1920x1080 vs. 1680x945 resolution on an 18.4" notebook

I'm interested in opinions regarding these two resolutions. At the local best buy there is no internet connection so I can't test out how web pages look. Which is the better resolution for overall usability, web page viewing, etc.? What is your opinion on resolution size overall? Toshiba sells 18.4" models with these two resolutions, so I'm trying to decide which is better. If 1080p doesn't compromise overall usability then of course I'm for it, but I don't want things looking too small.

 

X505 1080p display is like 50% dimmer, even when it's dual-lamp. It trades brightness for more saturated colors.
Also viewing angles are better on 1680x945 display.
Best way would be looking in your own eyes, if cant, decide what is more important to you.

 

Does it really make a big difference though? I sure if you stuck your nose to the screen, the difference would be noticeable, but at a viewing distance of 1-2 feet? Plus, the 1080p res will definitely stress out the GTS 360m more on future gaming.

I'm looking at a Toshiba Qosmio too and the Q885 seems like a steal at ~$1000. The 1080p models don't seem to be worth their price point to me.

 

It's noticeable at 1-2 feet mainly when viewing texts (strange it may sound). You don't see individual pixels, but text looks sharper on higher-res screen (because letter pixel edges become smaller).

Though I would wholeheartedly agree that for X500/X505 series 1680x945 screen it's the best. Because FullHD screen they use isn't really cream of the crop and bit too high res for the graphics card options available.

 

Thanks for all the responses guys. I did some research and found a site that gives the proper way to calculate DPI (or pixels-per-inch) from resolution and screen size. This gives me a basis for an apples-to-apples comparison while controlling for screen size. Using these calculations, I visually compared different resolutions on my computer as well as my parents' computers.

I discovered that the two available Toshiba resolutions are 105 DPI and 120 DPI. By comparison, my current laptop is 98 DPI. My mom's desktop has a maximum of 90 DPI and my father's laptop is 101 DPI. What I found was that 98-101 DPI is technically readable but a little too small for reading articles and message boards for long periods of time. I think 100 DPI is the upper limit for comfortable reading, but the sweet spot for me is around 80-90 DPI. Keep in mind that I can read text at higher resolutions, but why should I wreck my eyes if I don't have to?

What is clear from my research is that gaming laptops have extremely high resolutions that are designed for gaming and multimedia, not for everyday use. Here are some resolutions I calculated for other gaming laptops on the market:

Alienware M17X 900P: 100 DPI
Toshiba 1680x945: 105 DPI
HP Envy 17: 106 DPI
Alienware M15X 900P: 118 DPI
Toshiba 1080p: 120 DPI
Asus G73JH: 127 DPI
Alienware M17X 1200P: 133 DPI
Alienware M15X 1080P: 141 DPI !!!!

The sad aspect of this is that LCD monitors look best at their native resolution, so if one wants an extremely high resolution for gaming and multimedia, the tradeoff is a fuzzy or distorted picture at a lower resolution for everyday use. I do think manufacturers should do a better job of warning people of the downsides of high resolution, but I'm sure they are more interested in selling computers.

So my final conclusion is that actually BOTH of these resolutions are too high for me, so therefore it doesn't matter which one I get because I will end up downgrading the resolution for reading. I might just go for the 1080p in the end because then I will have the best of both worlds - super high resolution for gaming and Blu Ray and a downgraded 80 DPI resolution for reading webpages and composing Word documents.

Oh and yes, the Q885 is a good deal at it's price point. The only reason I'm paying more is that I really want the i7.

But this should be a warning to everyone that when it comes to resolution, bigger is not always better.

 

While you get points for being (very!) methodical, I think you're taking those numbers a bit too seriously. If your problem is reading text on the internet, it's extremely simple to make it bigger (in Firefox, anyway). Same for PDFs and MS Office, just zoom in. In Windows 7, you can adjust the UI size too (In OSX you're screwed, bwahaha).

So, I think 1080p wouldn't be a problem resolution-wise, I'm just not very interested because I don't think the GTS 360m will last as long with that resolution, plus the screen itself is apparently inferior to the lower-res one. The only thing that worries me is the actual look of the 1680x945 screen; I really need to see one in person.

I can get the i7-740qm and Blu-ray on the Q887, but I don't really think it's worth another $300-400. I am waiting to see whether some DX11 Nvidia cards can make it into the Qosmio line by the end of the year; the GTS 360m is great, but one can never be too future-proof.

 

It's not sad that fixed pixel displays look best at their native resolution. It's sad if you try to enlarge the text by changing from the native pixel resolution.

In Windows 7 the correct solution is to set up the display dpi scaling. set it to 120% or whatever number makes your eyeballs smile.

One other thing, I don't think you have a complete picture of what resolution does for you. Take a look at the fonts in a book or magazine that you see laying nearby. Can you see any pixels there? No. It's because they are extremely high resolution.

But you see that actually makes those things MORE readable, not less.

So it's all a matter of how you use the resolution (and going non-native on the pixels is NOT the right answer)

 

I actually prefer the 1920x1080 res because I find that the little bit of extra space to be useful in two page layout spread in editing docs and page layout. If you will do this kind of work you may find that res helpful too....

 

The problem with changing the fonts in web browsers is I just find it a pain. And sometimes it doesn't work perfectly. The only reason I need the i7 is because FSX works better on quad-cores, and actually the graphics card doesn't matter much. But it's nice to know I have a good GPU if I want to play a more typical game.

That DPI scaling thing sounds great. Does it work in web browsers though like Google Chrome? Or does it just change the icons?

I'm not really a multitasker so the added space isn't too much of an issue for me. Although I suppose it can be nice to have, and for some people it could be critical.

I'm with you a450... on needing to see the screen in person. I saw the 1920x1080 screen at Best Buy and thought it was awesome. If the 1680x945 only has a different resolution, then no biggie. But what concerns me is some comments that the colour saturation is higher on the 1080 screen than the lower res one. Ingvarr made comments to this effect on the X500 owners' thread. It's not a deal killer but I want to see one in person and the BB stores in Canada don't have the lower res ones on display. Here is a comparison of screenshots from the P505 and Q890 from this website's reviews. In my opinion the Q890 looks better and more colourful. This is a huge concern for me in going for the lower-end model. Why would the screens be so different? Am I crazy or does the P505 screen look kind of drab and washed out compared to the Q890?

Toshiba Satellite P505 (1680x945): Notebook Reviews - Laptop Reviews and Netbook News Picture

Toshiba Qosmio X505-Q890 (1920x1080): Notebook Reviews - Laptop Reviews and Netbook News Picture

 

I have found that main problem in browsers is not the fonts but the pictures.
You can enlarge fonts, but if you try to enlarge pictures they will become blurry (because resolution becomes non-native), and Flash often looks simply horrible - so it look as discrepancy between resolution of text (native) and pictures (lower). You can leave pictures un-zoomed, but in this case they often become quite small and also could break page layout due to difference in text and picture zoom...
The Web looks the best at DPI close to standard (96).

Don't try to compare screen look using photos. Cameras do very poor job in reproducing LCD screen properly. Also its just pointless to compare photos from different reviews (that most likely were done in different conditions and maybe even by different camera).

 

I'm pretty sure brightness and saturation are tied together. I've heard the 1680x945 screen is dual lamp and the 1920x1080 screen is single lamp. The difference in brightness would affect the saturation, however that is easily calibrated in Win 7 and I haven't heard anyone really complain about this.

I've found a Fry's that may have both models on display, if I can see them, I'll be sure to post my opinions here.

 

The brightness and saturation are not tied together, or at least not in the intuitive way.
The way CCFL or WLED-backlit screens work, they emit white light spectrum and then cut it to R, G and B primary colors. More saturated color means narrower band - inevitably less of original white amount (brightness) remains. The only technology not affected by this is RGB LED backlight, because for them backlight already emits separate R,G and B subspectrums and not just mono-white.

1680x945 is about 50% NTSC gamut
1920x1080 is about 90% NTSC gamut. Colors a lot more saturated, but that's because filters bands are very narrow. In result the original backlight filtered so much that even with dual CCFL this screen is almost half as dim than 1680x945.

Also remember that in higher res screen the pixel electronics is blocking larger relative area of the pixel, also resulting in less light passing through. This also affects viewing angles.

The brightness is nothing to complain about as long as you stay indoors and out of sunlight. If you compare X505 FullHD screen with other brands though, you will clearly see that its very dim. Measurements on notebookcheck.net easely prove that.

 

Yes the dimness with the Q890 screen is a major issue. Notebookcheck.net didn't seem to like the Qosmio 1680x945 screen much, as they said it suffered from a low contrast ratio, whatever that means.

According to Notebookcheck, the best display of all current laptops seems to belong to the Alienware M15x. But sadly, I want a bigger screen. Not to mention that I can't stand the edge-to-edge glass design and its high reflectivity. I have seen YouTube videos of the M15x and M17x where the display functions as a mirror even in rooms where all the lights are turned off and the curtains drawn. Whoever thought up that dumb idea needs to be taken out and shot.

 

Saying that particular display is "the best of all current laptops" is a bit of a stretch. The one used on M15x is just a good quality consumer-grade glossy screen. It's definitely better than anything X505 has to offer, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it the "best of the best".

Qosmio displays are all glossy too, and this is true for pretty much all consumer laptops today (even high end ones). That's one of the reasons I switched to enterprise-grade laptops.

 

I really like this explanation. I am in the same situation; I would like to get a decent laptop with good resolution to do my reading online. What did you ended up getting Qosmio or Satellite? If you don't mind sharing, I would greatly appreciate it?

 

SO should i get Quesmio 1920x1080 1.5GB GDDR5 NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460Mor Satellite 1680x945 with 1GB NVIDIA® GeForce® graphics ? I would to have a crisp display for reading and doing research online ? In your opinion what you think i should pick up price difference between the two is $300-400 . Thank You

 

Rook11, in case you haven't seen them, these two thread might interest you:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/toshiba/524817-1680x945-1920x1080-resolution.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/toshiba/526399-toshiba-qosmio-x505-q893-user-review.html (a review of a model with a 1680x945 resolution)