How about a PowerPro J 10:15 (Compal IFL90) with WXGA+ (1440x900) Resolution...Vote for your favorite resolution on a 15.4" laptop

Lenovo...where did Lenovo come from?

Anyway, I agree with you the WXGA+ (1440x900) is the perfect in between.

 

why wouldnt you just get the highest res one, and scale it down if it was too small for word processing and normal apps, but u have the high res if u need it for movies/games etc. just turn up the res to the max when u need it...

 

Welcome to the forums heiman5

LCDs operate differently than CRTs, so for the best clarity and sharpness on an LCD screen you should always run them at their Native (highest) resolution. You should never lower that resolution, but you can increase your DPI and font size if the resolution is to high, making the image and text too small for comfortable reading, but that is a compromise...especially when you paid extra for the higher resolution.

So most people will want to get the resolution that best suits their eyes.

 

o ok thanks for clearing that up for me. so would getting a lower res screen also allow u to run newer games on higher settings becasue the gpu doesnt have to make it so high res... also wouldnt this kinda make your gpu "last" longer , being able to play future games easier becasue its lower res?

 

Yes, and no.

Yes that you can run a lower resolution at higher settings and get better frame rates, but no that it will make your GPU last longer because it doesn't have to work as hard. Since you are running at higher settings it will work the GPU just about as hard as running at lower settings with a higher resolution. It would be hard to measure the useful life of the GPU to be any different under these different conditions.

 

I totally agree with Donald's statement. Getting the highest resolution that your eyes are comfortable with is key.

 

i meant will the lower res allow the gpu to be able to continue to be good enough to run the newer and newer games because u wont have to run the newer games on such a high res and get better fps with newer and newer games

 

I think I know what you're asking and I think the answer is yes. If one person got a computer with 1024x768 and played everything at max while another person got one with 1280x1024 and played everything at max, logically, the FPS would be lower on the one with higher res. You would reach your breaking point with FPS faster on the higher res machine than the lower res so in that sense, the GPU would last "longer". But more appropriately stated, the GPU's performance would remain satisfactory to "you" for a longer time on a lower res machine. But as Donald stated, you could just keep on reducing the graphic details.

 

i guess then the main question would be which can you sacrafice, res or detail, and maintain the best visual looks. I am just trying to determine how to maximize my laptops potential for being able to play the newest games for as long as possible, cause i have trouble parting with meh monies

i think i just need to order one before i go nuts compenplating whats the best

 

The results you get by lowering detail settings largely depends on the game itself. Some games don't look half bad even on low settings, some games look like some sick 2 year-old's fever induced crayon scribble. However, even with the weird crayon scribble, you can still see what you need to see, and maintain a smooth FPS. Lowering your resolution can result in blurriness that makes small details hard to see, and can seriously corrupt the text in some games.

This is all highly subjective though. Opinions on the matter vary greatly. Personally, lowering the resolution on a LCD screen is a last ditch effort for me. All in all, it comes down to the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

I would suggest trying to experience it for yourself, firsthand. If you currently have a laptop, or a friend with a laptop, or even a desktop with a LCD, go try to play a game on it with lowered detailed settings and native resolution, then try it with high detail settings and a lowered resolution. I think this is the best way to answer which one is best for you.

 

Games from EA tend to suffer from this... but then again my opinion of the engine Dev's they hire places them in the same playpen with the 2 year olds that drew the art you mention

They really have an all or nothing style engine.. will be interesting to see how well Crysis scales.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, my vote is that a slightly lower resolution is a good idea for people with a high focus on game play and longevity of their notebook purchase. I'm thinking the 1440x900 on 15.4's and 1680x1050 on 17's would be about the perfect sizes.

 

When I order my notebook in Aug it is going to have WXGA+
Lynn

 

I voted for 1280x800, but I've changed my mind.
I plan on purchasing an IFL-90 with 1440x900.

 

would there be a possibility of getting the WXGA+ models in a matte screen? or would they most likely all just be glossies?

 

i think they'll all be glossy.

 

yeah. that's one of my main reasonings for getting the WSXGA+. Hopefully it wont be too small on the screen. I cant really get a tester, as no instore laptops at any of my local areas has one of that res.

 

ya thats the problem im having... i got some screenshots of other resolutions and tried them on my friends 15" laptop but i guess since his does run at wxga it blurred the wsxga+ screen a little too much to tell if it would be too small or not... so right now im looking at a wxga+ resolution but not really a fan of glossy screens

 

So in the long run (gaming) the WXGA+ (1440x900) is the one to go with?

 

I went to best buy and circut city today to check out resolutions, but the highest they had was 1440x900, which looked nice, but I'd really like to see the 1680x1050.

I'm pretty close to ordering one of these, but I'm kind of torn on what resolution to get. Is 1680 x 1050 much smaller and harder to read than 1440x900?

 

i dunno i wish someone had one of each and posted a pic of them all side by side.... maybe there is a comparison images somewhere online... ive searchede cant find anything

 

I have my desktop at 1600 by 1200, and it's not bad, is 1680 x 1050 going to be much bigger or much smaller than this? My monitors a 19 inch crt though, and I don't know how much a difference it makes on different screen sizes, this will be my first laptop.

 

WSXGA+ (1680x1050)

 

1680x1050 is less pixels than 16x12, but is very comparable. The main difference is the switch from standard aspect ratio to a widescreen format. Slightly shorter screen, but wider. I made the switch (20in 4:3 to 20in 16x10) last september, and never really had problems getting used to it.

As for screen size, it will be... well... four inches smaller than your current screen.

 

1680*1050 seems to high for a 15 inch laptop screen, 1200*800 seems too low. Running future games at 1680*1050 would be more straining on your graphics card too, i know you can lower the res in game but then your coming away from native res and may get blurring. Does anyone else think 1200*800 is too low for gaming?

 

I use 1920X1200 on a 15.4 in screen. It's pretty much useless as I can't render full 1080p with my old pentium m...but it still looks nice. Other HD formats though play great, and look damn impressive.

I adjusted the dpi settings in windows so everything is still perfectly readable...and very sharp. The only game I can play at that native resolution is the original HL and CS...haha.

My next computer will probably have a wsxga screen.

 

Doesn't seem that way, though admittedly I haven't seen my Sager yet. It'll still be the same 15.4" real estate on the screen, though with less pixels. Games will run at lower resolution but at native resolution which is good, and with some AA and some AS, I think it should be sufficient.

 

Gi1b0 wrote:
> Does anyone else think 1200*800 is too low for gaming?

Heh, on my crusty old desktop amd athlon 2200+ (er, sumthin' like that) and ati 9800SE, 1200x800 is far too high of a resolution for even good old quake2!

 

I want to buy the PowerPro 10:15, with 1680x1050, but I do not want the 512mb 8600M GT. I have read that the 256mb version found in the Asus G1s and lower end Compal notebooks is better, due to GDDR3. Is that possible? I keep switching between buying either one, but it seems the G1s can support 1680x1050 with 256mb. Help Donald?

 

The 512mb in the US version of the IFL90 is DDR3. The difference appears to be in the clocking - Compal decided to underclock it compared to the G1S, probably to improve battery life. I'm not sure how it will translate into FPS in high end games, but I'm guessing they'll still be close

 

Yeah I heard about the clocking, that's why I'd prefer the 256 mb version. I don't really ever plan on playing dx10 games on the laptop (if sc2 is dx10 then only that) but I am an avid cs:s player, and I think better clocks=better performance for me. I like 100+ fps on whatever settings on all maps, so this is really important to me. This is my first laptop coming from a desktop so pardon my lack of expertise.

 

Thats ok - I just don't know that the 256 on the compal will be clocked higher than the 512 version.

 

Hm, re-reading the nVidia site for the 8600M GT, it says the 512mb version should have a 700 mhz memory clock...

 

How can you tell which screen you have?

 

Control Panel>Display>Settings

In the bottom left corner of the Settings tab it will give you the resolution.

 

1440x900 is certainly the sweet spot for me GDDR2 or 3

 

Got it.. Thanks.

 

hey donald do you know memory clock of the yet to ship out 8600M GT 512 mb cards? I really want to buy this laptop at the end of July but that clock is really bothering me.

 

This is ridiculous. I called Xotic two weeks ago to ask when my IFL90 would be shipping. They told me in one to two weeks.

So I call back earlier today and ask them when they are shipping and they say two weeks.

giving me a semi accurate date would be nice >:|

 

I really need this laptop by end of July for school....I would really appreciate a good solid update on the date right now.

 

On powernotebooks.com if you price out a new IFL90 it says "In Stock"...is this true? I'm still deep in the queue, but if shipping has started that would be nice news to end the week off.

 

No one has them in stock yet. They are expected on Monday, but until they are in the warehouse we simply do not know.

We do not have an ETA in our Shopping Cart simply because there are different expected shipping times depending on which screen you select, and that is why right on the Configurator it shows the expected ship date depending on the screen you select.

I know this is frustrating for all of us...but now is the time to show the quality of our character by having the patience to wait for them to come in.

The good news is all pre-orders are expected to be shipped before the end of July.

 

Monday is good news. Are you expecting wsxga+ screens in this shipment?

 

Yes, both the WSXGA+ and the WXGA. The WXGA+ will come later.

 

Great news! I'll be praying they arrive.

 

Thanks for the update Donald. Its awesome to see such good customer service. Here is hoping my laptop is in the Monday shipment.

 

I ordered a Sager 2090, does that mean that Sager will also supposedly get their machines in the warehouse on Monday?

And thanks again for all your input Donald. =)

 

Monday would be very nice.

Steven

 

Ok, let's try this again.

"They are expected on Monday, but until they are in the warehouse we simply do not know."

This does not apply to Sager...they have not made any announcements about what they expect.

 

We understand Donald. You can't blame us for hoping they do arrive Monday.

 

No one is hoping for it more than we are