Big resolution mobile displays + gaming

Hey guys,

This is something that was bothering me for a while — most mobile GPUs can't handle modern games at ultra very well. Does adding huge resolution screens help? Is there a benefit of having a full HD or 4k on a 15-17 incher?

I got a used 860M 1920x notebook and i am like "why?"... having 1600 or even 1440 would make it so much faster and i wouldn't need to read text that is like 4mm height.

I am not sure if this deserves a thread but what are your thoughts? — would you get a 4k gaming laptop? Would you prefer a 1440x 15 incher like old MBPs? Is it fine to reduce resolution below native for demanding games?

Cheers

 

I myself perfer high DPI screens that I can fit lots of 'stuff' on. My sweet spot is FHD at 14".

Now, in terms of UHD screens for gaming I believe this has more value in machines which have the potential to be upgraded in the future. High end pascal GPUs will likely be able to play modern games at UHD (if Nvidia's claims are indeed legitimate). The biggest appeal for me is the reductions of aliasing at retina level DPI.

Current high end mobile GPUs (980m and 970m) can play less graphically intensive older games at 4K. I myself would LOVE to replay Morrowind for the 5th time at UHD and no signs of jaggies

 

Seeing how there is usually a trade of, would you prefer to play a game at "Ultra" with steady 60 fps on 1600 or on Med-High with 30-45 fps on 1920/4k?

For me personally having better effect details and better stability is worth more than higher resolution. Even if the game runs around 50-60fps most of the times there are usually times when you have x10 amount of stuff on the screen during intensive moments and that's when fps drops below 30 — super annoying.

 

I think it would largely depend on the game. I've become accustomed to gaming at 30fps at FHD at low settings on my old 660m ASUS 14". Low FPS doesn't particularly scare me, even less so now that we are starting to see G-Sync in mobile.

I think I'd play FFXIV at 4K on low settings because that game has a huge aliasing issue that makes my eyes bleed. However, I would far prefer playing Witcher 3 at the highest settings at a lower resolution. I like this versatility even if its at the cost of some image blurriness when playing at non native resolutions.

It's worth a note though that GeDoSaTo can help reduce image blurriness issues by providing better scaling sampling methods (I do have some issues getting the program to work though).

 

4k is relatively good at non-native resolutions compared to 1920, right? Someone told me he couldn't see the blurriness..

 

Relative to scaling a FHD screen down the UHD screens scale great. Still its nowhere near perfect so gaming at native will always be preferable.

I agree here, those drops are quite jarring. However, its not a huge problem for me so long as I can play the game to the same degree as I could before. Low FPS may not scare me, but input lag scares the living hell out of me.

 

I'm struggling with this same thing myself, while I debate getting a new laptop after the skylake release. The related problem for me is that 17" laptops tend to only have 1080p screen available, while 15" laptops have the 3k or 4k screens. I prefer 17", but should I drop to 15" to get a 4k screen? That brings me to question of what the advantage is of a 4k screen (or higher resolution in general).

If you end up in a space where you have to increase the size of everything on your desktop (dpi scaling) and then play games at a scaled down resolution (so you can raise the detail) - how much value is that larger screen getting you? I suppose you have a bit more granularity, but I'm not sure that's a big selling point. These days I'm leaning more towards 15"/4k, but it's moreso because the cost isn't substantial, so I figure it's better to be safe. I've read many people saying that 3k/4k is wasted on a 15" laptop, so I'm curious if someone will have a compelling argument.

 

3K/4K will come to 17" machines, don't know when though. I wouldn't commit to going 15"/4k at this time if you're going to be waiting for the mobile skylake releases anyway.

Outside of media consumption/production I don't see much value in a UHD resolution screens as there is little expanded screen real estate over FHD due to the necessary scaling. However, images rendered at 4K look REALLY sharp and vivid.

If you don't intend to ever make use of UHD in games/images/video then I don't think there is much worth in choosing UHD over FHD.

Of course if the difference in price is less than 10% more of the total cost of the laptop then it might be worth getting simply in case that you DO ever make use of UHD in the future.

 

I like as high of resolution as I can get for productivity running multiple programs and displaying them side by side. Gaming at non-native resolution has never bothered me but many of the older games I play will play excellent at those higher resolutions anyway.

My work laptop was replaced with a lower resolution one and I never have adjusted, I just cannot wait for it to be replaced again. I dread every time I have to undock and use only that one low res screen (1366x768).

 

So you are actually seeing the same thing on your 15 incher as i am seeing on my 27 inch monitor, i admire your eye sight

 

I wouldn't use any 4K screen on any laptop even if you paid me to do so.

Please read my thread here to understand why:

How does anyone in his right mind buy a 4K screen laptop?

 

I can see it just fine yeah, not as good as when I'm using an external but still totally usable. Plus when browsing its nice to run side by side and comparing or whatever. Also many times I have a video going on half and browse on the other. That gets more difficult the lower the desktop resolution. Also games look much better at higher resolutions, HUD gets smaller on many games, no need to AA at all. I like to have options, with a high res display you do.

 

A great point - thanks for the specific example too. This is one of the bigger things that makes me lean towards higher res, assuming the cost isn't substantial (<10% is nice, as mentioned previously in the thread). Fortunately I still have a bit of time to decide.

 

Our company actually got 14 inch laptops with 4k displays to most senior people. Gawd... The letters are like 1.5mms height. I wonder what's the impact on health.

 

Well, if the stress of trying to read it doesn't hurt you trying to become accustomed to such tiny text may actually improve your vision. That is in moderation, with long usage periods you will probably become near sighted like me.

 

You joke about it, but it is actually feasible

I have had to wear glasses from a very young age, because I have astigmatism. Up until my late teens there was virtually no change in my eyesight. Yet, as soon as I bought my very first laptop and started using it in my daily life my eyesight started to steadily improve. Ever since, year over year my prescription lenses have got weaker and weaker. My eyesight is still getting better today (in fact the rate at which it's improving seems to accelerating!).

I mean, it could just be because of other biological changes when I entered adulthood and a total coincidence, but I suspect it is because of the amount of time I spend looming at my laptop/phone screens.

 

Your eyes deform as you age, yours are just doing it for your benefit, it'll go back the other way soon enough.

 

Yep, lol. I had laser surgery about 10 years ago and have maintained my distance vision thankfully, but ol' man Wingnut may need reading glasses in the near future. Right now it's just things really up close that I have trouble seeing. Doing detailed computer repair/soldering is challenging using straight eyesight without any magnifying when I could see it clear as crystal in the past. Aging sucks.

 

I'm about 3 years into laser surgery and you're not painting a great picture of the future for me! It's a shame we can't control whether the deformation helps us or hurts us.

I had a very similar experience to Cakefish (glasses at very young age due to astigmatism) and my prescription holding steady was about the same time that I started to use computers more. I've always wondered if it was just a correlation or if there was something more to it.

 

1080p is fine for the size to dpi ratio i think.

 

4k has its perks on mobile units for folks - stepping away from gaming for a second, being able to edit video at 100% visibility AT native 4k is a nice benefit for videographers. Streaming content in UHD (Netflix, youtube) makes for crisper images and sharper details. And viewing photographs on a 4k screen gives you slightly more information about print scaling in terms of DPI.

For gaming, you'll likely be using it downrezed to 1080p, which will ultimately not run as well as it would on a native HD monitor. With the next gen of mobile graphics coming (heck, even the 990m rumored to run as if it were 980m SLI), 4k gaming on a screen smoothly could be very reasonable on modern AAA titles. However, in the end we should all focus on gaming in oculus, so the correct answer in the end is none of the above

 

No doubt 4k has its perks, but if gaming is your priority on your machine then 1080p is the way to go. 2560x1440 would actually be my preference.

And unless I absolutely *needed* 4k on the go, I would opt for a 4k external LCD and 1080p on the laptop.

 

any idea when netflix will allow 4k streaming on computers?

 

I hope you have fat pipes and high bandwidth cap. Besides NetFlix doesn't have a lot to begin with, and programs will have to be recorded in 4k as well, and that content is almost nil still.

 

Netflix only haves like 6 shows on 4K, It does look stunning, but it is only like 6 shows haha

 

Yeah they already offer it. You need to have their highest subscription package to view their 4k content and as said you need a high speed internet. 30-50mbs cable minimum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk