1920 x 1080 Screen Resolution for $50 more, worth it?

The 1080p display is likely of much better quality since it is an IPS display. The x768 presumably is a TN, and the ones used at that resolution and price category tend to be very bottom of the barrel in terms of sourcing. 1080p is also a touchscreen if that matters.

There is other differences as well.

Presumably the 1080p one might have better battery life as the battery should be of significantly higher capacity.

You're paying more for the brand on the lower resolution Asus. Weight is slightly higher.

Some might not like the side power button on the Acer (I believe that is the location).

I can't say as to actual build quality differences (external feel, internal layout, temps, etc), or input (touchpad, keyboard, etc.) differences.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, for a notebook it's entirely worth it to get a higher res screen, especially if it gets you an IPS panel. I'd easily pay more than the $50 premium there -- don't even look at the lower res model. Also, the Acer is a touchscreen, and while that's rarely a thing worth bothering with, if you get the higher res /and/ a touchscreen for $50... yeah. Obvious.
 
The 1080p laptops looks soooooo much better than the 1366*768. I'll never go back!
 
I also tend to value Asus over Acer from a build quality perspective. So even if the resolution wasn't higher, I'd pay 50 bucks more for Asus.
 
defaultluser said:
I also tend to value Asus over Acer from a build quality perspective. So even if the resolution wasn't higher, I'd pay 50 bucks more for Asus.
Click to expand...

But the Acer has higher res here. So would you go with lower res Asus anyway?
I see the Acer has max RAM of 16gb not 8gb as Asus, which is a deal breaker for me.
 
1080 vertical is bad enough, 1366x768 is really suffocating. What the other guy said, 1366 also tends to be the cheapest, crummiest quality.
 
Last edited:
Gomar said:
But the Acer has higher res here. So would you go with lower res Asus anyway?
I see the Acer has max RAM of 16gb not 8gb as Asus, which is a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

Never mind, after doing some research, it seems the early Asus Skylake notebooks have some QC issues, so they're no better than any other brands. Go and get the Acer.

You can also shop dell, they tend yo have high build quality and competitive prices.
 
Just bought a new HP laptop and GLADLY paid only $50 more for a FHD IPS screen rather than the 768 garbage that ships by default.

However, being "worth it" is totally subjective. You said your self you like the way 768 looks. Then why ask for opinions?
 
Honestly? I don't like either of those... they both look a bit underpowered. It seems like a bad compromise between a gaming laptop and a light office work laptop. Little point in spending less than $800 or more than $500. You might as well go for something cheaper if you're not willing to shell out more. That's also one of the more expensive sites to shop for a computer at.

For what it's worth... I notice that the Acer lacks a DVD drive. If that's a deal breaker, you might want to go with the ASUS. 1366x768 is basically a widescreen version of SVGA 1024x768. It's also a very good resolution for 720p playback. An IPS panel doesn't really matter as much with a laptop, because you're going to be sitting directly in front of it when using the display anyway, so the viewing angle issue is less of a problem. If anything, the distortion of a TN display helps keep your work private because people can't look over your shoulder as easily. I think it's a bit dated considering that FHD isn't enough for a lot of people anymore and most want 4K, but for a laptop... I could live with it. As long as you have a nice big monitor to plug it into at home, it really doesn't matter what it has built in. I generally carry my laptops around with me and plug them into monitors or projectors anyway... I usually just use the built-in screen for maintenance, working on the go, and doing stuff more privately. You're presumably using this for productivity and not gaming, right? Just about any old panel will work with Office or Chrome. If you want gaming, you need something better than Intel HD graphics anyway, and that will definitely mean 1080p.
 
athenian200 said:
Honestly? I don't like either of those... they both look a bit underpowered. For what it's worth... I notice that the Acer lacks a DVD drive.
Click to expand...

pardon, specs:
Processor Intel Core i7-6500U Dual-Core
Base Clock Speed 2.5 GHz
aint enough?

Optical Drive: SuperMulti DVD Burner.
 
Gomar said:
pardon, specs:
Processor Intel Core i7-6500U Dual-Core
Base Clock Speed 2.5 GHz
aint enough?

Optical Drive: SuperMulti DVD Burner.
Click to expand...

Oh, it has a DVD drive? I somehow missed it in both the specs and the pictures. Sorry, disregard that then. The main factor to consider when choosing between those computers is whether you want the lower resolution to reduce processing strain on the Intel HD graphics, or the higher resolution to put more windows next to each other on the desktop at the expense of having to stick to lighter applications with less 3D processing.

A dual-core processor seems kind of weak for 2015 (to me), but the speed is fine. The CPU isn't what's underpowered. I meant specifically that the machine is underpowered for anything that would involve graphics or gaming. If I were trying to get away with using integrated graphics, I would want the lowest native resolution possible to reduce processing strain on it. It seems like you're buying a computer that's a bit overpowered for web browsing and running Office, but underpowered for gaming or audio/video stuff. If they put in a mid-range discrete GPU, it would make sense for gaming... but as it is, there's just a lot of RAM, a mid-range CPU, a big/slow (5400 RPM) hard drive, and really weak graphics.

It's a bit presumptuous of me to say it's underpowered unless I know what you want to do with it. I'm sorry, I just really can't imagine a use case. If it had a better CPU, I'd imagine you might be doing something more Math-related that would use the extra cores. The only thing I can think of so far is that maybe you're planning to do light office work and web browsing, but you want to have a plethora of documents and tabs open at once. That's the only thing I can think of that would use up 8GB on a system like that. Even then, if I were going to be running enough stuff to take advantage of that much RAM, I would want more cores to handle it all. Maybe it's just me. I've never put more than 4GB of RAM into a dual-core system.

Like I said, I just don't like the compromises at the price point you're looking at. If I couldn't get something with better graphics, I would want to keep the total cost under $500. I have a perfectly serviceable laptop that cost less than $400, and it has 4GB of RAM, a dual-core processor, and 128GB SSD. It even has 1920x1080 display. a It can do pretty much everything but play games, and I do that on my desktop anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top