 

You were okay until you got here. Your comfort is subjective.

 

Having 1366x768 native looks much better than a native 1080P screen being downsized to 1366x768.

 

Well everything is subjective. Some people like 1920x1080 resolution, some of us are blind and can't see with that resolution.

 

Anything more would be too small for me to read comfortably.

Better?

 

Basically, the 1366 x 768 resolution is becoming nearly universal, whether you're buying the cheapest Black Friday doorbuster, of the $1100 HP Envy 14. If you really need full 1080P, you're better off buying an external monitor for home use, or hooking your notebook up to your LCD TV.

 

1368x768 is coming universal for cheap crappy notebooks. Most 600+ notebooks give you the option for a higher resolution panel. Now this doesn't apply for retail models but buying from the manufacturer directly.

 

That works too.

My 16" Asus G60 is hooked up to a 23" monitor via HDMI.

 

I'd argue just the opposite -- the outright majority of notebooks do not have the option for a higher-resolution panel. Virtually none of HP's consumer notebooks do (just the ENVY 17), only a handful of Dells (namely the premium XPS series), no Toshibas, no Fujitsus, and none of the Acer/Gateway/ASUS notebooks since they are preconfigured (and 99% of those have 1366x768 or 1600x900 on the 17.3").
It is hard to find high resolution screens even in business class notebooks these days.

Also this . . . I'd like to say the same but the fact is that just about every new notebook is 16:9. 16:10 screens are long gone in the mainstream and very seldom found on a new notebook. Unless you go used/refurb or spend a premium for a specialty notebook, you aren't going to find 16:10.

 

Hrm well that's odd. I swear just a few weeks ago some of the consumer Dell models you could opt for a higher resolution models. Now you cannot upgrade the base model...I guess I won't be buying Dell consumer models anytime soon except for maybe the new XPS line..

I'm assuming only the like 800+ gaming notebooks like the MSI come with the 1680x1050. Also business models the panel resolution can be upgraded. Man that sucks, I hate low resolution screens..

 

Many 1366x768 screens in low and mid range laptops are cheap 6 bit AUO or Chi Mei craps. You need a 1600x900 HD or a 1920x1080 FHD screen for serious applications.

 

Depends on how you define "gaming" notebook; lots of notebooks can be used for games. The fact is, only a limited number of such notebooks are available with better than 1366x768 (or 1600x900 on a 17.3").

Higher-end business notebooks, yes. Most lower-end ones, no (ThinkPad Edge, Dell Vostro, HP ProBook).

It's very unfortunate that high resolutions have become so rare.

 

Could be simple market force at work. IOW, people don't want to pay the premium for various reasons.

 

What I meant was notebooks with high end discreet GPU (260M, 280M, 360M, 460M, 5850/5870 Mobility) tend to offer the higher resolutions. Now that's no guarantee as say all G60VX and certain G73s come with low resolution panels (1368x768 and 1600x900 respectively).

Anyways case in point, I don't think I'll be buying consumer grade notebooks anytime soon, I can't stand such low resolutions on 15" and larger notebooks. Now my Latitude 13's 1368x768 resolution is fine because it is a 13.3" screen, though I wish it had higher.

 

People don't know about high res...they see HD and buy it. The real problem however is not 16:9, not even the crappy 1366x768 resolution, its the abysmal contrast of most screens. 3 years ago you could get a decent notebook with a screen which had 300:1 contrast, now you either get 150:1 or pay horrendous cash for a good screen with 500:1.

 

You mean TV ? Dell used to offer choices of different resolution(so I don't think people don't know about resolution difference) for the same model and I am seeing it less and less. Given Dell's business model(BTO), I would say they found that most people don't choose to pay the premium.

 

Correction: Most people didn't see the need for paying the premium. However, now that their usefulness is becoming more and more mainstream, people are a lot less apprehensive about the added cost.

 

Only Dell business models have this. I don't think any midrange consumer stuff can be upgraded. Only the Alienware, XPS, and Studio XPS..

I would say 95% of normal people don't care about screen resolution. Case in point my mom had a 5 year old HP piece of crap 1280x800 notebook. Her work gave her a new Dell Latitude E6400 with a nicer 1440x900 resolution and overall much better notebook. I asked her if she enjoyed the new notebook any better, and she replied it didn't make a difference, she just needs a computer to do VPN stuff and that's about it. So for professionals who are given a laptop they don't even care really.

 

And that is exactly what I meant market force said screen resolution is the last thing people care about.

BTW, When I got my Studio 17 (i.e. 1737), I had a choice of getting a higher resolution screen but I chose not to as it was purchased as a family used machine which would be used by people who is 70+(so the tiny font is not called for) and also casual gaming where the graphic card just cannot handle higher resolution.

 

And there in lies the crux to her answer. To put it mildly she didn't utilize it to an extent that would show any difference. If she had, she would have noticed it.

 

Well the thing is my mom was so used to low resolution she would just have windows on top of each other. I told her higher resolution would be nicer because you wouldn't have to alt + tab to find the right window all the time. But of course my mom being Asian said she wouldn't pay for it anyway and her company bought like 100 of them so not like she had a say in it. Don't know if higher resolution than 1440x900 is available for the older E6400s anymore..

 

You know, marketers need to put in pixel numbers in their advertisments.
2.07 million pixels!!!! for 1920x1080 as a selling point as compared to:

1.44 million pixels fpr 1600x900

Something like the advertisements for processors ... is the processor really an issue in day to day computing experience for non-gamers? Yet it gets advertised.

 

You honestly think that would help? I helped a customer today because we apparently sold him the wrong laptop, turns out he didn't realize notebook = laptop.

Some people have no idea what CPU, RAM, and HDD mean and you are going to say well this LCD has 750 thousand more pixels?

 

I think it would; you are correct that most people have no clue as to what the tech details mean, they only know that a higher number is better. At the local stores here, the laptop advertisements contain numbers for CPU/HDD/RAM but no details on screen res. Putting a number might help.

Of course, we woul need to teach the advertisement folks mulitplication first

 

People have picked up on the "720p" vs. "1080p" trend so I suppose it's possible they could pick up on pixel count.

If computer makers were serious about selling higher-resolution screens, they would show practical examples (like how much more of a window you can see or how many more columns/rows in Excel) instead of how much "better" it makes Blu-ray look.

 

Well sure people see bigger numbers are higher performance. Wish the same could be said about processor speed, it's instructions per clock cycle! People see a notebook; well it has 6 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD with Core i5 but has Intel GMA but it still must be good with all that stuff! /facepalm

Also, hey well this GPU has 1 GB of video memory (say for instance a 4350). Well why spend 40 dollars on this (4350) which has 1 GB of VRAM while the other video card for 150 (GTX 260) only has 896 MB of RAM. (Insert Carlos Mencia dee-dee-dee here) well also matters on stream processors, memory bandwidth, core clock, shader clock, and memory clock. Herp derp they instantly get lost in translation.

It's not even the 720p part that angers me. It's the fact they put HD and the average joe schmoe goes oh hey sweet it's an HD LCD it must be good when in fact 1368x768 is garbage for notebooks over 13". Honestly why can't businesses be run by engineers, not by the sales people.

 

The current business model seems to be (for notewooks as well as many other markets as evidenced by the current financial crisis):
For Morons by Morons
FMBM for short**

**Any resemblance to FUBU is purely coincidental.

 

Didnt digital cameras advertise on pixel count?
I wonder why notebook sellers decided to ignore this...

 

People are dumb. In two days I have had someone ask me where the US Consulate was (we were in the US by the way) AND when I told someone we were out of "One-X-L sweatshirts" they asked "Well do you have any extra large?" I did not really know what to say...

 

Okay, you've made your point. But that's a whole different can of worms that go way beyond this website.

As for this application, I think people are simply uninformed. When an advancement or new technology is introduced, it's up to the developers/manufactures/sellers to let them know why it's better. The challenge is to do this without overwhelming consumers with a lot of boring techno babble. In the case of a high(er) resolution screen, one picture is worth a thousand words.

 

It's been tried several times. Usually the first words out of the person's mouth is "Why is the text so small? I don't like it." The problem is, to a lot of people, the added resolution is "invisible". If they decrease resolution/increase font size to something comfortable for them, they end up right back at the lower resolutions that are currently being offered (well, ok, maybe not that far, but maybe somewhere around 1600x900 as opposed to 1920x1080). They _may_ notice slightly sharper textures, but given that a lot of people seem to be just fine with 720p on much larger screens (TVs), we may again be in the case of the masses just not wanting what we power users would prefer.

 

If you type the occasional word document and do some internet browsing, low resolutions are just fine, which is what most people use their computers for, and probably a good explanation of the low resolutions we are discussing becoming "standard".

 

I agree. But that's why I said "picture!"

If a consumer's main concern/use is text, then the difference is inconsequential at best. So it's unlikely they'll be convinced of the need. Which puts us right back where the list of controversies began.

What on earth gives you that idea? Computers can be used for just about anything. They are hardly limited to simple text documents anymore.

Incidentally, web graphics are on the brink of expanding exponentially. By not moving up in resolution, you'll be missing a lot.

 

I never said that is all they are good for, I said that is what most people use them for. Few people are watching HD video, playing games, or heavy power-hog applications like Photoshop etc.

The reason things like HDD's keep expanding is not because they need to, but because it sounds great! "Oh, why do I want this one with 500gb, this one has 1TB!" 90% of users do not say, "Oh, this one is only 136x by 76x, but this one is 1600 x 900!" It just does not roll off the tongue nicely .

 

^ which is why they invented the terms "HD", "HD+" and "FullHD" no? Yet despite those easy to use terms higher resolutions aren't pushed as selling points. You do have a point that most people do not care or care little (in contrast to maybe other needs such as budget or whatnot).

 

Well a "2 megapixel" resolution sounds pretty lame in an era when people are used to 12 to 14 megapixel cameras? It's pretty obvious why this measure isn't used to sell displays!

 

Compared to the masses perhaps. The those above niches you mentioned are the ones that started the consumer computer market. You should be thankful to them.

Really? Have you checked the amount of HD space needed for HD video lately?

 

I do not think you understand. I am saying this is capitalism, and the manufacturers could not care less who got them started, they care about selling product. And if the masses want low resolution and 14tb hard drives, that's what they are going to get, and that is what the manufacturers are going to focus on.

Still missing the point, most users are not storing huge amounts of HD video, if any at all.

 

FullHD movies are 8-14gb. This is why I keep them on external 2tb drive, while using 64gb ssd for system, music, photos etc.

 

Sure that is their consumer market where a bulk of their profit goes. But not all business professionals want 14 TB hard drives, you still see refurbished D620s with 80-120 GB hard drives.

Yet again, I refuse to buy midrange consumer notebooks for the reason that screens are terribad.