1440x900 vs 1680x1050

[pcman09]

I can get a 19" monitor with either of the two resolutions. But if I go with 1440x900 I will be able to get better frame rates. What is the major difference between 1440x900 and 1650x1080 at a 19" monitor? Just go with 1440x900 for better frame rate? Will 1650x1080 look much better and is it worth sacrificing a few frames? Have a BFG GTX 260, thanks!

 

[treefrog07]

Go somewhere and look at the difference on the two 19" monitors. The 1680x1050 fonts will appear to be much smaller than the fonts on the 1440x900 monitor. Whichever you get, run it in its native resolution for least eyestrain.

 

[jyjjy]

The difference is of course a higher resolution. 1440 x 900 = 1,296,000 pixels while 1680 x 1050 = 1,764,000 pixels so roughly 36% more pixels to give you a sharper image. More pixels also means the video card needs to work harder which explains the frame rate difference but your GTX 260 should be quite capable for either resolution.

 

[pcman09]

Go somewhere and look at the difference on the two 19" monitors. The 1680x1050 fonts will appear to be much smaller than the fonts on the 1440x900 monitor. Whichever you get, run it in its native resolution for least eyestrain.

Well I figured that much out, but will there really be a difference in the way games look besides font size? Will a game look ridiculously better at 1680x1050 than at 1440x900 if both games are set at max setting with AA? If not then I will get the 1440x900 for the better frame rate.

 

[pcman09]

The difference is of course a higher resolution. 1440 x 900 = 1,296,000 pixels while 1680 x 1050 = 1,764,000 pixels so roughly 36% more pixels to give you a sharper image. More pixels also means the video card needs to work harder which explains the frame rate difference but your GTX 260 should be quite capable for either resolution.

Ah, so it would look a bit better. Well guess its 1680x1050 then. Thanks.

 

[xc0mmiex]

you should notice a difference easily but dont be prepared to be completely blown away... it will be there and you will like it but its not like going from black and white to color
I recently went from a 19' 1440*900 to 24' 1920*1200 and the change was significant but i was surprised that frame rate did not drop significantly at all ( running a single 4850 at the moment, other is being cleaned)... max res, max texture, max AA and AF... TF2 and L4D2 run above 40 FPS, COD4-2 runs around 60... (this is with running both monitors and the bigger one playing the game, fyi)
as long as the price difference between the two isnt too great, so with he 1680*1050 since the FPS loss will be minimal if at all

good luck : )

 

[rolli59]

I have a 22" with 1680 x 1050 I would not want to have fonts any smaller. If it was me selecting a 19" I would go with 1440 x 900. If it is mainly for gaming though the extra real estate is nice.

 

[frozenlead]

I just built a new desktop, which has the same resolution as my Sager notebook (1920x1200), except on a 24" screen (opposed to 17"). Both machines can handle the native resolutions, so I've been through your situation.

Viewing games and just text on a 17" screen at such a high resolution has spoiled my eyes - the 24" panel I have just doesn't seem as pretty or as rich as the Sager's display. I also noticed it was a heck of a lot easier to find an enemy moving or detect their helmet and barrel sticking out from a window - probably due to the area of the pixels that make the models up. On the 17" screen, the head of an enemy is a lot smaller than one on a 24" screen, and, thus, a lot harder to find. But the high-res screen with a low area just looks so good! You'll never look at a display the same way again.

If I were you, I'd choose the 1680x1050 display. 24-17 is larger than 22-19, so you won't notice so much the effect of what I did.

Plus, using a 260 on a 1440x900 display is just...wrong.