difference between 1980 x 1080 and 3200 x 1800?

[Leot]

I'm upgrading my old laptop to a XPS 13. The 1980 x 1080 version cost 1600 AUD and the 3200 x 1800 version cost 2000 AUD. So i was wondering is the 3200 x 1800 version worth the extra 400 AUD for the resolution difference?

[don_svetlio]

Not really noticeable on laptops - you'll end up losing performance mostly.

[mikat]

I'm upgrading my old laptop to a XPS 13. The 1980 x 1080 version cost 1600 AUD and the 3200 x 1800 version cost 2000 AUD. So i was wondering is the 3200 x 1800 version worth the extra 400 AUD for the resolution difference?

well it's quite a bit more pixels, but on a 13 inch screen it's not worth it, like @don_svetlio said, you will lose performance

[Leot]

well it's quite a bit more pixels, but on a 13 inch screen it's not worth it, like @don_svetlio said, you will lose performance

Ok, thanks for the help!

[Falkentyne]

TBH, 3200x1800 on a laptop is worthless for any sort of gaming.  Use that for production work and presentations.  Usually people who use 3200+ up to 4k (3840x2160) on desktops use multiple video cards as no single video card besides a Titan-X can give you enough frames per second with that many pixels in any half modern game.

 

My monitor is 1920x1080 and can run display scaled at 2560x1440 @100hz or 115hz, but I prefer 1920x1080 since the mouse cursor/hud gets too small at that resolution and too many games have too much of a framerate hit (beside Path of exile).  Supersampling is more attractive than downsampling just to avoid hud size issues, if the games allow it.

 

But yeah even on the highest end laptop you can buy, a GTX 980M, that laptop chip is about equal to a desktop GTX 670, and that's definitely not powerful enough to drive 4k, much less 3200x1800.  So stick to full HD unless you are doing business work.