Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Same Size Monitor at same resolution - sub native vs native

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 12, 2012 11:31:25 AM

Possibly a stupid question, but my common sense has failed me on a few occasions.
I'm getting ready for college (saving money for a new laptop to be on topic) and am looking for a decent compromise between portability and power.

Say I have two laptops with 15.6" screens. They're both running at 1366x768. Thats the native resolution for one of them, but the other's native is 1080p. Would both images look the same? Common sense tells me yes, but I've been wrong before.


Reason is the Sager NP6165 is looking particularly sexy, but the GT 650m wouldn't be my first choice in if running at 1080p.
On the other side is the Alienware m14x which has the aforementioned lower resolution, but with better battery life and isn't much more expensive.
I'd rather not go for something more powerful or bigger, because I am on a budget.

Also, couple somewhat relative questions.
1. Anyone have experience with XotixPC? Their prices actually seem reasonable for non standard additions (ssds/extra hdd/etc)
2. Hows the cooling on the Sager NP6165 (built on Clevo W150ER). Would I need a cooling pad for any serious gaming?


P.S. First Post! Look forward to my time on these forums.
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 12, 2012 12:07:05 PM

1080p one would look much better on the same screen. Trust me on this one :) .
Score
0
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 12, 2012 12:14:37 PM

and the 1080 screen would look worse at 768 than the native 768 screen since the resolution won't match with the physical pixels on the screen.
Score
0
Related resources
November 12, 2012 12:17:07 PM

Sunius said:
1080p one would look much better on the same screen. Trust me on this one :) .

Even at the same resolution? (1366x768)

I was guessing that it would be the other way around or identical. The native resolution screen being made for that resolution just made me think that it would have a generally better image quality at that resolution.

However, that is why I'm asking on here.

Guess it would be better to go with the 1080p if its as good or better at lower resolutions since I would have the option for full HD if the GPU could run it.

Quote:
and the 1080 screen would look worse at 768 than the native 768 screen since the resolution won't match with the physical pixels on the screen.


Okay, that was what I was wondering.

What with the GT 650m not being the most optimal GPU for 1080p.
I may still go for the Sager since I can get an ssd and extra hdd added in by Xotic (if they're reputable, haven't done much research) for a pretty reasonable price.
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 12, 2012 12:19:33 PM

Why would you want to run lower resolution on a higher resolution screen? If you're not getting the performance you want, just lower in game settings instead. It will still look better than lower resolution with higher settings :p .

Plus, you get tons of screen space while not gaming if you get a 1080p one.
Score
0
November 12, 2012 12:23:29 PM

Sunius said:
Why would you want to run lower resolution on a higher resolution screen? If you're not getting the performance you want, just lower in game settings instead. It will still look better than lower resolution with higher settings :p .

Plus, you get tons of screen space while not gaming if you get a 1080p one.


Thats something I didn't think of.

Would say Skyrim at 1080p and low settings look better than at 720p and medium settings(being both monitors native resolutions respectively)
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 12, 2012 12:26:49 PM

Yes, it would. Hell, I tested it with crysis 2 (720p at ultra settings and 1080p at medium settings). The frames per second were the same, but the 1080p image looked so much better.
Score
0
November 12, 2012 12:32:35 PM

Would this be a reasonable test that I could try myself and come to the same conclusion?

Play a game (ie:WoW) at 720p ultra windowed vs 1080p low settings full screen? (currently my desktop monitor is 1080p, and WoW is one of the only games my old as hell computer can play.
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 12, 2012 12:52:37 PM

Try finding settings pair that gives you similar frames per second, and prioritize draw distance to be set the highest possible (as that is one setting that increasing resolution doesn't fix). You'll probably end up playing medium-high on 1080p and ultra on 720p while getting the same performance. Also, playing at 720p full screen would give you more accurate results. Just try it - you've got nothing to lose. I personally hated playing World of Warcraft on a lower resolution after playing at 1080p - there's no space for UI and game on a smaller one :) .
Score
0
November 12, 2012 1:43:28 PM

Anyone have any experience with 11" gaming?
The Clevo W110ER looks pretty damn good.

I know its not optimal for gaming, but I'm also looking for something portable. I have pretty sharp eyes

I'm going to college, so something that would be easy to move around and play in the library/cafe/friend's dorm would be great. Having a roommate in my dorm room, I don't always have the option of being in said room whenever I want ;) 

Hell, part of the fun of buying a laptop is picking it out.

I've done studently things on netbooks before, so I don't mind taking notes/research/etc with the 11" screen.
Actually my plan was to get the m11x before alienware discontinued it.



Quote:
you've got nothing to lose. I personally hated playing World of Warcraft on a lower resolution after playing at 1080p - there's no space for UI and game on a smaller one :) .

I started WoW at 800x600 all settings on low (extremely old laptop, only got 20fps on a good day). Going from that to 1080p was like seeing the face of god. I don't mind going back to smaller real estate though, my combination of keybinds/mods makes my ui nearly nonexistant as it is.
Score
0

Best solution

a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
November 12, 2012 4:27:54 PM

Just for your information, the reason why graphics looks worse when you use lower than native resolution is due to something called interpolation.

LCD monitors have fixed resolutions and they do not scale different resolutions as well as CRT monitors. When using less than native resolution on LCD monitors, the monitors resorts to interpolation which attempts to place pixels where they are supposed to be so that the image will appear in full on the screen. This estimated placement of pixels cause images not to be as sharp as they would at native resolution. The larger the difference between the resolution you want to use compared to native resolution, the worse the image quality will be.

Generally speaking, the best image quality you can get when not using native resolution is when you divide the native resolution by a whole number. So 1920x1080 divided by 2 will give you 960x540, and 640x360 when divided by 3. However, those resolutions are a bit too low for most people's preference.
Share
November 12, 2012 4:32:37 PM

Best answer selected by omnilobster.
Score
0
November 12, 2012 4:37:38 PM

jaguarskx said:
Just for your information, the reason why graphics looks worse when you use lower than native resolution is due to something called interpolation.
-snip-


Thats exactly what I wanted to know. If I do turn down the resolution, I always keep it the same aspect ratio (usually 16:9). I don't know any recent games that even allow you to go lower than 800x600, so I don't know how thats possible.



On a somewhat related note;

Anyone have experience with XoticPC? I live in Alaska and have had trouble with shipping a few times. How is their support and how flexible are they when dealing with unusual situations?

Also, anyone used a W110ER or other 11" gaming laptops? The more I look at the Sager NP6110 the more that sounds great, but that may just be the lack of sleep talking.
Score
0
!