Excellent post. You are right on. I have just the WXGA and have no issues with heat, lock ups . The screen looks "normal" and the refresh rate does not draw attention to itself in any way.

Games look fine and you are lso correct in that the video card works less to provide the image.
Maybe thats why I am getting good results with the Geforce 64MB 5200 card on my 1.4. in my games.

All the hoopla about FPS and 3D mark scores mean nothing if your machine is on fire!

Sorry, but you have made a fundamental logical flaw in your reasoning. The number of pixels has no impact upon perceived response times. By your rationale, each new pixel in the process of moving an artefact across the screen would have to wait for, or be directly affected by, adjacent pixels and they're not so they don't. The simple fact is when you move your cursor or whatever over the same physical distance on both screens you will see the same amount of trailing given identical specs. Think about it carefully and you'll realise the mistake you've made - I made it myself before, but I couldn't believe it was true so i thought about it a little harder and it dawned on me.

In practice it obvious that your assumptions are wrong because if your argument was true a WXGA panel would be massively superior in response times to a WUXGA which has much, much higher pixel density as you rightly point out. But this isn't the case when practically observing the two panels - I've used both and they're pretty much identical in that respect.

Message to S913

WXGA is better for gamers playing DVD and you can work here too. I see that S913 odered ATI Radeon 9600 PRO. This card is for gamers and gamers need fast LCD. WXGA 1280x800 has too much space for me, you have better quality of image (picture) of your LCD, but everythig is too small, you havent more space, tell me where, we have same dimension 222,5x334,5 ( in mm). I can make the window smaller and use two internet explorer side by side, like you on WSXGA+. I dont know if you ever seen WXGA, its nice LCD, very much better then normal 15 TFT with 1024x768. I want tell to people which are thinking about to buy new Dell Inspiron, that WXGA is super LCD. I read messages from peolple who dont understand to notebook and writing bad messages about why bad is ATI Radeon 9600 PRO and problems with overheating. I didnt find any user with WXGA which had this problems. You want little better quality LCD WSXGA+ with slow response time? WXGA looks nice too, much better then normal notebooks. If you have somethig better, except "little better" quality of image, write me what you have extra.

Conclusion:

S913 wrote

: Have you ever tried running Dreamweaver, Visual Basic or any other program with lots of small windows on 1280x800?

Answer:

Can you tell me where you have more space ? You have everythig smaller then my WXGA, there is no problem for me to make window smaller like your WSXGA.

Visual Basic isnt graphic program, so your little advantage with better image is out. I have same space as you, we have same Dimesion 222,5x334,5 ( in mm).

You don't seem to understand, of course you can size the windows a bit smaller on your LCD. But you will not be able to display the same amount of information as an WUXGA can. I agree that a gamer or someone who just uses his laptop for mail/surfing purposes , that anything higher than a WXGA is a bit overkill probably. But you cannot imagine the comfort of having one side of your screen filled with your code and the other side with the result.

About the matter that no one with a WXGA & 9600 has reported problems, there I can think of a few reasons why :

1. the radeon 9600 hasn't been out that long at dell and still has a premium price

2. someone taking the budget of buying a 8600 added with the extra cost of a 9600 will in most cases take a better screen with it. I think here in Belgium that for an extra 50€ you can have a WSXGA.

3.The issue appears only in games or something 3D intensive.

I've experienced the heat issue myself which drew horizontal lines all over my screen. After a video card replacement it was fixed , so I don't see the link with the LCD type. If you have a logical explanation why this would be linked with a high resolution LCD type , then I'm very curious !

OrinoccO

---

@William.w wrote:

Message to Camboosemoose

Responce time is reaction of one pixel. You have same responce time like my WXGA, but you move faster regarding to your pixles. If your LCD WUXGA has responce time 35ms its same if WXGA has 52 ms ( Its 0,052 s) you think that that you recognize 0,052 s ? I cant see the ghost with fast moving becouse my eyes cant catch the cursor or object. You must relize, that we have same dimensions 222,5x334,5 same area same speed to the case of notebook, but different speed to pixels. If you have 17 TFT WUXGA with 35ms is better then 15,4 WXGA the 17 TFT hasnt same dimension like 15,4 TFT. WXGA hasnt different responce time, like WUXGA but the WXGA is faster on same area and we have same. You want tell me that you move with same speed, like me ?

---

Well, I don't understand a word of that. The stuff we are arguing about is tricky to describe, but suffice to say that by your argument the WXGA would be more than twice as responsive as the WUXGA. It would also mean that the 19" SXGA flat panel monitor I have on my desk right now would be around 3 or 4 times faster than my WUXGA given your reasoning about the number and density of pixels given that it is rated at 25ms.

In fact the WXGA and WUXGA panels perform about the same when you actually look at them. If the WXGA was twice as fast it would be obvious when you compared them. Also the 19" panel I have barely looks any faster than my WUXGA notebook panel.

So lets recap. Your argument says the WXGA is twice as fast as the WUXGA for pixel response. I say that you should be able to see that big a difference easily, but you cannot, so therefore you must be wrong.

Just think about it for a little longer and you'll realise why.

---

@William.w wrote:

Message to caboosemoose

I think, that you dont understand what I mean. You write that your 19 TFT must has super response time. You cannot compare 19 TFT and 15,4 TFT both these LCDs has differet display dimensions (do you know what is dimension of the screen ? Its Height: 222,5 mm and Width: 334,5 mm). Screen of Dell inspiron has 15,4 inches diagonal and your desktop LCD has 19 inches diagonal. Your 19 TFT has bigger display dimension. I dont know which resolotion do you have at your 19 TFT. I try to explain it to you.

Example:

We have two LCD display 15,4 TFT with same display dimension: Height: 222,5 mm and Width: 334,5 mm ( mm - millimeter )

1) LCD Samsung which has resolution WXGA - 1280 x 800

2) LCD Samsung which has resolution WUXGA - 1920 x 1200

- both LCD has same response time 35ms, response time is reaction for one pixel. Its time for the pixel can be changed from one color to another.

I will count in cartesian coordinates axis X - horizontal and Y - vertical.

Axis X : on the lenght 3mm have WXGA 1280 pixels side by side and WUXGA has 1920 pixels. If you move with mouse cursor on both screens from one side to other in axis X ( horizontal direction) with constant speed (constant speed to case of the notebook or to bottom of the screen) at the distance 334,5 mm. On WUXGA you have more pixlels at distance, WXGA has 1280 pixels, but WUXGA has 1920 pixels. Response time is independet on pixel pitch. Try to imagine pixels like the small square side by side and imagine that both screen has same pixel pitch. We can do this approximation becaouse response time is independent on size of pixel pitch. Imagine that size of pixel is 1mm x 1mm. If you have WXGA has 1280 pixels, its 1280 mm and WUXGA has 1920 pixels its 1920 mm.

WXGA - 1280 mm

WUXGA - 1920 mm

If you want to move from one side ( A ) to another ( B ) with same time, you must have on WUXGA higher speed, than on WXGA.

example:

time:

t = 1s ( time is same t1 = t2 = t)

distances:

a) WXGA - s1 = 1280 mm b) WUXGA - s2 = 1920 mm

speed:

a) v1= ? b) v2 =?

a) v1 = s1 / t = 1280mm/1s = 1280 mm/s ( millimeter per second )

b) v2 = s2 / t = 1920mm/1s = 1920 mm/s ( millimeter per second )

As you can see if you want have same time as WXGA , WUXGA must have higher speed.

The main point is that we have this resolution built-in screen 15,4 on X - axis at same distance 334,5 mm ( Your 19 TFT has longer distance, so you cant count with it, realized it ), If I move from one side ( R - right side of the screen ) to another ( L - left side of the screen ) with constant speed ( for example v = 1000 mm/s ). With this constant speed v to case of computer you cover on WUXGA for more pixels then on WXGA so you go for WUXGA pixels faster. Dou you understand me ? Responce time is same, but its like you move faster with cursor on WUXGA then on WXGA. Its because both these resolutions has same real distance 334,5 mm. This effect causes that you have effect that WUXGA has slower responce time !!!!! but its only effect causes with faster moving which your eyes can recognize on WUXGA, but they cant recognize on WXGA. I hope that you will understand to this effect. If you dont understand to physics, dont reply me, because you will never understand to this problem. I study physic at University, so I havent problem with Newtons inertial systems, like this problem is called. If you understad to physics I can sent you my calculation scan by scanner. All these calculations are approximated not exact, because this its complicated physic and I havent time to solve this problem, because I dont need exact result. From these consideration I know that WXGA is faster then WUXGA !!! ( for stupid - at same distaces 15,4 TFT ).

Conclusion:

WXGA is faster then WSXGA+ and WUXGA at same distances ( for example 15,4 TFT )

---

You are making a fundamental flaw in logic. If your logic was correct the WUXGA screens would have really terrible pixel response. blurring and ghosting, but they do not therefore you are wrong, it really is that simple.

It's too complicated (and difficult) to explain why you are wrong, but there's no need because the fact is, the WUXGA panels do not exhibit poor response times so there's no point in arguing about it.

Message to: caboosemoose

 

Im not wrong.

Can you tell me which manufacturer LCD do you have?

response time have nothing to do with resolution.

I have a very simple question: If you move your cursor between 2 points(1 pixel for each point) with distance of 10 pixels with the same velocity on a WUXGA and WXGA LCD(35 ms response time), does it take the same amount of time?

The answer is yes...it takes the same amount of time wether you have a WXGA or WUXGA.

His math is good and his logic is sound.

I think he is saying beacuse there are so many more pixels to fill on a WUXGA the response time HAS to be faster in order to get the same refresh rate as a WXGA.

UXGA REQUIRES a faster respose rate to achieve the same fill as a WXGA screen. It's not a luxury to have 35ms rates ITS A REQUIRENMENT! Whereas a WXGA screen with even a 50ms rate is actually better and will have less ghosting because at 50ms it is overkill for the work it has to do in the same area it has to cover.

This should not be hard to grasp. Thats is the whole issue with the hitachi SXGA+. The same 50ms rate on the Hitachi WXGA is compltely fine with no complaints and ghosting!

Message to: onetobenl

Beetween two pixels ist same, if both LCD has 35ms response time , resolution in this case is non important.

Read my message better and you will see, that this is about something else. Yes you are right that responce time have nothing to do with resolution. I wrote it too. Please before you write this comment read my article.

Your logic doesn't seem right...and you do not understand my point...

Think about this:

You draw a line with distance 1920 pixels. You have two LCD with the same response time. One is WXGA and the other WUXGA.

With WUXGA move you cursor horizontaly from pixel(0,0) to (1920,0)

With WUXGA move your cursor horizontaly from pixel(0,0) to (1280,0)

And your fact is...WUXGA is 'slower' than WXGA of reaching the point....and WXGA is 1,6 times faster..

Of course it did!!!WUXGA have to reach a point that's 1,6 times 1280.

But you know what??? With WXGA if you move your cursor from point (0,0) to (1280,0) you only reach about 0,6666 of your drawing line and with WUXGA you can reach the end of the line.

But please...With LCD screen we are not talking about distance(in mm, cm, m or inch, etc) but we are talking about pixel.