...specifically 1920x1080 vs 1600x900 as it applies to a 17.3" screen, i don't have the luxury of comparing the two side by side, is it solely just a matter of personal preference? is one more advantageous than the other given the 17.3" screen size? are the differences inconsequential? what are the pros/cons, if any, of the two? thanks.
-
For anything larger than 17", it's hard to argue against 1080. More screen room, and text will still easily be readable.
-
Some games perform much better at 1600 x 900 while others show no performance differences. That only matters if you really notice the lack of definition and blur that can be caused by not playing games at native resolution. I would always go for 1920x1080 paired with a powerful GPU with a 17'' screen though.
-
1920x1080 lets you fit two near-full-width (1024 pixels) windows next to each other, but it's a bit harder to do that on 1600x900.
It's not like 1600x900 is a bad resolution (it's great in 15.6"), but 1920x1080 gives you so much more screen space, and on a 17.3" display I personally find 1600x900 to be pushing the limits of how large I would tolerate the items on my screen to be.
You can use this page to help figure out the difference: Display Preview -
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
In most games I expect it to be very minor and probably not even noticeable. Even if it was to hold true you can always just set the game resolution lower and it will scale up to fit the panel and still look almost the same as if it was running 1600x900 native.
I cant find any reason to settle for a lower resolution screen on a 17" also dont forget all the native 1080p content out there these days like movies and youtube videos. -
screen resolution...
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by hatcher, May 8, 2011.