IBM Notebooks

[imported_goku]

Ok after deciding what manufacturer I wanted for my laptop, I am now wondering what video card I should choose for it. There are 3 options I have to choose from, keep in mind I want to be able to play practically the latest games (I'm not expecting amazing framerates from farcry but you know what I mean) anyways here are the choices: 14.1 SVGA+ 1400X1050 screen with Radeon 9000 Pro 32MB card, 15" SVGA+ 1400X1050 Radeon 9600 64MB and 15" UXGA 1600X1200 FireGL T2 128Mb card. Keep in mind I want either a standard resolution and good video card that will be able to play most games (not expecting doom III). I don't want a 1400X1050 resolution because it's unstandard and screws up graphics when working with pictures but I dont know if the FireGL 2 would either not be able to play games or have worse performance compaired to the Radeon 9600 64MB card.

Thanks Very much!

 

[amdguy]

the fireGL T2 should be able to handle the game fine at UXGA but don't expect to turn on all the eye candies

actually, my T40p with the 64MB FireGL9000 plays games fine at 1400X1050, most games let you choose that resolution

 

[imported_goku]

How much did you pay for your laptop? Because I just saw the price with the FireGL T2 and it seems like it's out of my price range.

 

[Conroy9]

i don't think 1400x1050 should screw up graphics when working with pictures - 1280x1024 is the res that has the wrong proportions

 

[imported_goku]

Are you sure about the standard resolution 1280X1024 screws up pictures? Remember these images are screwed up always! I'm not nessarily saying that the images are screwed up simply because of the resolution but it appears that since they were only able to cram a certain amount if pixels, it comes to a unstandard resolution. You try changing the resoulution on her system to anything like 800X600, 1024X768 or 1280X1024 they are still screwed up, so I guess what I am getting at is simply a bad screen.

 

FireGL2 = Radeon 9600 with 128mb RAM

 

[MrCraphead]

Yes, 1280x1024 screws up pictures, 1400x1050 does not. 1280x1024 is the only resolution w/ a 1.25 ratio, instead of the usual 1.33333......

As for the video card, if you want to play all the latest video games and have money to burn (please send me some) then I would go w/ the FireGL2. If you're being more practical then I would get the Radeon 9600 64MB. All depends on how hard you want to game on your laptop.

 

[amdguy]

i got my laptop for USD$2300 from a friend at IBM, i live in canada BTW and that laptop cost like a bomb!

 

[imported_goku]

So I guess I should assume that dell laptop screens are crap no? There is no denying it that there is an obvious issue that cannot be corrected simply increasing/decreasing the DPI or changing screen resolutions. If it is so that 1400X1050 does not screw up pictures then I am mistaken and it's simply a sign that dell quality is degraded over the years.

 

[jvarszegi]

goku2100, you're barely intelligible. When did we start talking about the screen quality of Dell laptops, and why do you keep saying that 1280 X 1024 is a standard resolution and the others aren't???

You never even said what you mean by "screw up pictures". You should be able to edit a picture just fine on a screen of any resolution, as long as its relationship to the screen dimensions is kept constant. Therefore, if you had a 12" by 9" screen (a ratio of 1.33 to 1) displaying a resolution of 1280 X 1024 pixels (a ratio of 1.25 to 1), and the software didn't take that into account, the display would seem "smushed".

The reason graphics pros prefer higher resolutions, in general, is that they can fit more pixels on the screen (duh).

 

[imported_goku]

Hum I thought I had it implied but it turns out that me describing the problem was on another post. What it essentially does is create (at least in the case of the dell) horrible jaggies on the image and distorts other aspects of the image. For example when you look at the taskbar with the quicklaunch, the icons look like crap. When looking at one of my sister's pictures, the picture was messed up with this. It was so bad that when she first noticed this, she came to me in a panic worried about her image and it turns out its agian either the resolution (from you guys, no) or the screen. I know this to be true because we have three laptops of the same make/model all with this problem. One reason I believe that the problem is caused by the resolution is because when looking at the photo through aim (she sent it to a friend and is looking through the aim window) it looks fine, implying it has to do with the screen. It also shows that aim's unstandard resolution CORRECTS the issue or atleast lets you see what it SHOULD look like.

 

[jvarszegi]

Okay. Let me ask a question: what's the native resolution of the screen in question, and at what resolution is the screen being run? See, if the screen is naturally a 1400 X 1500 screen and you run at a lower resolution, every X number of pixels has to be spread over two pixels (that's the way older laptops did it), or else all of the pixels have to be "stretched" slightly, which causes fuzziness. That happens even with current high-end laptops. The only real way to get sharp true pictures on a non-native resolution on a laptop is to run at half the native resolution; for instance, you could get a decent look out of a 1600 X 1200 screen if you ran your graphics card at 800 X 600. All the pixels would look huge, since each one would be occupying four times the original screen space, but you could do it!

This is all why you should try to buy a laptop with the native resolution that you find most comfortable. I can understand your concerns, since a laptop purchase is a big deal for most people. All I can say to allay your fears is that all big notebook makers, including Dell, feature laptops with really nice screens these days, and I can tell you for sure that there's nothing screwy about a 1400 X 1050 resolution (commonly called SXGA+). I'm typing this on my work laptop, which has a perfectly sharp SXGA+ screen.

 

[imported_goku]

I didn't say they were fuzzy, they are relatively clear but not compaired to my vaio. I said they screw up images (Atleast the dell does). I know about the whole resolution thing but even at default resolutions the images are screwed up. Another problem is, there is no real way for me to "test" this out on other brands like as if I were at a computer store because these companies are only phone and online based.

Edit: I don't know, maybe I am just *really picky because I have been complaining to my cable guy all the time about these damn lines/fuzz I keep seeing across the screen. I guess in this case it's not good to have good eye sight because otherwise you pickup things normally not seen. BTW I have 20/13 vision and for those who don't know, it means I can see Font 13 (I think) 20 feet away apposed to 20/20 where you can see font 20, 20 feet away. 20/(below 20 is better) but 20/(above is worse). When I get to 20/10, everything starts to get blurry (a little off topic but trying to prove a point of being able to pick this out). No I do not eat carrots, I hate carrots. I also drunk coffee as a lad and I am 6'5 so everything your parents told you is reveresed I guess...

Edit2: Important note, knowing now that I am not crazy and you guys simply dont know about this issue, I have a link to the dell forums about this issue which some one else has ecountered as well. http://delltalk.us.dell.com/su...o&message.id=15842

(Excluding the flickering part) be sure to look for the part about lines not matching up or jagged lines/something.