That makes a lot of sense, and it's so obvious. I think it was because I never thought of it as 1600/900...
So guys, I was thinking about 1366x768 gaming, mostly because of the performance, what you guys think about it?
Also, do anyone here know some benchmarks where it focus mostly on different resolutions, better if it mentions 1366x768 against a 1600x900?
In 1366x768 do I lose much when gaming in 16:9?
Thanks at all guys!
The monitor's native resolution has nothing to do with the performance of a game. A game will always perform better the smaller the resolution because there are less pixels the graphic card(s) have to process. In your case, 1366x768 has 1,049,088 pixels while the native resolution of 1440x900 has 1,296,000 pixels. That difference of 246,912 pixels is quite significant, especially on a low-end or low-power GPU such as those in laptops.
I usually hear that people like 16:10 better than 16:9 because there is more vertical space for viewing normal applications such as web browsers. It all comes down to personal preference, though the market is now saturated with 16:9 monitors because of this whole "HD" marketing campaign. In reality any large resolution regardless of the aspect ratio is high-definition. When it comes to gaming, if the game is properly Hor+ then you would benefit more from 16:9 because the vertical viewing space would be the same as 16:10, but you would see more horizontally. This is important because of the way human eyes work.
If your display's native resolution is 16:10 then you're better off using it because the LCD is designed to be optimal at a PPI of 72. Any other resolution on a LCD is upscaled to that PPI and will cause the image to look more blurry the farther away from its native resolution you go.