Why is it that Laptop LCD's can run such high resolutions compared to desktop LCD's?

[50]

I'm just wondering why my friend's notebook can run pretty high resolutions when my 15'' can only run XGA...

 

[corkyg]

You are generalizing a specific case - which is really apples and oranges. My laptop's native resolution is 1280 x 1024. My desktop LCD is also 1280 x 1024. Your 15-in LCD is probably not as good as the one in your girl friend's notebook. Usually, you need a desktop LCD of 17-19 inches to get that native resolution.

LCDs generally run best at their native resolution, i.e., the actual pixels built in to the display. The cheaper the LCD for a given size, the lower the native resolution, usually.

 

[Mik3y]

my notebook can run only at 1024x768 max resolution, whcih sux. i thnk that my icons are HUGE at that resolution. desktop lcd's typcally are better then laptop ones, but in your case, its the video card's fault.

 

[lazybum131]

Originally posted by: corky-g
You are generalizing a specific case - which is really apples and oranges. My laptop's native resolution is 1280 x 1024. My desktop LCD is also 1280 x 1024. Your 15-in LCD is probably not as good as the one in your girl friend's notebook. Usually, you need a desktop LCD of 17-19 inches to get that native resolution.

LCDs generally run best at their native resolution, i.e., the actual pixels built in to the display. The cheaper the LCD for a given size, the lower the native resolution, usually.

I think he means to ask more on the lines of why notebooks can get 14.1" screens with SXGA+ (1400x1050), whereas one would probably never find a desktop 15" LCD with a resolution higher then 1024x768.

 

[redgtxdi]

I agree, I think there's a rather large boom in higher-res laptop LCD's too. Many are SXGA, UXGA, USXGA......LMNOP.....etc. etc. (I can't even keep track anymore). Plus a lot of laptops are gaining widescreen popularity for portable entertainment. (which can be good & bad) and when you consider some of those new Fujitsu displays.......(jaw dropping)......it's easy to start feeling as if desktop LCD's are getting left in the dust!

I use a Dell 15fp at work running 600x800 (1024 just gets too hard on my eyes) and a Planar 17" at home running 1024 x 768 (1200 too tough also). I'd probably run 1200 if I had a 19" but I like brightness and contrast more than exact native resolution......(plus my video is usually onboard 'cuz I video cards are a hobby all by themselves......(c;.......)

 

[SeTeS]

Exactly... my sister got a dell notebook w/ a 15" screen that runs at freakin' 1600x1200. WTF?!

My notebooks (fujitsu P's) run at 1280x768 on a 10.5" widescreen.

I had to break down and get a 2001FP in order to satisfy my thirst for hi-rez desktop lcd-age.

 

[Carbonadium4]

i use a 1920x1200 on my 15.4 dell notebook and 1600x1200 on desktop.. larger screen lcd, harder to make.. cost more...

 

[Insane3D]

It's funny you mentioned this. I'm working on a Dell Latitude notebook right now for a customer (i815, P3-M 1.13Ghz, 512mb PC133, 15" screen) and I was blown away after installing the GF2 Go drivers that the native res was 1600 x 1200. It seems like quite a high resolution for such a small screen.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I'm pretty sure it's the DPI of the screens. You ever try gaming on one of those 1600x1200 15" laptop screens? They don't have to worry about insane response time like desktop LCDs have to.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm pretty sure it's the DPI of the screens. You ever try gaming on one of those 1600x1200 15" laptop screens? They don't have to worry about insane response time like desktop LCDs have to.

Well the screen's are smaller so the lag/ trial is less noticable.

Yeah I also wonder why that LCD displays run really high res compared to a normal desktop LCD.

I have a 23" LCD that runs 1920 x 1200 but you find a 15.4" laptop that runs that! Too small for everyday usage imo but you are closer to the screen though. You also find other high res on laptop lcd but but the max on a 19" is usually the standard 1280x1024. That is the same even on a 17" to 19"! wtf?!

Then the 20" steps up to 1600x1200.

Koing

 

[Mday]

the problem is the bandwidth\frequency specification for the DVI connector:
http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

DVI is not used in laptops, instead the screen is hardwired to the built in graphics controller.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Mday
the problem is the bandwidth\frequency specification for the DVI connector:
http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html

DVI is not used in laptops, instead the screen is hardwired to the built in graphics controller.

That can't be it. Otherwise they'd have at least 1600x1200 on 18 or 19" screens which they do not. 16x12 is only on 20" and 20.1" as far as I know.

The DVI spec is more then enough for any screen sub 23". My 23" runs 1920x1200 fine. That would be nice on a widescreen 18" but the screen would be harder to read text at that res on a small screen.

Koing

 

[Paratus]

My Planar 19 does 1280x1024
My Dell 600m 14.1 does 1400x1050

go figure

 

[zephyrprime]

There was another thread about this. Apparently it's simply a matter of there being little demand for higher res.

I suppose that since LCDs are made using a sort of semiconductor etching process, they could conceivably attain microscopic pixel sixes.

There's also this desktop screen: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=533
3,840 x 2,400

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Paratus
My Planar 19 does 1280x1024
My Dell 600m 14.1 does 1400x1050

go figure

Yup that is the crux of it.

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
There was another thread about this. Apparently it's simply a matter of there being little demand for higher res.

I suppose that since LCDs are made using a sort of semiconductor etching process, they could conceivably attain microscopic pixel sixes.

There's also this desktop screen: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=533
3,840 x 2,400

Yup that is an ultra high res dispaly but the pixel reponse time reallly sucks at 50ms total! But it isn't meant for that though. It is meant for CAD/CAM people and for imagine manipulation.

IBM also have that display. I also think IBM first had that one out before this viewsonic one.

I'd take the 30" Apple though. 4.1MP is enough and it has 16ms reponse times But the ah heck is that MOST people have to get a new graphics card to run these dam monitors!

Koing

 

[Aganack1]

The problem with LCD's on the desktop isn't DVI untill you get into insane resolutions like the new apple 30" and the IBM T221. Native Resolution is determined by the number of acctual pixles in the put in the display. So the real problem is the general public. The general public doesn't know the difference between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 infact most people would complain if 1600x1200 was the native on a 18" lcd. Where as notebooks with high res displays are marketed to people that would appreciate the resolution and you pay for it.

 

[araczynski]

my belief is partly 2 fold on this issue:

1) the actual (handfull of) LCD manufacturers are trying to keep a 'standard' in terms of size/resolution so as to not 'confuse' the average consumer so they don't have to decide between 20 different native resolutions on 20 different makes of the same physical size, otherwise it'd be easier to decide to stick with a CRT and pay less... plus laptops are usually mean to be closer to the face, so the smaller pixels are more tolerable by the eyes, whereas a desktop crt/lcd is usually further away and the smaller pixels would be harder to work with, requiring scaling of things which leads again to the whole non native resolution issue.

2) they can continue to provide easier to manufacture (read: cheaper and higher yields) technology and still milk the consumers for all they're worth, the current desktop lcd's are still at a nice price/profit premium for the manufacturers, why ruin it for themselves.

stab in the dark opinion though.