1920x1200 res lappy gaming (:

[bobsmith1492]

I recently ordered a Sager with the WUXGA screen (1920x1200). I have never used any resolution higher than 1024x800, and I was wondering if anyone knew, could guess, or could point to some benchmarks showing how it might work.



The rest of the stats are:
ATI 9700 mobility 128MB
P-M 1.7, 2MB cache
1 gig DDR333
60meg 7200 rpmer
hopefully a big enough battery


Some games I might look at: Dungeon Siege, Morrowind, BF1942 DC, and older stuff...

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I recently ordered a Sager with the WUXGA screen (1920x1200). I have never used any resolution higher than 1024x800

WUXGA could be quite a shock if one has only utilized XGA (1024x768) in the past. Am assuming this is a 15.4" display (most likely the NP3790?), as the 17" WUXGA displays have yet to be implemented in Sager machines as of yet - at least, in the states. Although, believe Sony offers a 17" XBrite WUXGA, while HP currently markets a similar 17" Briteview WUXGA display. Hopefully you have at least tested other 15.4" WUXGA displays to be certain you are comfortable operating at that particular resolution.

Do not get me wrong - I am rather fond of the 4:3 aspect equivalent of WUXGA (1600x1200 UXGA, on a 16" display).

As far as benchmarks are concerned, this section of Notebookforums.com should have a bit of the data you are seeking (one can use the search function to locate a wealth of information). If not, inquiring there may prove a bit more useful, as a number of Sager owners frequent those forums.

Good luck.

 

[trexpesto]

can't you dumb it down to WSXGA+ with the display settings dialog if need be and then run it high for movies?

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: trexpesto
can't you dumb it down to WSXGA+ with the display settings dialog if need be and then run it high for movies?

LCD displays always run best at their native resolution. That said, one can run an LCD at lower than its native resolution; however, users often find the sharpness or the clarity of the display is reduced. Some displays - the Dell stand-alone FP series (specifically, the 2001FP) - run at lower resolutions quite well.

The short answer would be one can indeed run an LCD at a lower resolution than the native; however, be prepared for less than optimal performance. How much less depends on the LCD itself, which of course varies by make and model of machine. It is always best to choose a display based on the native resolution where the end-user is most comfortable operating.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: trexpesto
can't you dumb it down to WSXGA+ with the display settings dialog if need be and then run it high for movies?

Yeah, but then it'll look like crap because it isn't at its native resolution.

 

[trexpesto]

thankee boys

 

[trexpesto]

OK, I am familiar with a Dell C610 which supposedly has a TFT display, seems to look good from it's max res of 1400x1050 down to 1024x768.
So that is different with these new types, correct?

 

[bobsmith1492]

Since the ultra high rez monitors have so many pixels, it seems running at non-native resolutions wouldn't be as noticible - that is, you couldn't even see any stretching or whatever effects because the pixels are so small.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Edit-sorry, forgot to mention it is indeed a 15.4 incher; I've seen a 17 inch Sony w/ WUXGA and it looked really nice. So, with a 15.4 incher, they just cram more pixels in a smaller space, so it's even Smaller? That's pretty incredible... hopefully I'll be able to read stuff on it!

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Since the ultra high rez monitors have so many pixels, it seems running at non-native resolutions wouldn't be as noticible - that is, you couldn't even see any stretching or whatever effects because the pixels are so small.

That would be an incorrect school of thought, unfortunately. Again, depending upon the display itself, a great deal of interpolating occurs when operating at non-native resolutions.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Ok; well, I have absolutely NO experience with LCDs, so thanks for the advice. I guess I'll be gaming at 1920x1200 then - and LIKING IT! GRR!

Also, what's there to do since Dungeon Siege maxes out at 1024x800; if I run the game, will it just somehow interpolate that over the entire screen, and will it looked 'stretched'?

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Ok; well, I have absolutely NO experience with LCDs, so thanks for the advice. I guess I'll be gaming at 1920x1200 then - and LIKING IT! GRR!

Again, not all LCDs scale poorly. Some do a very nice job. There is unfortunately no data on the Sager site regarding the make and model of the LCD (which is unusual, as most machines list each specific component make and model. Example here, where the LG/Philips model number is shown).

Considering past displays, Sager typically (but not always) chooses very high-end displays, and most scale down to non-native resolutions quite well. While I am not a gamer in the slightest, users on Notebookforums.com mention this site often.

Good luck.

 

[GnomeCop]

heheh what monster laptop video card is gonna enable you to run current games at 1900x1200 with any acceptable performance at all? Certainly not the 9700 128mb.
slideshow excitement!

 

[Looney]

You're going to be hurting if you're gaming much at 1920x1200 with a MR 9700. On my desktop, even with a 9800Pro, most games are starting to put my 9800Pro on it's knees now at 1920x1200. I'm about to get an iXPS with a RM 9800 256mb, and even with that, i'm very hesistant on getting it (although i've read a lot of XPS owners who are gaming just fine... but i'm not sure if that's because they're just justifying to themselves that it was money well spent, or if it really is). I can wait another couple of months, and i'm hoping Dell will release the PCIe notebooks soon with hopefully an upgrade GPU.

 

[Hikari]

I think you'd really have to see the display to tell.

For example, my HP nc6000 has a native 1400x1050 display, but when I run games at 1024x768, I think they look fine.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Thanks Gnome... but wrong answer :brokenheart: