Before buying clevo w860cu, one more question

there is one last question i would like to ask. I am having hard time deciding. On one hand lower resolution means video card will last longer and cheaper, on the other hand it's nicer to have more real estate. Is there any other difference between 1680x900 vs 1900x1080 screens, besides resolutions?

 

The ability to play 1080p blu-ray movies at native res?

 

The average fps is what matters. That gives you a basic idea of potential performance differences. Sometimes there will be hardly any difference but in some games the difference might be larger.

Apparently the FullHD screen has a higher potential of having dead pixels than the 15600 x 900 screen does. I am not 100% sure about this, I am sure some one else will verify whether this is true or not.

 

The 1920x1080 resolution is beautiful but the fonts, icons, etc. are TINY on a 15" screen. Unless you still enjoy very young eyes, 1600x900 resolution is more practical for most people.

 

Movies at high def is not a top priority. What conerns me that that there would be significant difference in quality of colors and viewing angles between two displays.

 

The screen quality is different, as review by many, the 1920 screen looks much better than the 1600 screen. I don't find the font size a problem, can just expand the font size, alternatively, can always use a lower desktop resolution, while having native HD resolution in applications you want to have HD resolution.

 

I can only speak from experience of my 1600 x 900 screen but the colour saturation, quality and viewing angles are excellent. It is crystal clear and I have no regrets. The FullHD may well look better but I can only go from what I have. I got the 1600 x 900 screen because all I use my laptop for is pure gaming and getting the most performance is my top priority. The 1600 x 900 is a high enough resolution where every single game at native resolution still looks great and I will be able to play at native for longer in the future.

 

I would go with the higher resolution screen.
It can always be lowered and the DPI can be configured, if you prefer that for certain situations.
What you can't do is raise the resultion to HD on a 1600x900 when watching movies.
And if you play games and couple it with a good gpu, definitely go for the higher resolution screen, as graphics are just better. IMO.
Unless cost is a big factor, I would get the higher res.

 

becides its only 50-60 more for the full HD resolution

 

Im goin with the 1600x900 non-glossy if that helps you
I have 1920x1200 on this d900f and things are kinda too small for me even on the 17" and i like the thought of gaining even a few fps at gaming at native res..

 

If gaming was/is your soul purpose then i would get the 1600x900 screen...

I have been running lots of tests lately and most games average 10-15 more FPS from the 2 resolutions which is massive and 1600x900 is still a nice res overall ....

I myself am looking into some 17.3 LED 1600x900 screens for my machine so i can run native vs downscaling my current panel... It looks ok downscaled but i know ill never be happy unless its native...

Now i just have to figure out if the all the 17.3 LED screens are using the same connectors ....

A few of the benches i ran ..

GTA 4 +10 fps in the benchmark

Just Cause 2 + 12 fps

Crysis in game 10+

I ran a few more but cant remember off the top of my head ....

 

In my expirience crysis didnt gain that much.. just 2-4 fps.. (on very high)

 

On my 5870 it gained 10fps in game on average ... Not in the bench ..

 

Well thank you all for reply. I think i am going to stick with lower resolution screen. However there one last thing that concerns me, i plan to order computer with arrandale cpu, the cheapest with a possibility to upgrade it core i7 later. So i wonder will i have to flash bios in the future in order to get core i7 working?

 

Hi, you might want to update your BIOS when you upgrade as there will have been several releases but it won't be necessary from a compatibility pov.