1080p on XPS 15's infinityEdge 4k?

Given that the there will be exactly a 2x2 square block of pixels on the XPS 15's 3840x2160 display for each 1080p 'pixel' if the full screen resolution were set to 1920x1080, should there be much loss of quality or strange/blurry looking scaling like we see when using a non native resolution on an LCD?

One pixel is a square that will be then still represented exactly by another square. I would imagine edges between the 1080 'pixels' would be more pronounced and sharper which could make it look unnatural, but it wouldn't be a blurring loss of quality? I guess it depends on how subpixel rendering is handled.

I've seen a lot of misconception on threads about this from those not understanding the mathematics of area, and them not doubling both height and width simultaneously quadruples total area. the screen ratio is identical.

The reason I ask is because I would still like to be able to game at 1080p to make use of what will be 'alright' graphics with the 2GB 960M for a lot of games (they will at least be playable anyway), but 4k will be so useful for my 2D/3D work and just having screen real estate is a bonus.

NOTE: This won't apply to XPS 13 people who then try 1080p, as that display is 3200x1800, and that does not sub divide to 1920x1080 without pixel scaling, so I would expect poor quality results on that panel.

If you have a 3840x2160 external display, setting that to 1920x1080 should show how it will be on the XPS 15 4k. How did frames per second differ between the 2 resolutions on the same game for instance?

 

I had a Toshiba 4K notebook last year, seem fine when gaming at lower 1080p res, this was when still at 4K desktop level. Although some games I ended up with a small 1080p in the center of the screen.

Some games at 4K had tiny menus which were unreadable due to the smallness on the screen.

Think the only way around problems and gaming is to set the desktop res to 1080p and then play games.

I don't expect the 960M to be at 4K that much better than the R9 M265X and if it is, I am not expecting much with 2GB VRAM trying to run 4K

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/toshiba-p50t-b-gaming-4k-with-amd-r9-m265x.752152/

 

This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for, thank you. I only intend on gaming at 1080p to get playable frame rates.

Out of curiosity too, how was browsing/desktop look at 1080p on that 4k screen? such as text rendering etc.

 

I never really tried it out. I didn't have the Toshiba long enough to know. Returned due to the sparkly shimming effect that look like an RGB glistening oil slick somewhere between the glass and the acutal panel. Man I hoping like hell the XPS isn't like that one?

I am guessing running 1080 on desktop should be fine though, the quality should be really high. People say there is a trade off not being 1:1 (or 4K), but I could see much if any difference with 4:1 (1080p) or 4 pixels to make up 1 single viewable pixel. Therefore if you got some kind of hawk eye, then I doubt you will see the tiny gap in a 4 pixel block at 4K to make that single pixel.

Personally running 200% scaling was near perfect to me at 4K desktop, that would give me exactly 1080p sized icons (very smooth edges) or whatever, but with the definition of 4K still. That way high res photo and videos are unaffected. Scaling at 150%, 175%, 225%, 250% all sucked and are terrible, but that is just me. 200% will give the closest to perfect down-scaling.

 

I'm very surprised theres a lack of video's etc, of people running 1080 on a UHD (3840x2160) panel, be it desktop or lappy. I see lots of vids talking about 1080 vs 4k, or how to get 4k on a 1080p screen (????)

But indeed, a 2x2 pixel square replacing a single square on the exact same size screen should mean the resulting 'pixel' in 1080 mode is exactly the same size as it would be on the native 1080 panel. I'm thinking in situations where I want to conserve power, away from a plug (gpu not having to work too hard) I'll just run the whole thing at 1080. 4k was the only screen option if you wanted SSD, and equipping SSD is the only way to get the big battery. There are definitely situations where I'll be grateful for the 4k (it sounds like a superior panel in terms of colour and brightness too anyway) but it'll be great if I literally suffer very little to no penalty when I switch it down to 1080.

Gaming wise, I hope they sort out the 'quarter screen in the middle' problem, allowing full screen scaling. As you say, it might require the desktop being in 1080 first.

 

Yea there isn't much videos around. I would like to do a little gaming at 4K, that explains the small rant about not having 4GB VRAM, which will help with a few games, even if it is just a little bit. I have seen a few games go over 2GB VRAM easy and don't necessary need to have a freaking monster GPU to still run the game while actually over the 2GB mark.

Not sure running 1080p will save battery, even when not using dGPU and just using the iGPU, as far as I know the actual panel is what uses most of that power to drive the all the pixels, even if scaled down, but I could be wrong?

Yeah not sure about the quarter screen thing in the middle, may have been a AMD driver or GPU related issue.

One thing for sure is I was still drawn back to the Toshiba 4K IGZO a few times when was on special, was that shimmering sparkling like a oil between the screen mesh that put me off, otherwise was a beautful IGZO panel.

I believe the XPS is an IGZO, well I least hope so, as the marketing says IGZO, but the website spec does not, and neither does my quote and actual order spec "IGZO" on it at all.

 

It is a Sharp IGZO panel, Dell has exclusive rights for few months on these "infinity" branded displays.

 

I have a 24" UHD desktop monitor and playing games at 1080p looks OK. 1440p looks a lot better though. Framerates will be MUCH better on 1080p, no need to test that really.

Running the Windows desktop at 1080p is ugly and blurry, just as bad as any lcd display at a non-native resolution. Not really comparable to a native 1080p display at 1080p.

 

I guess its quite surprising to me that 1440p would look better on a 3840x2160 than 1080p as its not a neat scaling compared to 1080. All very interesting

 

It all depends on the monitor. Most computer monitors have bad scalers which make all non-native resolutions look blurry. 4K TV's are a lot better at displaying/upscaling native 1080p content than 4K monitors. I guess I can understand it, computer monitors are made to be primarily used with their native resolution. 4K TV's on the other hand need to display lower resolution content the best way possible.

 

Looks good in games at 1080p.

 

Someone has posted in the main most popular thread there are know issues to Dell with the 4K panel. I am not sure what, or how they got that info, but it is concerning never the less if it is to be true?

 

This certainly would be a concern. I'm tempted to put off buying until black friday when there might be some better discounts, and hopefully in depth testing reviews, considering the ship date is still mid november, its not that much longer to wait.

 

eta for me is 9th nov, rep thinks i have it a few days before that. if i re order end of nov, think i be lucky to get it before xmas. we dont have any black friday specials

 

seeing as yours has now been delivered, how does the 4k look when set to 1920x1080 in desktop and games?

 

I haven't bothered. I been playing my games at 4K, those are older games though, but that is good enough for me, they look great!
I play stuff like GTA V on my desktop and dont have spare 60GB+ for it and others on laptop or can be to bothered playing it when can enjoy on desktop at best.

I use desktop at 4K with 200% scaling, looks perfect. Panel is super nice, noticeable the moment the unit is turned on for the first time, and when it hit the desktop, there is a red flower with green center, looks wonderful and rich.

 

FWIW, I tried setting the resolution on a Lenovo Yoga with the 3200x1800 screen to 1600x900 with 100% scaling. You would expect it to look as clear as a native 1600x900 panel since it's 4:1 but it absolutely did not. Unless there has been some advance I'm not aware of, I'd imagine setting the 4k screen on the XPS set to 1080p will not look as good as a normal 1080p panel.

Edit: And no, I'm not talking about setting the resolution to 3200x1600 and DPI to 200%.

 

It never looks as good as people might expect in their heads. Setting 2x2 down-rrsolution settings on a high resolution screen only makes you acutely aware of how square and blocky your pixels look. Not to mention the increased power drain of a high pixel count display.

You can get away with it in gaming, where tricks like anti-aliasing and lots of on-screen motion help mask some of this effect. But for Windows desktop use, you want to run your screen at native resolution, and use DPI scaling to adjust the size if needed.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

This exactly; it's kind of odd to sometimes see people try and think that it will look normal just because of the square calculation of resolution, but that's just not the case.

You're basically expanding 2,073,600 pixels to fit within 8,294,400 pixels. It's not going to look as good as it would look if the screen was native 1080p....that's just the way it is. Whether or not it looks "good enough" is for you personally to decide but my mentality tends to be if you're spending $450 more on a resolution, you should probably use it a lot.