I am thinking about buying a 15.6" laptop for university work and gaming, and am currently deciding between getting a 1366x768 and a 1920x1080 screen. I'm afraid I have no option of a 1600x900 screen. I'll be using a GT 650M graphics card, which I think won't allow me to play most games in native resolution on the 1080 screen, but would probably be okay on the 768. I know I can get the 1080 screen and use a non-native resolution (768) for gaming, but I'm unsure about the ramifications of this:
1) Would the performance be the same as a 1366x768 screen running at 1366x768 (native resolution)?
2) Would the screen quality be worse? Some people say that using non-native resolution causes blurring, while others say that a 1080 screen will look better even when downscaled to a non-native resolution.
3) Bearing in mind that the 1080 screen obviously costs more, would it be worth buying it (knowing that I wouldn't be able to use its full potential on most games)?
4) Games aside, I'm used to a 1280x800 screen and have never had the experience of a 1080 screen for applications such as Word etc. Do the smaller icons and larger workspace make the experience that much better?
I've had a look around and I know there are similar threads to this one, but I couldn't find exact answers to my questions. Apologies if I'm bringing up old questions, I'm quite new to the forums. Any help would be much appreciated.
1)Yes, performance would be the same if running at the same resolution even if that isn't a native resolution for the 1080p display.
2) Picture quality would be somewhat worse for the 1080p display if it is not running at its native resolution. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't understand how monitors work. The technology used to mimic a non-native resolution on displays with native resolutions greatly reduces contrast and since the contrast on almost all flat-screen displays, especially LCD/LED displays, is already poor, I think that it's best to not reduce it even further by using a non-native resolution. Perhaps it wouldn't bother you, IDK because I don't know you, but I can guarantee that it would be lower quality. I just can't guarantee that you'll notice it or not.
3) It would only be worth buying if you could play games decently at the native resolution of 1080p. With a GTX 650M, the answer is probably not unless you want the 1080p display for other reasons.
4) I prefer the higher resolution even on a 15.6" display, but this is a subjective topic and there are many whom disagree with my stance on this.
Well, that's kind of easy to answer, if you're usually annoyed by seeing pixels in screens or you get too close to the monitor when watching a movie or something, which personally I do because it's a laptop, then you'd wanna go with the full HD one. If it doesn't bother you seeing a bit of pixels then go for the former res.
Im running a 1366 res on my acer M3 ultrabook with a bt640m currently. Does fine for qany game i play at med-high settings so a gt650 will be just fine. But for the 1080p personally i'd be looking a a 660m or better if you want things on high settings at 40+fps.
I was pretty upset with how bad the 1366 res on my laptop was when i got it compared to my 1080p monitor but after a while you get used to it. That said if i had the choice again I would go 1080p.
They are the same size, so resolution is your choice. If you want tons of real estate, go for the 1920x1080 display. If you just need a low-cost computer with a decent screen, go for 1366x768, as the resolution is lower, so why shouldn't the price? I'm using a 15.6" 1366x768 laptop right now (it's not portable, it's an old Samsung NP-RV511 from Jan 2011, bought in Apr 2011) and it's nice, but I'm a fan of not being able to see pixels, and I like high resolution, big displays. I also have a slightly newer samsung laptop, 15.6" 1600x900 screen with a 20" 1600x900 HP S2031.
A 650M would probably handle 1080p, though you may see more dropped frames in games than 768, because with the 1366x768 it is doing less work.