New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UXGA vs SXGA+

Poll Results: UXGA vs SXGA+

 
  • 18% (9)
    SXGA+
  • 81% (40)
    UXGA
49 Total Votes  
post #1 of 21
8/31/03 at 2:51pm
Thread Starter 
Which would you get with the 5680 and why?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 21
8/31/03 at 3:02pm
oh the 5680. i thought you meantt he 8890.

my fault, but anyway i chose sxga+ cause i have no choice, and my machine should get here on tues
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 21
8/31/03 at 3:16pm
Wide angle UXGA - it is just too beautiful...dont miss it for any reason...
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 21
8/31/03 at 9:34pm
my 2 cents...sxga because I have an 8887 w uxga and an 8890 w sxga and when I put them side by side there is no ghosting w the 8890 and the 8887 there is...yes I keep the 8887 in 1600 by 1200 this is higher than the 8890 which is 1280 by 860 but I play games and ghosting is important to me
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 21
8/31/03 at 10:42pm
Quote:
Originally posted by E-Cat1
my 2 cents...sxga because I have an 8887 w uxga and an 8890 w sxga and when I put them side by side there is no ghosting w the 8890 and the 8887 there is...yes I keep the 8887 in 1600 by 1200 this is higher than the 8890 which is 1280 by 860 but I play games and ghosting is important to me
Well, the poll is about the 5680, which has SXGA+ (1400x1050) or UXGA (1600x1200). You seem to be comparing the 8887's UXGA screen with the only available screen for the 8890, which is SXGA (no plus= 1280x1024). I don't think the wide-viewing angle UXGA on the 5680 has any ghosting.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:07pm
The wide-angles feature alone would be enough to push me to get the UXGA. Besides, you'll be amazed with how much screen estate you have with UXGA (as soon as you get over the tiny fonts!)
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:30pm
WHATT?????

its only 1280x 1024??? i htought the 8890 was sxga+

dammit
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:38pm
Actually, I'd prefer 1280x1024 to sxga+ (1400xsomething odd) because it is a more widely used and therefor compatible screen resolution. You won't get much more space with sxga+ over sxga anyways. What resolution do you run on right now with your current desktop/notebook?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:43pm
800x600 on a desktop. How would i find out the max res of my viewsonic?

you really think that the sxga+ is kind of more like rectangular pixels, as opposed to sxga being squarer? I know that i wont see much diff between the two, but for gaming and rendering which would be recommended? I am looking at uxga for that, but finally decided on the 8890 because it was available at the time, sorta... oh and someone said something about changing out screens with a vaio. That seems a bit "out there"

later
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:54pm
You'll be blinded by anything greater than SXGA if you run 800x600!
True, SXGA+ does have square pixels, instead of the slighly rectangular one of the SXGA, however, you'll NEVER notice. I bought a 17" LCD at 1280x1024 for my desktop, and the only time I'll notice is when it has to resize my desktop image.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 21
8/31/03 at 11:59pm
so the sxga+ is trying to cram more pixels horizontally in relation to how many are vertically. With that in mind a squarer pixel is evolved, right? the sxga retains a more rectangular shape pixel horizontally, and it looks better because the screen is rectangular in that respect also. So a square pixel on a quadralateral screen is not very comfortable on the eye!?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 21
9/1/03 at 12:40am
Thread Starter 
I was almost dead set on the UXGA (I'm no newb to computer hardware, though this will be my first lappy) until I really started thinking about it: UXGA means 1600x1200 resolution (nice) HOWEVER on a 15" screen (yikes!) this means small font. I was just wondering, as long as the font is crystal clear I guess I should be fine, just somewhat intimidated.

But when I really started thinking about it SXGA+ doesn't sound so bad becaues it runs at a native resolution of 1280x1024 which is what I'm already used to on my 19" CRT (and I game at that resolution a lot as well). Considering all I've heard about LCDs and running at native resolution, I hear this isn't too bad running resolutions outside of the native resolution but considering a resolution such 1024x768 is getting pretty far away from the native resolution of UXGA...well let's just say I'd like some personal opinions from first hand experience here. Sure the M10 may be the most bad ass mobile gaming GPU available but it certainly is no desktop R300+ and 1600x1200 might be suitable only for some of my older faves (I'm hardcore T2 and I plan on gaming mainly on that for a while, of which 1600x1200 should be fine on such a badass Sager rig) but with new winner for certain right around the corner (ie HL2, DoomIII...) I'm quiet certain for optimal performance those games will most likely not be happy at a natvie UXGA res...
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 21
9/1/03 at 12:56am
ok now i am confused
UXGA : 1600x1200
SXGA+ : 1400x1050
SXGA : 1280x1024

right?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 21
9/1/03 at 12:57am
Bunnyfubbles:
SXGA+ isn't 1280x1024. It's 1400x1050.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 21
9/1/03 at 12:58am
Thread Starter 
yeah you're probably right, I'm the laptop newb, remember? :P
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 21
9/1/03 at 1:00am
Thread Starter 
I must have just been mixed up because I thought the 8890 was SXGA+ and new it was 1280x1024, I was wrong about the + and just got a little flubbed up
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 21
9/1/03 at 1:04am
hey no worries, i thought all along that i was buying my 8890 with SXGA+ but now that this thread has come up i am liking the res of regular SXGA better. i believe it will work better with gaming and stuff.

and it is for sure 1280x1024, or 1024x768? or is XGA 1024x768?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 21
9/1/03 at 1:10am
Thread Starter 
XGA is 1024x768
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 21
9/1/03 at 7:53am
The definitive screen resolution guide:

VGA: 640 x 480
SVGA: 800 x 600
XGA: 1024 x 768 (std laptop)
WXGA: 1280 x 800 (see note below)
SXGA: 1280 x 1024 (Sager 8890 )
SXGA+: 1400 x 1050 (Sager 5680 )
WSXGA+: 1680 x 1050 (Dell 8500 Compaq x1000)
UXGA: 1600 x 1200 (Sager 5680 )
WUXGA: 1920 x 1200 (Compaq x1000)
QXGA: 2048 x 1536 (Eurocom D500P)
WQUXGA: 3840 x 2400 (thanks nebulaskytrick for that one)

There are some funny non-std resolutions (mainly to support the newer 17" beasts) and the marketing depts try to confuse us with:
WXGA on the Toshiba P20/P25 widescreen: 1440 x 900

What also confuses people is the additional spec of a "wide viewing angle". That of course does not affect screen resolution.

The above mainly refer to PC screens. Mac's have their own setups and resolutions. Sun Sparcs also had 1152 x 900 resolution screens at one stage.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 21
9/1/03 at 4:09pm
oh god, now wquxga......We're drowning in alphabet soup! Seriously though, I have the sxga+ (1400x1050) 15" on my lappy, and it's fine at native for the desktop, but can require some extra tweakin to get games to look good since not all games support sxga+. I have always been able to get it to look good mind you, but sometimes it just takes more effort. I have heard that if you get the uxga, games work very well at 800x600, but have no personal experience with it.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sager & Clevo Notebooks