VAIO Z2 order 1920x1080 or 1600x900?

Title said it all. I would like to order VAIO Z, but not sure whether I should order 1600x900 or the HD 1920x1080.

I want a screen that is as good as Apple Macbook Pro. For some reason when I view pictures in MBP, everything looks more vivid. With over $2K pricetag on the new Z, I surely expect the screen is equal if not better than MBP.

Anyone can share your experience on this?

 

Go for FHD, more resolution = more detail.

The Z1 has the same FHD screen as the Z2, I've looked at my Z1 next to an MBP and the Z1 is far superior.

 

Get the full HD screen.

 

My vote is for FHD, as well. I have it on my Z1 and it's nothing short of spectacular.

 

Go for the full HD. It's always nice to have the option to switch to the higher resolution when you want to. If you don't like it, or just don't feel comfortable with it, just switch it down to 1600x900 in Windows settings.

The screen is not superior to the Macbook Pro just because of the resolution. The gloss (or the lack of it), as well as color reproduction also makes it better.

 

FHD. Don't be like me and regret getting 1600x900 (although I had no choice, either get 1600x900 or get the 4.5K Signature Z... the pains of early adoption)

 

I'm not sure the FHD is the way to go. I have a Z13 with 1600x900 and am moving up to a Z21 and am going with 1600x900 again. If you game at all, your frame rates are going to take a major hit at 1920x1080 and the screen will be blurry if you try to bump the resolution down to anything other than native 1920x1080 on both the desktop and in gaming.

Y2J

 

Having owned both, I'd do the 1600x900.

It's brighter and easier to read. Not to mention faster for gaming.

Large fonts don't work for me since I use a big external LCD and I dock/undock about 5-10 times per day on average. I have to reset the font size every time. It's just not worth it, IMO.

 

Why settle for less than 1080p? If you're significantly interested in gaming frame rates, then the Z2 probably isn't for you. There are plenty of laptops with far more graphic power for less. If what you want is a super-portable, fairly high-powered business machine, then no need to compromise on a low rez display.

 

^Why settle for "less"? I think this has been answered.

1.) Gaming framerates
2.) Brightness
3.) Text size

There are, of course arguments for each side.

 

As noted, if gaming frame rates are more than a minor interest, the Z2 probably isn't the right choice of computer.

 

Ah yes, the resolution question. I personally have the 900p, and when I first opened it I thought I somehow got the 1080p, it's that crisp and small already, to the average eye. The 1080p is no kidding a squint, because it is already kind-of hard to see the 900p. It's not a mobile phone, and even so, phone icons are pretty big and held closely, it's a laptop and you're watching the screen from further, still trying to see even smaller-to-size icons and text.

So its your choice here, either you'll be watching movies at 1080p or doing everything else at 900p. If you want to scale up fonts and so on, then 1080p is an option, but not everything can scale (eg program icons, in the program itself -- eg photoshop), etc.

Also forget about games, the Z doesn't have a good enough GPU (as of right now), to even warrant choosing 900p over 1080p for better frame rates and looks. Even at 900p it will still suffer with almost all modern games unless it had a much better GPU in the external device. Pre-2007 games will run fine though, like the half-life 2 series.

 

After reflection, I would like to change my advice. The best way to decide which resolution is right for you is to go to a store that has the Z (or will have after more units get shipped) and compare the two resolutions. Based on factors ranging from your eyesight to how you intend to use the machine, only you can decide which is right for you.

 

This is always going to be a personal thing but I didn't have a problem reading 12pt arial/times new roman font (default DPI setting) on an FHD Z11. This is at arms length without my glasses. The dot pitch on modern smart phone displays is even more insane but thats one of the reasons why you can read minuscule text on a 3" x 2" display from half a meter away.

I agree about the gpu not being powerful enough to handle 900p with post processing and it is consistent with my notebook experience on the F12 and Z11 (both overclocked GT330Ms). In all cases I got the most benefit from turning down post processing or turning it off altogether. Even the overclock doesn't do a whole lot if you use any level of anti aliasing/high oversampling anisotropic filtering. At some point, you just need a better gpu unfortunately.

The main reason to get the full hd display is screen real estate. If you are used to a full HD desktop display and you have lots of windows open at the same time, then its worth it imho. I produce my own music and I have a Dell U2311H at home so I've gotten used to having a good sized tracker, mixer and piano roll all on screen at the same time. If you go down to a lower resolution then you end up scrolling and resizing windows alot more. It can slow down your workflow alot. Its easy to tell if this will affect you if you have a full HD desktop monitor, since you can just turn down to 900p and see how everything works for a bit.

 

DPI at 125% and C+ for browsers will allow you to do everything on the 1080 screen that the 900 screen does. (1080 screen at 125% DPI is roughly the same size as the 900 screen at 100%).

As for brightness, the 1080 screen is already really bright. I don't think I've ever used the screen for an extended period of time at the highest brightness (although I never use the computer outside).

The only con I can think of for the 1080 screen from my experience is the higher chance to get dead or stuck pixels. In the 9 months that I've owned mine, I've developed one stuck red pixel, but the pixels are so small, I can only find it on an all white page and if I look for it.

 

Yeah it is really bright. The only time when you need to avail of the highest brightness setting is if you use the laptop outdoors or in a very bright indoor environment. i.e. you have a strong light source behind you.

Its the same with my U2311H. Default brightness is 70/100 which is insanely bright. I'm currently using it at 32/100 and thats already above the target brightness after calibration.

 

Maybe something changed between the z1 and z2 but my z2 1080p is not "really bright" by any means.

 

For me the FHD screen on my Z1 is the lowest PPI display on any of my computers. The PPI on my UX and Ps are higher.

Bottom line, get as much resolution as possible. That is why I'm rockin' a WQXGA monitor also. Don't worry about the PPI worry about the real estate. I'd take a 13.1" WQHD display on the Z if they made it.

 

^ WQXGA on the Z? What are your eyes made out of?

 

I said WQHD, but I'd take WQXGA, that is a different aspect ratio though, it would be a different shape.

 

All of the above are from among the most experienced Z owners (special nod to our resident expert, beaups ):

And, with special mention to Computer Cowboy, who has made his life's work the study of Sony Vaios

The 900p screen is stupid-high res and stupid-bright - and I mean those in complimentary terms. 1080p on the 13.1" will largely get you:

1) squnty eyes
2) most of your work done on 900p scaling
3) considerably less brightness - it really does matter, even in a bright room, especially since the screen is only "semi-matte"
4) bragging rights

I had one of each for a month and went nuts A/B comparing them and concluded that the difference is rarely perceptible, but when it is, the 900p is more vibrant and usable, especially when interior or outside glare hits the screen and the 80 nit of extra brightness makes all the difference in the world. The 900p also saves 30 mins. on a charge - tested 3 times, identical results.

This is not an "argument" to settle, just a forum to express opinions, but count me among the many who have actually used both and decided unequivocally on the 900p. There is a reason nobody else has ventured into such crazy high resolution on such a tiny screen, and it surely isn't because it can't be done. Same reason no one has offered more than 1920 X1200 on a 17" screen: it makes the user experience worse, not better. IMHO.

 

I agree with lovelaptops, even if I like 1080p very much.
The only reason I cling onto 1080p is because of the extra screen real estate it offers me. Color reproduction is supposedly better than 900p, sure, but having used both, I have this unexplained feeling that 900p looks better.

Disclaimer: I have short eyesight and require a pair of glasses.

 

Anyone know if Windows 8 will be any better at handling high resolutions? Seems to me that the DPI thing in Windows 7 is kind of crap. I don't use it. It needs improvement. The DPI is an OK start I guess, but based on the quality of most other features in 7 I have to say that DPI is half baked.

 

^The biggest issue for me is you can't have different dpi settings on different screens. So while I sit at my desk with my 1080p 24", the Sony is unreadable (at 4 feet). If I increase the font size, the 24" looks ridiculous.

 

I assumed they were the same panel if they also inherited the same difference in brightness. Either way the 1080p panel in the Z1 has a maximum luminance of 243 nits according to notebookcheck.

How much luminance you want depends on the surrounding environment I guess. You can get away with less than 90 nits in a dark room. If you work outdoors in full sunlight then you need higher luminance, so heres where the personal bit comes in: are you gonna work in really bright surroundings and thus need the extra brightness?

With greater luminance comes greater risk of eyestrain which is one of the reasons why I had to crank down the brightness of my U2311H. ALOT. I can work for much longer periods without eyestrain at sub 120 nits or lower in dim surroundings. The default brightness of that monitor is something crazy like 200 nits. After 2 hours I felt like my eyeballs were being irradiated, whether it was night or daytime (curtains drawn or not).

If you move around alot and plan to use your notebook in bright, open surroundings then sure, go for the extra brightness. In dim/dark indoor environments the max brightness setting on the 1080p Z1 display at least is kind of insane and your eyes will feel the pain sooner rather than later. Its also something you can get used to. I kept my U2311H at default brightness for ages thinking this was just normal, including the eyestrain that goes with it.

 

The FHD panel works OK outside, I use it outside sometimes when it is nice.

 

Good point. A counter-balancing point is that you will be moving/resizing windows every time you dock/undock. If both your external display and laptop are 1080p, that problem goes away.

 

^Can't say that happens. Remember too that font size changing requires logoff and logon to take effect so that means closing and reopening all your programs as well.

 

I've had both Z2 models and the FHD Z1 since launch.

A few points

The Z2 screens are practically identical to the Z1's.
The FHD is useless at anything further than 4 feet.
The extra pixel density of the FHD makes running two windows in split screen usable. I do this with Word, Acrobat, Excel and the like. It is a bit tight in 1600x900 IMO
The zoom slider is your friend in Office and with the FHD screen.
I've wished I stuck with the HD screen on more then one occasion

End of the day, this is my work machine. The extra screen space outweighed the larger text for me.

 

Well, there are always things you can change:

with 1080p:
if text too small: increase the DPI/resolution
if gaming too slow: decrease the resolution
if self-esteem too low: now you have bragging rights
if screen too dim: you need to get your eyes checked because it's still really bright

with 900p:
if can't fit enough on screen: too bad
if need bragging rights: get the indigo

 

I don't think having a native resolution is going to hinder the performance of gaming too much. Besides, 1600x900 is not something to aim for with the newer games. It's definitely going to be fine for less demanding games (Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, possible Modern Warfare 3), but for stuff like Battlefield 3, forget it. I think 768p would be the limit for the Z2 if you're going for framerates.

Then again...the OP was only worried about screen quality, there's no mention if he's a gamer or not. It would be nice if he told us more about what he's gonna do with the laptop so we can judge precisely what he's looking for......

 

I don't think the OP is still here... we all just took this opportunity to rehash this issue once more.

 

^ Well.. if it helps, I was highly interested in this question myself, and followed the whole thread. The problem is that it simply got me more confused than before I think I might simply go with 1080p.. just because i'm not paying for it lol! Or drive to the Sony store.. although I'm not sure if that will help either

 

Just seeing how split the responses are goes to show that Sony is doing the right thing for the market by offering both screens as a choice to the consumer. (wish they'd do a few other things differently though, oh well)

 

Makes me wonder if this issue is still worth debating over.

For me, it comes down to this:

If you got the cash, and have very good vision, go for the 1080p.

If you don't have the extra cash, nor do you find it practical to have such insane real estate on a 13 inch screen, go for the 1600x900. It's still a very good choice.

If you are in the middle, then take a look at both and see which one you prefer, and buy it. It's as simple as that

 

I just broke my 1600x900 screen after 1.5 years and upgraded to the 1080. IMO, you will grow to like either screen - there's no wrong decision. The only actual difference I can tell between the two screens (besides the resolution) is that the 1080 is not as bright but does have more vibrant coloring. I think it's about 1 or 2 shades dimmer, though it's still pretty bright. I haven't tried it in the sunlight yet, though. And everything is obviously much clearer on the FHD screen (noticeably too).

When I first started using the 1080 screen, I was very upset. I felt like it was hard to read everything and that every page on the net had so much space on the sides. But after using it for a few days, it doesn't even register anymore. I can read everything naturally and do not have to squint at all. I'm 22 and have the worst eye vision out of ALL my eye doctor's patients, but with my contacts on I have no strain whatsoever. I really like all the extra space too - you can get a "larger" picture by seeing so many more things open at once. And it looks much more professional too since you have so much room! I feel like I paid for a machine worth a couple of K's!

But again, either choice will be fine. You will adapt. If you do not do anything too crazy or specialized, you should probably go with the lower resolution. If you're just using it for "everyday" needs, like Photoshop, e-mail, web browsing, w/e, there's not much reason to upgrade since FHD is a bit dimmer and more expensive. If you're doing heavy video editing like me, or need to have a ton of things open all the time, then definitely go for FHD. And bragging rights don't really mean anything - when someone asked me before about my screen, I would just say it was HD, lol.

 

^ Any Photoshop usage will benefit from FHD. Outlook 2010 is better in FHD. I'd say that for everyday usage 1080P is still better than 900P.

The difference in real estate is huge, on one hand it is only 180 more horizantal lines and 320 more vertical lines...
on the other hand 900P = 1.44MegaPixels an 1080P is 2.07MegaPixels

THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE -> 1080P is over 30% more real estate than 900P

 

Yes you do benefit quite a bit from 1080 on Photoshop. Adobe gamut is still 96% so the extra real estate is nice when working with high res photos. Keep in mind the photos are still much more high res than the screen (~12 megapixels+) so every extra bit of resolution is nice to have.

 

Eh, I edit in Photoshop everyday and the extra resolution hasn't made too much of a noticeable impression on me. If he's just doing basic photo editing, I think the lower resolution screen is good enough.

 

Basically, it's like this:

Get the 1600x900 screen, and regret not going for 1080p.

Get the 1080p screen, and regret not setting on 1600x900.

Get both, regret spending too much money.

Choice isn't always a good thing.

Edit: On the other hand, this is why CRTs rocked. You could choose any resolution you prefer without non-native downsides.

 

I like this CRT laptop

 

Why'd you have to put it that way and ruin my whole day? Thing is, I find I'm always zooming out anytime text is involved. The only time I want more pixels is with spreadsheets and, yeah, I guess you're right, Outlook. But honestly, at 13", I rarely can make out the text even at native 1600 X 900. And I disagree with the person who said too much brightness hurts your eyes. Of course full brightness in a pitch dark room will cause your pupils to bulge out like Moon Pies, but in normal day or interior lighting, I'll take every one of those 360 nits (you did remember to correct for the down-lighting these roll off the assembly with, right? http://forum.notebookreview.com/sony/546615-alternate-brightness-settings-vpc-z-display.html ) and that 850:1 contrast (vs. 650:1) - I like to see things pop out of the screen like they want to jump out over to your side of things - even if 30% will never know what they're missing!

On the Envy 14, 14.5" screen, the Radiance needed to be 1080p, gorgeous as it was at 900p. On 13.1" well, this is my week to give CC the benefit of all doubts, coz the Mods moved his 15 mins. of fame thread on to "Off Topic." Still, my man, I'm looking at just about the crispest, clearest, brightest text I can imagine, and when I shrink it to native, I'm really squinting.

 

I´ve recieved my new z 3 day ago - with 1600 x 900 resolution, same as on my "old" vgn-z. I think this is the best choice for that machine, best for reading and all my work. But this is my personal opinion...

 

The higher resolution is always nice when you're looking at PDFs. They look a little crisper and sharper on 1080p. But it's not that huge a deal.

 

Haha, that's a nice one.

But I had something much more badarse in mind. Take the Sony GDM-FW900 for instance.

 

I remember when I got rid of my dual 21" Trinitron setup. I told this kid, if you can carry them off the premises they are yours. LOL.

I really don't miss CRT monitors. It is cool that they don't have fixed pixels like you said... but that is about all that is cool about them. Some of the guys over at the AVS forums managed to get nVidia 3D Vision going on their old CRT projectors so they could watch 3D Blu-ray from an HTPC. That is a cool trick for sure, and some of the old Barco projectors had really stellar quality. I just don't see how it is worth keeping these huge inefficient things around when we have LED LCD, Plasma, DLP and SXRD/LCoS.

 

I guess "to each their own", but I have also ordered Z2 with 1600x900. Somehow, 1080 looks like an overkill to me.

If possible, you should check them side by side and choose one that suits you better.

Cheers,
Miki

 

Overkill is the name of the game.

 

ComputerCowboy, the only reason to bother with CRTs today is for gaming or other real-time purposes.

They are still the best for their ability to run at any res while looking good (to help you get good performance in a demanding game), refresh rates of 120 Hz or higher, near-zero input latency and no blur from eye tracking fast moving objects on sample-and-hold LCDs.

For any other purpose, IMO, they're not worth dealing with (some ppl say they give you better colours and black levels, but their benefit in that regard is much more marginal IMO).

 

I am pretty happy with my U3011 IPS display, from what I remember of my 21" Trinitrons the new IPS tech is better. You are absolutely correct about native resolution though.