GTX 900M series officially announced by NVIDIA!!!

I'm glad my primary use for now and the future is VR so notebook panels mean very little to me

 

1680 x 1050 = 16:10. 1920 x 1200 = 16:10. You are talking about running 1920 x 1080 on a 3840 x 2160 screen. I understand there is a difference in pixel density and that it should not hamper things, but it is also known that not everyone can see the blurriness as well as others. I notice it a lot, so I would rather NOT buy a 4K res screen to end up running a game at 1080p just to conserve FPS. I also would not like turning down settings at 4K for any reason, especially if I have top of the line cards. Hell I'm annoyed that I can't max Arma 2 with its AA turned up or it maxes out my GPUs and I get even lower FPS than I usually get. It's the only game I own that I can't at least get 60fps on at max (not counting SSAA, but counting other forms of AA) on my system.

Which leads to my original point; I'd rather SLI 980Ms and 1440p 120Hz. Also, that's another point. I am unwilling to give up 120Hz. I don't care how sharp 4K looks, the smoothness of 120Hz and 120FPS is hnggg. I'd like that in a 1440p screen in laptops now and I am bloody certain the tech supports it.

 

Alright, to each his own. I cannot see the blurriness in a 4K display running at 1080p. But I have my own quirk. Even though SLI has gotten better over the last year or two, I still can't stand the micro-stutter in introduces. Gimme just one GPU, please.

 

Its not exactly the same, but:
The higher the resolution the less difference there is. Most people would notice the difference between a native 720p, and a 1440p at 720p screen, some will notice 4k to 1080p. Likely only a very few would notice 8k to 4k.

Also it depends on the method the screen uses to scale. Some use true pixel doubling which is harder to tell apart, most use an algorithmic expansion though (maybe all laptops even) which can cause a slight blurriness almost like the difference between MsAA and FxAA.

It can also matter if the screen has any coatings or such which can cause a shimmer or such which can react differently among the separate pixels.

Overall though I suspect most people will have little to no issue with 4k to 1080p from what I have seen in peoples comments on this.

 

your not tracking...these are LCDs. They use fixed pixels and not CRTs that shoot light that can be bent to adjust for changing res. You do not have 4 pixels per 1 pixel in the 1680x1050 for 1920x1200. It is using 1 pixel in some cases and others using 2 and in others maybe 3 pixels. That obviously is blurry. When you scale 1920x1200 to 960x600 you get 4 pixels for 1 pixel, which means it keeps the exact same pixel shapes and clarity. This is the same for a 4k to 1080p.

I would love to have a 4k on the laptop for excel PDF files and images. Scaling 4k to 1080p is 100% smooth because you have 4 pixels to 1 pixel. You could do an easy switching back and forth when you want it. Also i am not worried about games and running at 1080p personally because thats a small to non issue for me. The 4k would be nice for productivity and nice for some games. (old ones). Also the added cost isn't an issue for me...having the option is nice.

Again the "blurriness" you are seeing is because you are not scaling correctly

 

I don't usually see microstutter unless my FPS is like 35... which should never happen. XD.

That or unless one card downclocks heavily due to lack of needing power by the game and the slave card always remains in its full 3D clock state once that level is initiated. It's rare for that to happen though, you'd need a game that literally runs at about 30-40% scaling on each card for the primary card to decide it can downclock. And the game'll probably need to run in windowed mode, but I'm not sure about that.

I don't blame you for wanting single GPU though. Sometimes it's just bloody easier XD.

 

So I should scale to 960 x 540 from 1920 x 1080 for perfect scaling? I could simply launch Arma 2 and drop the internal render to this and see if it still looks blurry.

Edit: Nope. It's blurry and it shows in screenshots, here you go:

and

 

it would look blurry at that point because the res is so low. The reason your screen looks blurry is because your not using pixel doubling (i think that's the correct term) as the person stated last page. Also you may not have blurriness but you may notice gaps in each pixel but that shouldn't be an issue with a 4k screen at the size of a laptop screen from a decent viewing distance. Granted the pixel gap and pitch varies between screens. But blurriness is impossible due to 4 to 1 pixels but gaps are the possible issue

http://www.tekrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2415085-8917966270-nvidi.jpg


so imagin in the HD image that each pixel is 4 of the same color and brightness

 

Well then, one day if I ever get access to a small 4K res screen and a displayport cable, I'll plug in my laptop and test running a 1080p game on that screen and see if I find it's blurry. Until then, I can't talk about it firsthand. All I know is that anything less than native on any LCD screen I've ever seen has looked blurry to me, or like a white filter is put over the screen.

 

try 960x600 on your screen...granted it'll look like garbage because the low res but see if text looks clean

 

Except most laptops don't support pixel doubling from what I have heard. For somewhat good reason too. They use a fast hardware based algorithmic expansion using the same algorithm for every resolution. Adding in special cases such as 3:2, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 etc would require it to add increased complexity to the hardware adding to latency, probably cost too. They could get around this by having multiple hardware based converters and use a hard switch between them, but then you could not adjust resolution via software. Overall since its a rare case its better in general to just use the algorithmic expansion for everything.

Of course you could run a program to do a software up-sample from a 1080p to 4k on a 4k screen to get true pixel doubling, but that would put the workload on your GPU.

Just thought about it a bit more, and I suspect if you wanted to you could have the integrated GPU (IE: Intel HD 4600) do a software based up-sample for true pixel doubling. You would still probably add a couple ms latency, but it wouldn't affect your discrete GPU's workload. Not sure if optimus or anything would cause a problem with this, it should be sort of like delegating PhysX, or FxAA to a secondary GPU.

 

There is almost no display out there that does perfect pixel doubling "blocky" upscaling. At least none of the 2.5K, 3K, and 4K monitors and laptops that I've tried in Windows. It's always gonna look blurred if you drop below native resolution, regardless of if it divides evenly.

 

It does not, it looks blurry not blocky. Try it yourself: Create a custom 1/4 resolution (e.g. 960x540 on a native 1080p) and set scaling mode to LCD. Blurry just like when you create a custom greater-than-native resolution for downsampling due to bilinear filtering. Windows has scaling problems whether you're going extremely low-res or extremely hi-res.

The blur is entirely due to poor scaling, not because of low PPI, which should be blocky not blurry if scaling is done right. On a 15" rMBP in Windows, 1440x900 should look crisp since it is exactly 1/4 of native but it doesn't. So anybody who thinks 1080p on a native 4K screen looks exactly like a native 1080p screen of the same size is either making this stuff up or needs to get his eyes checked.

 

It's usually the latter. A *LOT* of people cannot tell the difference between things. My sister had to guesswork through this website's 30fps vs 60fps test (it's currently down, but check it like tomorrow I guess) iPage

Far less how some people can't see between 60Hz and 120Hz. So I totally understand why some people think it's fine. BUT that does not mean I am incapable of seeing it, because I can. And for that reason I will never downscale on a screen if I don't absolutely have to. If they shove full 20nm GM200 chips into laptops at 120W TDP and get it running like 780Ms in terms of heat/power draw, THEN I would consider something above 1440p 120Hz... but even then I don't know if I would be ready to give up the 120Hz part XD.

 

Great info on the ways that scaling works. To bad it doesn't work quite like you think it would/should.

1080p is just to grainy for me, I'm used to a rMBP. I'll have to weigh my options on native screen resolutions, I guess.

 

And discussions like this is why I've come to enjoy just going through the threads on here. Always learnin' somethin new

 

I think everyone is physically capable of seeing the difference unless they have serious visual impairment, some just don't notice it. But if you point it out to them, they'll be like, "Oh yeah, now I see it." Take FXAA, for instance. Some people can't even tell when it's on, but if you compared FXAA vs. MSAA vs. no AA side by side, they wouldn't miss it.

Upsampling on hi-res displays is a lot more subtle than the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz though.

And if you can't see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, you've been playing on consoles way too much.

 

Yeah. They have the capability, but they don't know what they're looking for. They assume it's just how it is, or they can barely see a difference between things.

To be fair though, my sister only has a 1GHz dual core AMD CPU netbook which can't watch 720p youtube videos without lagging and plays L4D1 at the absolute minimum graphical setting she can get it to go at 8-20fps. So... I don't exactly blame her for not knowing really smooth from okay smooth. But the point still stands: some people legit don't know the difference, or how to pick it apart. They can learn, but the question is "will they?", and that's usually a "no".

And yes, I understand what you mean about the pointing out stuff.

Anyway, let's get a little back on topic before an angry mod appears and yells at us again XD. We've been getting a few of that lately =O.

 

Well a dual core 1GHz AMD in 2014 is a bit... umm, behind times I guess XD

I fully understand the pain though as I was still rocking a single core 1.6GHz AMD for the first 5 months of 2011. I've no idea how I got by but maybe that's why I constantly feel the upgrade itch now.

 

Do people play games on the laptops while on battery often? I've owned laptops for years and the only tasks I do while on battery are surfing the web, watching youtube, or doing homework.

 

Just remember 99% of the people on here only know 80% of what they think they do, Including me. So don't take stuff on here as hard facts. (Then again thats true of even most scientific studies.)

Often this is from them using bad original data. A good example is Apples Retina screens. They say that is the resolution beyond which the human eye cannot recognize individual pixels or some such.

To be accurate almost everyone can recognize individual pixels up into the 10,000+ PPI range. Of course to do that you would need to have a pure black screen with a single white pixel.
A more reasonable test would be a white screen with 3 pixel wide black lines 1 vertical and one horizontal with an occasional Black pixel immediately beside the lines. Most people could likely still see those pixels up into the 1,000 PPI range though they may not notice them unless looking for them. Even this is more than you really need though.

I suspect how Apple tested was by making a complex picture and having people move closer or further till they could not make out certain pixel sized features. This is not unreasonable, but it will still be dependent on the picture, and the person. Most people will probably be very happy at their Retina quality resolution though unless using it for niche purposes like maybe some professional astronomy stuff or such.

Most laptops do not have batteries powerful enough to run their discrete GPU at full speed, it is rarely worth trying to play anything that you can't run on the integrated GPU and set optimus to use it for the game. Also even at the reduced GPU speed most batteries can only handle about 1.5 hours of gaming before running out. So no, gaming on battery is fairly uncommon.

 

Hey, I'm using an AMD-E 450 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics Dual Core @ 1.6Ghz

Been surviving off this integrated GPU:
GPU Type: Radeon HD 6320
Shader cores: 80
Base frequency (MHz): 508
Maximum frequency (MHz): 600
Vram: 256 Mb I think

Total TDP for chip is:
TDP: 18 Watt

Aaaaaand, I've tried gotten it to play civ 5, Oblivion, Divinity Original Sin. Dragon Age 1 & 2, a couple MMOs (vindictus, path of exile, ect...), Planetary Annihilation, Supreme Commander 1 & 2, and few other games. I fight tooth and nail every step of the way for even 10 FPS but hey it's do able....though I think I averaged 3-4 on Divinity and 1 on Planetary Annihilation

 

A "retina" display is one which outresolves the human eye at normal viewing distance and there is a mathematical definition for it. AnandTech did some number crunching to test the validity of Apple's claim back when the iPhone 4, its first device with a Retina screen, was released. Might be worth a read.

AnandTech | Apple's iPhone 4: Thoroughly Reviewed

 

@ Ningyo: I do realize that and where everyone is coming from. I'm a computer engineering major at an Engineering specific school; I run into this with other students all the time. It's not so much the accuracy of information that's discussed but the fact that the discussion happens at all that leaves me entertained. I'm not as tech savvy as others and i'm not inclined to spend all my time googling everything there is to know but I do very much enjoy nerdy conversations especially about tech and computers.

Me and my friends have convos like the one above all the time where I'm sure we're getting plenty of facts wrong, but it's not like we're trying definitively trying to be 100% right. Most of the time we simply enjoy the talk and exploring the topic and after reaching a certain point will check the mighty inter webs to see what the actual facts are if we want to know

Thanks for the warning though. I know how easy it is to fall for the trap of taking things at face value

 

Man, this is HARD... Right now I have a five-year-old MSi GT729 which I really need to change, and I'm definitely going to be buying a new laptop with a 980M. I was initially going to take the GT72 Dominator Pro with 16 Gb of RAM (see here), but all this talk about 120 Hz screens has me salivating... I don't think I can opt for an IPS screen since I play fast fps games (Quake series notably) and need very low latency, but a 120 Hz TN panel would be great. I really am not sure what I'll pick, since my MSi served me well for five years and I generally like everything I've been reading about the GT72, but at the same time if I could find a laptop just as good/reliable, with a 980M, and not too expensive (around 2200€ max) with a 120 Hz screen, I just might buy that...

edit: also, I need to find something available in France/Belgium within a month...

 

Ah, I did not know this, thanks, I had always thought that if the upscaling could be done by a whole number factor then it would look clean.

 

Eurcom x7 (which uses the Sager np9377-S shell) was gonna be my choice for going for an SLI 980m & 120Hz machine...Check it out; might be what you're looking for.

 

Could we change the asus g751 keboard????

 

Why are you worried about 120hz displays on a laptop. Do you guys really game on the tiny built-in screen? No matter what the res or refresh rate it's still going to suck because it's small as hell. Get yourself a 28 incher external 4k monitor and don't worry about the built-in one for games. It will suck anyway.

 

Well, I reckon what you don't experience you don't miss, and also I don't think laptops can really drive 4k screens effectively for gaming, certainly not at 120hz - and I know from increasing my refresh rate from 60hz to 78hz on my laptop that I enjoy the experience more in fast paced games where I set a target of minimum 78fps, so I think 120hz laptop screens would be brilliant (my next laptop will have a 120hz screen if I can help it!)!

 

680ms can drive most games at 4k with a medium over clock. Just not games like bf4. External monitor gaming is a night and day difference. I can't stand when I have to game on the built-in when traveling. The screen size is so small that I can't become immersed in the game

 

Not all of us have space which is why we wasted an extra $1K plus on a slower laptop than cheap faster desktop. I will have little space on a navy ship. Nowhere to put a 28" monitor.

 

Everyone has their reasons. I personally think 4k is a waste on a small screens but that's just me.
In my opinion even a 980m SLI won't have enough gravy to power most games that benefit from 4k fidelity anyway unless serious compromises are made or 30fps is good enough.. Sure I can play Killing Floor, F1 and L4D2 at 4k but the textures are still the same.
Again, it's whatever floats your boat. We're getting close now though.

 

With some memory overclocking sli 980M should be able to start managing 4k in a pleasant way.

 

Thanks for the suggestion! Is it possible that with the same components the Eurocom x7 ends up more expensive than this MSI GT72-2QE, though? For some reason, once I click "order" and check the VAT, I end up with ~500€ more, even though the 120 Hz apparently only costs 38€ more in the Eurocom build than the regular 60 Hz screen...

Is Eurocom also considered a solid and reliable brand? Are their builds solid? I such at hardware and will likely not update it/be able to fix it myself in case of problems, so I am really looking for a quality build.

edit: also, to answer some of the other comments, I would like 120 Hz on my laptop screen and not on an external screen.

 

Finally got this bad boy at home, gonna test s**t ouf it



PS: Thanks all of you guys. Posts here are really helpful this thread helped me to don't buy lenovo Y50 few weeks ago and wait for the new 900M series notebooks.

 

Wow man! You got that thing quick! I'm jealous! Let us know how awesome it is!

 

Man why so quick, i gotta wait till November for it. Crap

 

Official date of release in my country is after 25.10.2014 , but i was lucky enough to get one piece. Few e-shops in my country already have them, propably directly from Asus.

 

Excellent, those laptops have great cooling, that model would feature high on my 'To Buy' list! Did you get the 980M, run some benchmarks and run some Unigine Heaven to work out temperatures it stabilizes at, and do some overclocking & post results & temperatures - interesting!

 

I might take a vacation in Slovakia then.

 

It seems i need to wait 3 hours of charging until notebook will boot up, I tried to turn it on but only keyboard lights up and it shuts down after few second... Hope the manual was right about charging before turning on and it is not wrong motherboard...

Yes it is gtx 980M version, I will post all benchmarks and Fps tests from games real soon

 

Please do shadow of mordor!

 

Could we change the asus keyboard language? Where?
I want one of them but its too expensive here, i have to buy it at France

 

Anyone know when Amazon or Newegg will get the P35xv3 available for pre-order?

 

Also when do you think we can pre-order the Auros X7 Pro from Amazon or Newegg?

And Finally.

When do you think Alienware will refresh their line up ... With the 980M SLI?

 

I'm trying to decide between the P35x v3 and the Aorus X7 Pro as well, leaning toward the P35x because it has 8GB VRAM and most games don't seem to handle SLI well. 2880x1620 display and slightly thinner chassis is also a plus.

You can already pre-order the P35x v3 on XoticPC, but I think it has the wrong CPU options listed.

 

I noticed the gigabyte official website listed two option for CPU, one is 4710, and another is 4860. But they didn't list on Xoticpc website.

 

I agree the 8GB of RAM is fantastic. To bad they did not choose to use the 6GB of RAM on the Auros or it would be a no Brainer. But you could always wait for the Alienware 18 and get the 980M 16GB of Ram I'm sure and have the best of everything.

I think the bigger display is a waste. 1080p and High FPS will be perfect for me.

I would prefer to buy from Amazon or Newegg. Wonder when we can pre-order?

I think us three are in the exact same boat. We are looking at the same exact laptops.

Lets head over to this thread and hang out until we all buy our laptops or pre-order them.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/wha...3-vs-aorus-x7-pro-bf4-vs-wow-please-help.html

I want the P35x V3 ... BUT
I play BF4 and the Aorus X7 Pro might be a tremendous upgrade ... BUT
If I can wait I could get the Alienware 18 with 980M SLI and have it all ... BUT
Then I would be carrying a house in my bag everywhere I went ... =(

 

Hmmm...Honestly, can't tell you anything about the brand. I know the Sager shell itself is pretty good and you can find plenty of people on here using one and who'd be able to give you more input.

As for price, yeah, it's gonna be a bit more expensive based on how you configure it. Especially if you choose SLI 980m set up on the video card options

There are reviews for the machine about that I found on google with a simple search so you can read up on it. If I was gonna grab a 120Hz machine I'd take it. But, keep in mind, there aren't many 120Hz screen laptops to choose from. The only other good one I found was Alienware 17 (Alienware offers an upgrade option on the screen for 120Hz + 3D bundle).