Confused between FHD and UHD

I am confused about which display to pick I have seen a lot of people complaining that if the resolution is scaled down to 1080p then display will be blurry and similar problems with the games.

I do wanna get a decent fps so 4K is something I will play few games I like. For example Watchdogs 2, GTA V etc and yes most shows I have are in 1080p as well.

Also any suggestions between AW15 vs AW17 is welcomed.

 

4K is amazing on a big 40"+ screen, this is my opinion ^^. Go for the cheaper 1080p screen, you have an HDMI 2.0 that allows you to output to 4K with 60fps. Nvidia 1070 is not quite there for comfortable 4K gaming, I think the next generation Nvidia Volta will be the best for that.



AW15 :
more portable
less heavy etc.

AW17 :
better cooling capabilities
tobii eye tracking (if you care about that)

 

I have the 4k screen and its great, but I'd much rather get a 1440 with 120hz. That would be ideal.

 

If you scale down Windows, games and software to 1080p does it get blurry ?

 

Yes, but I don't really notice it anymore. Not really blurry, but more 'fuzzy'

 

Playing games and even Windows on a resolution other then the native will not look its best. It will look good, but it will be its sharpest and clearest at its native resolution.
This is for all LCD panels. So its best to pick a res you will use the most.

 

i have both versions of the aw15r3, i put them side by side, natively the 4k looks the best, but like you said its hard to run games comfortably at that resolution. I turned it down to 1080p and looked at both screens, and yes the native 1080 was a lot better. even with color the 1080p looked gorgeous.

 

I would choose 1080p if I was you

 

3k native opinions? With a 1070

 

Alright, I have leaned towards FHD but now can anyone tell me the difference between two FHD options and which one would be better ?

 

Which two FHD options?

 

So, I just got a 17 R3 with the 4K screen. I did change the desktop resolution to 1920x1080 just to see how it looked and while there is a noticeable difference, it wasn't that bad and very usable for the brief time I had it at that resolution. Also, while I haven't had a chance to play any games, I did run 3DMark Vantage and was very happy with what those tests looked like at the lower resolution. Would it have been more crisp at native resolution, yes definitely, but at 1920x1080, I would not call it blurry and looked very playable.

BUT, you should also consider what your intended usage is and how long you intend to keep your new laptop. If your primary intent is to play games, then a 1920x1080 display running native resolution will provide a crisper image than running 3840x2160 in 1080p mode. But if your intent is to do image editing or video editing, then get the 4K. If you intend to keep it for a while, then a 4K screen is a good way to ensure you get the most out of 4K video as it becomes more popular in the near future. OTOH, budget is always an issue and I had been very happy with the 1920x1200 display on my 7811-fx for over 8 years and I think 1080p will continue to work quite well for the foreseeable future.

 

The color accuracy on the 120Hz FHD GSYNC panel (400-nits) is actually much better than the 4K, which is surprising. I'd recommend getting this display!

 

If there is one knock against the LCD on my P7811FX, it is that there were time when I wish it could be a little brighter. But it was one of, if not the best LCD panel in a laptop at the time (8 years ago). If anything, the 4K panel on my 17 R3 is too bright. I use it at 60% in a well lit room and down near 30% in dimmer lighting. I have the 17R3 and the 4K panel is 400-nits. I wonder if they are using a different 4K panel in the 17R4 as that panel is rated at 300-nits, which still gives you plenty of brightness.

As for color accuracy, I don't think you could go wrong with either, but the reviews I read put the 4K at a delta-e of something like .83 and the FHD at just over 1 (lower is better, usually). Of course, those numbers are from different reviews who may have measured differently (or maybe were just regurgitating manufacturer specs). But, again, I don't think you could go wrong with either one.

 

In terms of playable resolutions, am I right in thinking we're dependent on the game maker to make these higher resolutions available? So newer games coming out will have 1440p and 4k resolution options?

As for screens, I've ruled out 4k, don't think even the GTX1080 will do all that's required going forward, so I'm leaning toward going the 1440p 120hz GSync option. Seems the best of both worlds. BUT, if games don't support 1440p what's the point? If you go with a 1080p screen the GTX1080 then becomes a waste of money 'cos it's totally over spec'd.

 

Bioshock is over 8 years old. I have no idea when Bioshock Remastered was released, but I downloaded it on Steam and it supports 4K. In fact, I just started playing it at 4K with all options at max on a AW 17 R3 w/970M. So, it really depends on the game. I expect games released over the last couple years will require either reduced resolution or reduced effects to be playable, but there is a host of older games out there that are extremely playable at 4K.

 

There are no games that don't "support" 4K. Every game that uses system resolutions can use 4K because 4K is just a higher resolution. The only problem is interface scale and a lot of games still don't scale their interfaces. Crusader Kings 2 is barely playable on 1080p 18"

 

Yes as stated, games will support 4k. All of them, just as they will 1440p. The key is finding the right graphics card to play whatever games now and in the future at whatever native resolution you will run. I don't think a single 1080 will futureproof 4k very long so I think going with 1440p is probably the best solution right now for anyone looking at the 1070 or 1080 cards. Anything below should just stick with 1080p imo