1600x900 or 1920x1080 on W860CU?

I know its just up to personal preference but I am really torn between 1600x900 or 1920x1080 with just a $60 upgrade. Coming from a Sager NP8660(sold on Ebay for $1650) with 1680x1050 was perfect for my eyes but now with a base resolution at 1600x900 I think its just not enough. Without me having any experience with 1920x1080 resolution you guys think its gonna be just too small on a 15.6" screen? This is the only thing holding me up before placing a preorder with Xotic PC.

 

I'd go for the 1920x1080 screen, it's better than upgrading and losing resolution.

Aren't the 1920x1080 ones shipping soonest anyway?

 

Quite a difficult one. Greater clarity with 1920x1080 but slower frame rates with games. Hmmm...

 

The true question is, "How much slower?".

 

1920x1080 without fingerprint reader will available sooner but time doesn't matter with me.

Oiad is right, I also have to consider gaming performance between the two resolutions but with just $60 difference its hard to let the full HD pass.

 

Your 1680x1050 15.4" Sager had a physical dpi of 129. A 15.6" 16x9 laptop with a resolution of 1920x1080 has a physical dpi of 141, while a a 1600x900 resolution screen of the same size has a physical dpi of 118.

Basically, things will look a tad larger on the 1600x900 and a tad smaller on the1920x1080. The 15.6" 16x9 format screen will be about 1/2 inch shorter than your current 15.4" 16x10.

 

1920*1080 = 2 073 600
1600*900 = 1 440 000

2 073 600 / 1 440 000 = 1,44

So you will need 44% more graphical power in Full HD =D

 

Okay, looks like I will pull the trigger on the 1920x1080 since things just look a tad smaller on it. Thanks for the breakdown calculations man.

 

What? 44% more graphical power on Full HD? . Don't get me wrong but 44% isn't that 44% less framerates if gaming roughly compared to 1600x900. Okay, I got to rethink about this. Thanks guys.

 

Fortunately that is not how rasterisation based rendering works. You will most likely not see a 44% drop in frame rate. In most, if not all circumstances, it will be less than 44%.

Another thing to consider is that higher dpi monitors will look better when running at non-native resolutions. In other words, generally speaking, a 1920x1080 monitor will scale 1280x720 better than a 1600x900 monitor. This is by virtue of having a more pixels to use in the interpolation.

So, in my opinion, 1920x1080 is the way to go. Especially since the price difference is negligible.

 

To be more accurate, 44% pixels will have to be calculated, but indeed it doesn't represent so much decrease in framerate

 

Couldn't you get the 1920x1080 for movie watching, and for gaming just lower the resolution in game? Or was that a stupid comment?

 

If I get one, I'll go for the 1080p, and I'll game at 1600x900.

 

You can always lower the resolution to get better gaming performance but it just won't look as sharp for not running it off native resolution(using maximum resolution your monitor can put out). This is why I am so stuck in between..I like to have the best visual as possible but not sure the 280M can handle Full HD without taking a big hit in performance.

 

It would be that big of a difference?

 

Is 1920x1080 less of a stretch (no pun intended) on the W860CU than 1920x1200 was on the M860TU? For some reason, I'm having trouble figuring out the appropriate math to answer this myself.

edit - wait, I think dpi equates to "pixels per unit of area" and iirc, WUXGA has a higher dpi than Full HD, so yes, it is less of a stretch...for the eyes, not literally stretching the image since that might be in reverse. Can someone confirm this?

 

Always go with 1080p Much better picture..

 

For me gaming performance at native resolutions for as long as possible is the most important factor so I would go with the 1600x900 which will still look great.

I would only go for the 1920x1080 resolutions if the laptop had SLI. When you start having to lower resolutions in games in the near future, you will soon start wishing you stayed with the best compromise between performance and visual clarity i.e the 1600x900.

 

For me, the additional space provided by 1920x1080 makes up for non-native gaming. I find it very useful to be able to tile a couple windows rather than have them stacked and constantly switching between them. Plus, a high resolution screen looks fairly good at non-native resolutions.

 

Great question!
I was just pondering the same thing but the way I look at is this, unless you plan on watching full 1080P HD movies and like the extra room for photoshop(or whatever program or app that needs more real estate) go with the higher screen res.
If you are going to use it for a gaming rig most of the time 1600x900 would be a better choice.
As most people have said games look much sharper when using a screens native res and you would get a few more FPS in games.
How much more no one knows yet but we will soon.
Now everything is subjective but me personally I would get the 1600x900 screen res just to squeeze as much performance out of the laptop as possible.

 

I hope the information helps. I've been beating my head against my desk trying to decide what I really want. I'm a spec so I'll probably end up with the full hd, but maybe not because the dpi is a little higher than I'd like.

 

The dpi or amount of 'stretch' aren't functions of the resolutions, but are functions of the resolution and the size. I have a whole spreadsheet with calculated dpi's and screen sizes.

 

I can't see myself NOT getting the better screen. The GPU can easily handle games at the resolution, and as long as you have good eye sight, things should look just fine. It's only a 20 dollar upgrade...

I also just don't like the base resolution, 1600x900 is weird.

 

You're right - I was completely forgetting the actual screen dimensions. I knew there was something wrong with the way I was imagining it; thanks for pointing it out!

 

That's the thing I have never seen any 15.6" screens in person so I'm not exactly sure how good/bad they look.
1600x900 is only a odd number because we are not used to it(same with 1920x1080).
Welcome to the 16:9 aspect ratio revolution, It's here like it or not.
Going to BB to scope out some screens to get some idea what to expect.

 

The GTX 280M can handle games just fine at 1080p. Even Crysis runs fluently enough on DX9 High. And when RV870/GT300 rolls around, you'd be kicking yourself if you chose the 1600 x 900 screen.

I had a 1080p 16" HP before, the high DPI was still comfortable for day-to-day tasks. But the W870CU and 1080p is the perfect combo

 

Have you ever seen 1440x900 on a 14.1" screen? If so imagine that picture quality on a 1.6" wider screen.

 

My only question is: how much quality loss we should expect running games at 1600x900 with a FHD screen??

I think I'm going for a 1080p screen, but I'm still not sure...

I also checked around, and the GTX 280M should be capable to handle all the games I would like to play at the bigger resolution and AA4X with no problems...and next gen games will not require so much GPU power, b/c of the multiplatform developing...Crysis will still be the "*****" for much time

 

I would be happy with the 1600x900. Personally I find that kind of res fine for a screen of that size, it gives a good sharp DPI. Certainly I can't see the individual pixels, and I don't get an impression that the screen is 'not sharp'.

1080p is important if you need a lot of screen estate, so for sure go for it if that is the case. But just watching a movie or playing a game, 1920x isn't really that much 'sharper'. Actually most people couldn't tell the difference if they werent told. It is not like the huge visible difference between say 1080p and 1366x768, where you definitely can see a difference in sharpness.

Another factor of course is the display quality. Brightness, contrast, colours etc. You will have to wait for reviews to find out if either panel has the edge in this case.

 

Dang 16:9 aspect ratio. I'm going to miss 1680x1050 res. on 16:10. 1600x900 is just so strange I'm just gonna wait for some reviews out there first before I pull any triggers.

 

well, for what its worth, i regret getting my 5797 (17") with 1080p because everything is so small and my eyes hurt. i need to be really close to the screen to be comfortable, and the brightness just blinds me quickly hehe.

i have windows7 magnifier set at 25% and its still small sometimes (im 25 with no eyesight problems whatsoever)

 

Sort of my point.
My eyes got tired quicker when I switched to a higher res screen.
I thought it was just me.
Checked out some 15.6" screens and it's not too bad.

 

I took 1600*900, because I have a 20" screen with 1680*1050 res with my desktop, and I find it very comfortable. So 1600*900 on a 15.6" should be just fine =)

 

If this is accurate, I am getting 1920x1080. I love the 1440x900 on my IBM T60 at work.

 

I was going to stop by Best Buy to check out any 15.6" screens with the 1920x1080.

Also have been reading the customer reviews for the ASUS G51VX on Newegg that has a 1920 x 1080 screen in a 15.6":

Pros: -1920x1080 display is crisp, I'm in love with it.
Pros: Runs fast, beautiful display, fits (barely) into my 17" laptop backpack.
Pros: -HD screen. Very crisp. Not too small, very good size.
Other Thoughts: I am personally in love with this thing, the HD screen just makes any other I've been on look horrible.
Pros: Beautiful and fast with an awesome screen.
- Display. The display on this notebook is absolutely gorgeous. I was a bit skeptical about such a large resolution on a 15.6" screen, but it isn't an issue at all. Simply gorgeous.
Pros: -Absolutely gorgeous LED Backlit, 1080p screen
Pros: The screen is great.
Gorgeous screen.
Pros: *1080p WLED display
Screen is Amazing. I have a dell ultrasharp 24" monitor and after working on this laptop for awhile then going to the back to do some stuff on my desktop my dell looked dull.
Pros: 3) The high density screen - 1920x1080 for 15.6 inch is as good as it gets.

Only once did I read the screen was too small, hard to read, or that they wished they had got a lower resolution:

Cons: Full HD on 15.6... That's small, even with vista dpi scaling. Also 16/9 is unusual, didn't like it.

Someone listed this as a Pro: 2. The screen is nice and crisp although 1080 on a 15inch screen is very small so i dropped it down to a different res.

So hopefully the screen in the Sager is of similar quality. Also people don't seem to be having issues gaming at that resolution, even with the 260M and not the 280M. However I do think this W860CU is very wide at 14.75" and fat 2" tall.

 

Nice research! I been checking around at Best Buy and didn't find any 15.6" with a 1600x900 nor 1920x1080 to see in person. I love to call it good with 1920x1080 for desktop space, photos and videos but my only concern is gaming performance now and for near future. Haha...I'm still stuck.

 

If there's a 300M upgrade, 1080p won't be an issue. For the foreseeable future w/ 280M, 1600x900 is the ideal gaming resolution, regardless of which screen you choose.

 

The 280M can handle 1080p just fine. For example, lately I've been playing Far Cry 2 on Ultra. I lock it at 30 FPS, runs without a hitch. Crysis runs at the same pace on High. More optimized titles like L4D run maxed with 4xAA at 60 FPS...

Thing is, 1600x900 is a good DPI for a 15.6" screen, so there's nothing really wrong with it. But if you go with the larger 17" model, you should rest assured the 280M will handle 1080p just fine.

 

Try this, scale each of these images to full screen, to see how they will look on a 15.4" screen. This should give you some idea as to what to expect.

 

Those images when view at full all looked the same to me. Hmmm. Unless I'm viewing it wrong.

 

Look at the different amounts of the NBR forum posts you see at each resolution.

That confirms my need for the 1080p.

 

Yes, now I know I want a 1080p too!!! Thanks dudes!!!

 

Ahmmm ... you can scroll down to view more posts on 1 screen too ... (The screenshot was taken on top of the discussion board)

 

i weep for the loss of 1920x1200:-(

perhaps 16:10 will make a come back in 3 or 4 years when it's time for me to buy another laptop (I think the 860cu will keep me happy enough to ignore the loss of 10% of my vertical real estate)

 

Put the images on your desktop and do a slide-show so they fill the screen. The text and icons in some should be bigger/smaller than others.

 

Of course you can scroll. That wasn't the focus of the comparison.

 

Just to make sure you understood what I was [email protected]" (118 DPI) looks like [email protected]" (120DPI). [email protected]" (141 DPI) would look like [email protected]" (140 DPI).

 

Hehehe...I had to check [email protected]" (142 DPI) ...and I like it...

I just placed the oreder with 1080p...waiting some confirmation answer from Kobalt guys

 

1080ps the way to go, I got a 1200p screen so now I'm spoiled for anything less. Trust me its soo much sharper.

 

Watch this video about the new Clevo W870CU and you won't be dissapointed by the 1600x900 resolution. At least I wasn't.

I realise 900 vertical lines isn't that much, but on a 15.6 inch screen, it'll be more then enough.


And as said countless times before, if you want a future proof (= not upgrading a part once a new compatible product is released) '15-inch' gaming notebook, then you're better off with the standard 16:9 screen, since the higher res one will start lagging on native resolution soon enough. (Yes you should always set your screen to it's native resolution, unless you already have wax in your eyes anyway. )

It's just a matter of what you want to get out of the notebook, that's all. And I'm a student gamer with low funds, who wants a desktop replacement notebook to play games and watch the occasional series or movie, which is future proof for about 3 years. So 1600x900 is defo the way to go for me. (And fyi, if I want to watch a movie in full HD, I'll just watch it on the TV instead of my little 15.6 inch monitor. ^^)