Which resolution for m860tu + 8800GTX (or better)?

Hello

Assuming there are a range of resolution options available for various OEMs for the new m860tu (15.4") and that you'd be coupling it with an 8800GTX (or better?), I was wondering what resolution folks would go for?

As I would be gaming a little, I would like to do so at native res - so I'm undecided between 1680x1050 and 1440x900.

Your views would be appreciated!

Many thanks,

Petrov.

 

get the wsxga

 

wsxga on a 15" imo i would not go higher

 

More is better and with Vista you will be able to tune Icon and Text sizes to something readable

 

With gaming in mind, I respectfully disagree that "more is better".

To my eyes, playing at native resolution is more attractive than not, and so I'd tend towards a resolution that allows me to play current and next-gen games at highly playable FPS with an 8800GTX.

Petrov.

 

I think the 1920x1200 display will display those lower resolutions very well but you may have a point there.

I wouldn't go below 1680x1050, next-gen software will require those pixels!

 

1680x1050 is what i would recommend. for a 15" screen wUXGA is just to much real estate for the screen. Also some of you guys are planing on using this for 3-4 years and when games come out then you wont be able to play at native 1920.

 

i agree with everyone too. WSXGA. WUXGA is reserved for 17inch and up!

 

My briefly-owned m15x was 1440x900, and i felt like that fit very well with the 15.4" monitor. Going higher will cost you frame rates playing at native res, and I agree, playing at anything other than native res is frustrating and blurry. I would personally recommend the 1440. It looks good on that size screen, and the 8800 will devour games at that res.

 

I'm leaning towards 1440x900 - although I'd like to see it in action on a 15 inch screen...

I don't do word processing etc on the 15" laptop anyway, that's what my work pc is for!

Petrov.

 

Ok I disagree with everybody !

Take the 1920x1200: big resolution = no need antialising.
1920 = HD. If you have a HD TV...

 

thats true Gnucki, but it will effect frames per second by playing at that native resolution for future games, like Crysis warhead.

 

Why get so low resolution for such a high-end laptop?
You can plays games like HL2, etc in native resolution 1920x1200.
Those games, that cant get useful fps with that resolution you can still play at 960x600. That is still native (original / 4), but you only have low resolution in that game. You still have full desktop size, so you can use it for other than games.

 

1440x900 would be a sin for such a machine. Does Sager offer this resolution?

 

they offer wxga, wxga+, wsxga and wuxga

 

I thought that the laptops screen size didn't matter when connected to an HDTV. So if you have the 1600 screen you can still display in full HD when hooked up.

 

We don't know yet which resolutions Sager will be offering, but it is very unlikely they will offer all 4..

 

maybe sager will not offer them, but those are whats offered from clevo though to the resellers right?

 

No. Clevo doesn't sell to resellers, they sell to the 3 importing/OEMs in North America, and the importing/OEMs in Europe and Asia.

So it is Sager, Pro-Star and Eurocom that decide what they want to import, and they would rarely bring in 4 different resolutions. They might pick 2 or 3 based on what they perceive their market wants.

Clevo will offer worldwide various options, and then the various importer/OEMs will decide which ones they import for their market.

 

for a 15 incher with a 8800M GTX? 1680x1050,definitely.

 

My bet is 1440x900 if you are an 30+ old man like me...

And if you want the compability provided by an default DPI(96) GUI environment...

Even knowing that you will have less working space, an 15,4" WXGA+ panel will be the better choice for your eyes, plus you will have a little more brightness than an higher ress one, thats a known fact.

If you have plenty of "eye" sight, and call youself a Gamer, then the WSXGA+ will be the best one.

 

thats what i meant. sorry about that.

 

you can always reduce the the actual reselution for windows and just have games running at native resolution. that way you can do all your web viewing and stuff at the "readable" lvl.
most games with text like eve online let you change the size of font at whatever resolution you have.

 

if it helps anyone decide, im using a WXGA+ screen on a 14inch and i could easily go up to wsxga in this form factor without trouble.

 

I wonder ... is an higher resolution going to impact on the power consumption as well? In other words, is it likely that the battery will last longer with lower res?

 

higher resolutions will consume more energy, but only in the area or about only a few watts more as in 5more max.

you might get like...... about a 5% difference in battery?

 

1680X1050 for me as well. Can't do less as I still run my old cl56 at 1400X1050 and anything less would just be a downgrade in my eyes.

 

Old thread bump - curious whether any resellers would consider sourcing a 1440x900 panel for the m860tu now that we have a better sense for what the 9800GT may (or may not) be able to handle in terms of resolution for next-gen games...

If you haven't voted...please do!

Petrov.

 

1440x900 or 1650x1080 would be my choice.

I wouldn't go higher or lower personally on a 15". I think 1440x900 is just about perfect for a 15", but the 1650x1080 is more commonly offered on the 860TU, and isn't too much different.

Definitely, when it comes to gaming, I will NEVER play in non-native, its just not sharp enough. So its definitely a good idea to try and match the res with the current and future capability of the card.

 

1680x1050 would be as high as I go. I have a WUXGA on a 15" at work and it sucks.

The resellers can only get what the distributers give them and Sager and Eurocom don't seem to be offering the 1440x900 (wierd for Eurocom as they usually give more choices). Pro-Star site seems to be down so I can't check with them.

 

Yes, I'd have to agree with you there. I've had both resolutions (1650 for a 15.4" and 1920 for a 17") and can say that it depends on what you mainly use the laptop for and what gfx card you have.

I myself would like to play at native resolution buy my older gen card at the time didn't allow me to so I down-res to 1024x768 just to get 30+ fps.

However, that said, a 1920x1200 screen on a 17" screen does wonders while surfing the web! If you did the same on a 15.4" screen it'll display two pages side by side ok but the text will be very small if you wanted to see the whole page. Of course you could always increase the text size but you'll be scrolling more... Everything's a trade-off I guess.

 

surely the 1200 screen will look good on the m860TU especially if you want to watch a bluray on 1080p??

 

that will only display 720p, not full 1080p

 

um......why? lol

 

oops, sorry for some reason i thought you were talking about the WXGA screen. sorry, the 1200 (WUXGA screen) will display full hd

 

cool, i have ordered without the bluray drive atm, but if i wanted to upgrade the drive in the future it will be a damn site easier than me wanting to upgrade the screen so i can watch blurays in full HD. ;-)

 

yes, and bluerays will come down in price quite a bit still. check back around christmas or in the sales afterwards, or get an external wich would save lots now even.

 

Interesting - for me, watching HD movies is something I really only do on my big plasma - I can barely tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p screen on a 50" plasma, so I definitely can't tell the difference on a 15" laptop, even if I do sit closer to the laptop than the plasma.

I'm much more focused on the gaming experience, personally, hence why I'd go for 1440x900.

Petrov.

 

Why do you think that? I think it's probably fair to say that the 9800GT will probably struggle to play 2009+ next-gen games at highest quality at 1680x1050 (it can't run Crysis at that res with those settings at 30+ fps, was my impression)...?

Petrov.

 

1920x1200

Every time I look at any other screen everything just looks horrendously big and ungainly. But then again I can sit further back and it feels more comfortable.

But anyway I've been playing everything on 1024x768 ever since I got the thing and hell; I've always cared more about fluidity than image quality.

Wait, why am I waiting on the HD3870 then?

 

This has got me thinking now, I'm obviously used to the 17" real estate offered by my 7700 i had so i am used to that. I'm now curious as to whether I would be better off going for the 570TU with the WUXGA screen. Also that laptop has a subwoofer built in, something that i miss when listening to other peoples laptops is the sound quality. When have the resellers got the demo units so they can say how good the sound is on the m860tu?

 

I can second that! I too, play all my games on my laptop at 1024x768. At least I'm not the only one. However at home I play games at 1280x1024 which is the native resolution for my LCD and use a 8800 GTS (320mb version).

LOL, why ARE you waiting for the HD3870? Me I'm waiting for the 9800GTX!

 

I only use 1280x1024 for TF2, COD4 lags. The only reason I run COD4 on 1024x768 is only because 800x600 makes looking down the sights unbearable. All I see are random textures. Like I said, FPS>IQ.

I guess the only genuine reason I'm waiting for the HD3870 is because deep down at heart I'm a fanboy. The later ETA also gives me more time to cancel should I get cold feet.

Don't hold your breath for the 9800GTX, the M860TU probably won't be able to handle it's heat output..

 

Heh, please look at the Sticky at the top of the Sager and Clevo forum.

Sager has confirmed with Clevo that the M860TU will not support 44W+ processors or the 9800M GTX because of the thermal budget!

 

There is more news as well.

The ATi 3870 and 9800M GTS will not be available on the Sager NP8660 (M860TU)

 

That's going to mess with some pre-orders.

I'm planning on getting the 9800m GT anyway.

 

1680x1050.

Watching movies, there's no way you'll see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 15" screen (I find it difficult to tell the difference on a quality 40" HDTV!) People always argue this, but as of yet, virtually noone has been able to pick the res when I play a movie clip twice, once at 720 and once at 1080. I suspect most of the (very few) successful guesses were just that, too - guesses.

Honestly, if I were buying a 15" notebook, it would be a hard choice for me between 1440x900 and 1680x1050, but I'd never even consider higher - it's a total waste of gaming performance. Of course, I only run LCD's at native res. I can't stand the blurriness of changing it.

It's more noticeable in games, but even then 1440x900 will look decent on a 15" screen, and 1920x1200 is way overkill. You get far more "future proofing" at lower res with your display adapter, as resolution is a major performance killer. All else being equal, if you sat down two otherwise equal systems, one at 1440x900 and one at 1920x1200, the 1440x900 system will still be gaming away looking great when the 1920x1200 is forced to down-res to 1440x900 to match framerates and settings, but looks blurry as it's out of native res.

In short: Higher res looks better on older games when the GPU can support the high res, but looks worse on newer games when you're at the GPU's limits.

 

While this might be true on sub-30" TV sets from six feet away, when you're up close and personal with your laptop you would me much more likely to notice a difference.

Unless you have to drop the resolution on the lower resolution screen too, then the screen with the extra pixels will look much sharper.

A 1440x900 screen isn't bad on a 15" notebook, but it doesn't mean that there aren't any compelling reasons for getting a 'better' resolution.

 

I actually never thought about dropping my res to watch a movie. I'll have to see what that's like.

As for the cancellation of the HD3870 and the free upgrade, I guess my fanboyism paid off..

 

Sorry, I meant to say: I'm waiting to get a NP5796 with 9800GTX...