9300 screen for gaming

Should i go for the 1440x900 screen or the 1920x1200 one? I think the former is matte and the latter is glossy.

 

Screen is a personal preference. I'd check some out if you can.

 

I recently purchased a 9300 and I opted for the wuxga screen and the gforce 6800. The reflections don't bother me too much. My wife has a 15.4" wxga laptop and I don't think there is any comparison when it comes to gaming. If you want to see the game in all it's glory, the 1920x1200 is a must. But thats just my 2 pennies.

 

The thing is, i do like the glossy more, and small text do not bother me. Its just that at such a high res, will the 6800 hold up?

 

Yes, it holds up very well

 

How well in terms of fps?
What are the clocks for the 6800 Go by the way? Is it comparable to the GS of the laptops?

 

i looked at several dell laptops at the kiosks at the mall and i absolutly hated the reflectiveness of that **** glossy coating! Its a total personal preference, ive worked with flatscreen CRTs that look exactly like the Truelife screen...when i try reading a document i would always get a headache or strain my eyes after about an hour. I LOVE the fact that the laptop screens have a "mat" type finish to the screens...NO reflections, its kick a$$. Im not sure why people say that the WXGA screen is "dull" i have my screen on about a 5 - 6 notch setting out of 8 on brightness. It is a very bright screen.

check it out for yourself, if you hate glare, get the WXGA!

Dan

 

well it depends if you can stand not running native resolution. the 6800 can't put out good fps at such a high resolution like UXGA. I bought the UXGA for the true life and desktop space. i plan on running games windowed so i dont have to take it off native. anything out of native is just not acceptable IMO. Also depends on the games you play. i plan on playing CS mostly, which i believe has UXGA resolution and since it is so old the GPU can put out good fps.

 

Dell screens pretty much suck compared to everything else so i don't think having 1900x whatever will be usefull whatso ever, no way can the 6800 go run the latest games at that resolution.

 

is this true? the 6800 cant produce good fps with a UXGA screen? im asking because i have CS:Source and plan to play a lot..

thanx

 

it doesnt matter i think, i run at 1680x1050 and get about 55-60fps in cs:source.

 

Im getting a gig of ram tomorrow(or at least thats what ups tracking says) i have the 6800/1900x1200 reso on the i9300 ill tell you how fps is on cs:source after ram upgrade cuz the oem 256 is dying weight.

 

Dell's screens suck? That's a load of ****.They use the same samsung and LG lcd's that everyone else uses. Where do you guys come up with your info?

Do you think boutique laptop makers get their lcd's from some magic source that is only available to them?

I hope you guys realize that all laptops pretty much use the same components. The only thing different between the lappies out there for the most part is which ODM designed the lappie and the nice custom plastic enclosure the lappies are made out of.

 

Like zazonz said, the screen is a user preference. Every user is going to have a different opinion on whether to go with glossy or non glossy. My suggestion is to go to a local computer retail store and compare the screens that they have. Chances are that if you like the glossy screen on other computers, you'll like the glossy screen on the 9300.

SG

 

The thing is as i said, glossy or not is not an issue for me, it is whether the 6800 can handle running games at the 1920x1200 native res of that glossy screen, or would it be wiser to opt for the 1440x900 screen.

 

hmm, which 6800? The go6800 or the ultra. If it were the ultra I'd say no problems running at 1920X1080. The regular version might chug a little bit, but from all accounts it sounds like even the regular 6800 can handle most everything thrown at it.

Another thing to consider though is when you're not playing games. If you want two web browsers open side by side the 1920X1080 is the way to go. I'm currently using an Inspiron 8600 w/ 1920X1080 screen. While I do play some games in 1920X1080 most I play at lower resolutions cause my graphics card would choke on the higher res, but I sure do appreciate all that screen real estate when I'm not playing games.

Personally, I'd go with the higher res screen. Usually it's only a $100 option. That and even though I voice some doubts about the regular 6800 being able to handle the high res you must remember I don't actually own one yet. Give me a couple months and I'll be able to tell you first hand.

Really though, the screen is one of the more personal aspects of a laptop. It's not like CPU speed. There's nothing really subjective about the CPU. One P-M 760 is much like another. So, I guess it all comes down to personal preference and a lot of looking at Futuremark scores for the graphics card in question.

 

do you guys realize how high res 1920x1080 is. I get my 9300 on monday so i cant tell you specifics about the 6800, but in my desktop i have a 6800 GT, which is running much higher speeds then th 6800 go and i know i couldn't play that res. I play games at 1280x1024 on my desktop and i get slow down in games like F.E.A.R and BF2, although iam a very picky gamer and hate to play with anything less than 60 FPS on vertical sync. Go look at benchmarks on google, they will answer your questions.

 

i would get the 1440 x 900 since there are more games coming out that support 1440 x 900...and it's always better to play a game on a screen's native resolution..wheras with teh 1920x1080...the resolution would have to be reduced...but it's your preference

 

In reference to Xeslana's post saying that 1920X1080 is really high resolution. I currently have a Dell I8600. It has the 128MB ATI radeon mobility 9600 pro turbo in it. I can actually run a lot of games in it at 1920X1080 at acceptable framerates. I can even get it to run Everquest II at 1920X1080 at highest quality and that is supposedly one of the more taxing 3D games out there(admittedly I can only get it to run at around 8 fps for this game, but I can get it to run!!! I only tried because I wanted to see what I was missing running it at low resolution)

Maybe, because I'm pretty used to my old GPU I'm more tolerant of lower frame rates. For me anything above 30fps is playable and anything above 40fps is more than acceptable.

Anyway, my experience with this aging GPU leads me to think that the much spiffier go6800 can handle all the games Xes is talking about at framerates that would be acceptable to me with some things turned off like AA and and AF, but maybe not at full resolution???

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-15.html

Looking at tomshardwareguide.com under their graphics and display section. They look at current cards in their winter roundup of graphics cards. This review kind of makes me lose all hope for laptop graphics as it show a FPS chart for a bunch of different graphics cards out there. Currently the fastest card they have is a SLI 7800 setup and the most that setup could push was 73FPS when playing the game F.E.A.R. at 1024X768 w/ 32 bit color, 4XAA, 8XAF. The 7800GTX only pushed 47FPS at this setting. So, where does that leave us laptop users? If the desktop 7800GTX could only push 47FPS the laptop version would probably be 5% slower(just a guess).

I guess this just means the old conventional wisdom that serious gamer's use desktops holds true even though they've managed miracles and crammed the 7800GTX into a laptop.

So, imo where does this leave Ardor? Should he get the 1920X1080? Yet again, it's all up to personal preference. In terms of gameplay I'd say he'd most likely end up playing in 1024X768 or some other lower resolution most of the time if he wanted to maximize his FPS. But, I still feel that you would see a lot of benefit to having the higher resolution display for everything else. The screen real estate of a 1920X1080 for me is something I could never give up nowadays.

So, to answer your original question Ardor, would the go6800 be able to feed the 1920X1080 screen for gaming purposes? Probably not, but it would be nice for everything else you do. Check the technical mumbo jumbo out at tom's. Maybe it'll give you a better sense of what to expect from the go6800. *Note: they don't test the the go 6800, but rather they test the 6800 vanilla which is roughly the same thing.
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=185&card2=182

 

Ok dude i dont know where to start on this quote but what the hell is acceptable as framrate goes?
How do u get 1920x1080, i have 1920x1200.
SO ardor this makes me very sad, that at least one person with those configurations couldnt have helped you.
BUT I CAN! Ok before i put in the gig of ram i was getting like 63-70 fps this is set on 1900x1200 in counterstrike source. After installing the gig of ram i was getting even less fps believe it or not. How ever the game was running a lot smoother no lag what so ever, UNTIL i got two de_nuke and fps dropped to 23. THe game still didint lag, BUT it was sort of dense. In the summer you know you get hot and slower or after working out you feel a little dense. Thats the best way to describe it cuz eveything just sort of went a bit slower i had to pick up mouse sensitivity too. so far after installing the ram , i went straight to cs and then here so i havent noticed much a performance difference yet it would be a disappointing $78 if i dont.

 

Your RAM dropped your FPS? You sure you did not get a defective stick?
Can you try the 1920x1200 res with other games?

 

lol i dont play any other games.

 

Try checking out this article from Tom's Hardware It was originally written about the xps, but there are benchmarks from a few other computers running just the basic 6800. It shows FPS rates for Doom 3.

 

Try memtest86 to see if your memory is ok.

 

Yep, no good fps, but you can always go down a notch.

 

now im getting 60+ fps on de_dust 2, playing de_cbble getting 70-100 fps 80-110 fps in de_nuke in source. This though after i turned off aa/af and hdr(thanx to chaz). At first it did nothing but when i restarted source it was flyin.

 

Most games out now and that will come out will support wide screen res's and games that dont theres most likly a hack or you can change some stuff in the config files look here WideScreenGamingForum.com

Im pretty sure I seen somwhere adding AA and AF is like around a 30% performance decrease overall, so dont use it and it sould be fine.

 

i know...that's what i meant...but the hacks usually go for 1440x900 or 1680x1050...USUALLY...not always...sometimes they can let the resolution go higher

 

ugh get the higher reso man i played in lower reso for like 30 seconds and got annoyed with the loss of detail, because i was so used to the 1900x1200 its much better.