Let's Discuss 4k vs 1080p on a laptop.

Here's my 2 cents on 4k over 1080p! After doing some research on it here's what I got about 4k over 1080p. https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/pixel-density/

This link lists all the possible monitor sizes that are used by consumers. The main reason why most people want 4k is obviously because of its so called clarity over 1080p. We're missing the picture here as to what usually defines clarity for a monitor. PPI (Pixels Per Inch) is what's usually used to measure the clarity or detail level of a monitor. Most gamers use a desktop, but some use a laptop to game. Desktop monitors end up being noticeably larger than laptop screens. The larger the screen, the lower the PPI is. If you check full HD (1080P) over 4k for at least a 21.5" vs a 17'3 monitor, the PPI for the 21.5" at 4k is 204.92 while the 17'3 has a PPI of 174.5 at Full HD making it nearly a 15% difference by 30 PPI. Bump the 17'3 down to 15'4 and the difference will be negligible.

1080p on a laptop is just as good as a 4k desktop monitor. Some people will need 4k on a laptop for something other than gaming, but if you only want it for gaming then the performance sacrifice will make having 4k and going on a budget a headache.

 

I think 4K on a laptop is ludicrous. I like large resolutions for desktop workspace (which is why I have two 3440x1440 ultrawide 34" LCD's for my desktop). But if I ran 4K on a 15" or 17" screen I'd have to run it like it was 1080p anyhow (double scale), so what's the point then? I'll take 144Hz / 1080p over 60Hz / 4k any day. In 17" systems, maybe even 15" systems, I'd much rather see a 2560x1440 resolution. It's more practical, and a resolution that current upper mid end to high end GPU's can drive without issue in games. Plus it gives you a bit more desktop space to work with.

 

I think 4k is not necessary on laptops (for gaming at least). because most gaming laptop screen are 15.6 inch or 17 inch. Well at those screen sizes you shouldn't be able to notice such a difference between 1080p and 4k. And 4k just drains your performance. 1080p is cheaper and in case if you want 4k in a 1080p monitor you can always use nvidia DSR. I think gtx 970m is the sweet spot for laptop gaming all other cards are over priced. You can get 30fps if you run games like witcher 3 (maxed out ultra). And the thing is that human eyes cannot see more than 30fps. You wont even find the difference between 30 and 60fps if you game on a controller staying a little away from the screen. But if you play fps games with keyboard and mouse even a person who never played a game can tell the difference between 30 and 60fps. Well this is because you can feel the delays in controls if you play with keyboard and mouse at a low fps.

 

This is not true let alone that we don't see things in frames. A bunch of gamers can tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps. It's impossible to miss 60fps. This has been said I don't know how many times, but these statements come out of nowhere with no evidence to back it up and 60fps is easily noticeable for anyone unless they haven't seen 60fps at all.

I mean we can't deny stuff is not in 60fps. Even YouTube videos are coming out with 60fps options.

30fps by all means is playable, but it isn't as smooth as 60 or 120fps and less responsive.

 

I agree with everything typed here, My desktop uses a 27" Dell 1440p Gsync monitor and its beautiful. My GT73VR has a 1080p 120Hz screen and it looks as good, although smaller, as my desktop. I have a 980ti driving my desktop and its a bit slower then my 1070 but it's still a pleasure on either monitor as the FPS are well above 60.

 

There is definitely a difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, and even noticeable 60FPS and 120FPS. Even my feeble old man eyes can pick it up.

 

We will if we don't already have 4K resolution on 5-6" phone screens, which is not even noticeable when using you phone at the normal viewing distance, but now people are using their phones for VR with adapter glasses an inch or two from their eyes, 4K might be of use in that situation.

But on an 15" or 17" notebook ??

It`s just something new for manufactures to set themselves apart from each other, like 4gb of ram on an 128bit graphics card, that cannot ever use it.

John.

 

Yeesh everyone always misses the point on this imo. 4K with the intent of adding workspace to your screen is useless. Everything is too small without scaling. However, with Windows scaling on, most things look extremely crisp. This can help reduce eyestrain and in general makes images and videos look crisper. The 1070 and 1080 are also both capable of playing a fair amount of games at 4K. Overwatch, Dota 2, CSGO and even GTA V can all be run really nicely on my 1070 at 4K. Additionally, on my screen at least, there is a pretty good upscaling algorithm at work, and playing more intensive looking games at an in between resolution still looks far superior to 1080p. Though your mileage will vary depending on the specific screen.

That being said, a 1440p 120Hz monitor is what I'd want on a laptop.

@Darkavenger20000 That's super wrong... Google any real source and you can easily see that's wrong. Hell you can view 30 vs 60 in your browser and see the difference.

 

4K absolutely makes zero sense in a laptop, anybody with a functioning brain knows that. I'm still in the camp that 16:10 1920x1200P is the absolute best resolution for laptops, but that's just me. If we are talking larger monitors (23"+) then fine, I can see 4K being somewhat useful. The real kicker for 4K comes out on the larger screen sizes. 1080P on a 60" TV vs 4K on a 60" TV is a night and day difference.

But Alienware sticking a UHD panel in a 15" laptop was just laughable. Nobody, save for Superman, could possibly use native 4K/UHD resolution on a 15.4" display.

The industry should have been focusing on faster refresh rates and better colorspace coverage instead of obscene resolutions that have no place in a laptop.

 

Does it help to think of 4k like always-on full-screen antialiasing?

 

Well said. Except the part that 30fps is playable

 

Am I like the only person who appreciates higher pixel density or lower eyestrain? Like I said 4K is beyond stupid at native scaling on a 15" display, it's unusable. But with scaling everything looks extremely crisp. I get headaches using my Latitude with a 768p panel after like an hour, while I can use a 4K panel for hours without noticeable eyestrain.

Windows 10 scaling was a huge improvement over Windows 8. While its of course not perfect standard tasks like web browsing, using MS Office and even coding look great...

Your saying you see a night and day difference on a 4K tv. That's literally just the pixel density increase, unless you are using it as a monitor. I see a night and day difference between a 4K and 1080p panel with how much eyestrain they give me.

I don't understand why none of you even consider scaling. Having to look at like a handful of apps without scaling isn't that big of a deal. At this point Steam is my worst looking common app, and it still scales so its readable, the text just looks like 1080p instead of 2160p.

 

The eye see's about 24 FPS. The advantage of high, like 120 FPS, is you get 5 individual frames per capture of the eye. This alows the eye to see a blur effect as it would in real life. This of course too along with the shorter times between frames so lag can be substantially reduced.

4K is handy for those doing photo or video editing. I just got a 65" 4K TV so I can agree it is a world of difference over 1080p. Now I just need to update my camera and computer setup for it as well.

 

Scaling is garbage with Windows, so unless you're using Mac OS, I never could get used to the scaling. I never experienced eye strain on 1080P or 1200P displays, but I sure did when I used 1440x900 or 1280x800 resolutions.

 

This! 100% this.

 

Can you screenshot a couple of examples where the scaling isn't ideal?

 

What in particular irks you about Windows 10 scaling? I agree, it was awful with 7 and 8. But 10 seems much better. All the icons, file explorer etc... all seem fine to me. My desktop has a 4K monitor and a 1080p right next to it, so I can compare on the fly. What specifically irks you?

(I agree OS X does it better though)

In steam? The entire app. Like it "scales" in the fact that the text size is readable correctly sized, but its low dpi, so its not crisp like say Chrome.

There are other third party apps that have scaling issues, but honestly the count continues to drop.

These are the major issues with scaling typically from microsofts site.

1. Blurry text and UI components.

2. Applications sized incorrectly (too big or too small).

3. Applications are sized correctly and are not blurry, but have other layout issues (such as clipped text or other UI components).

I don't see much of 2 and 3 anymore. 1 still happens (again steam is a notable case along with windows itunes) but I don't think having a few apps look blurry ruins the purpose of the screen.

Edit: like its funny, I didn't even consider going back to 1080p for my Clevo. I would absolutely hate it. To me there is almost no point at all, since you could just turn the screen resolution down if you really wanted to, while downscaling can only do so much for a 1080p display.

 

Give it another 2 years and we will be getting 8K and then we still get some type of direct brain connection, Then it will be my brain connection bandwidth is higher than yours or something to brag about (some sort of better than life) simulation then are bodies can atrefie even more than they are now, then it will be brains in jars

It always ends with brains in jars does it not, (or heads as a brain is yucky)



John.

 

I think the most important factor to any screen viewing is the viewing distance to screen size ratio if all else is equal. For instance if you have two screens, both the same resolution but one is 50" bigger, you are not going to be happy with the larger screen at the same viewing distance. To illustrate, I have been really happy with almost all my 1080p viewing experiences. Once we made the leap from 720 to 1080, I have not been able to revert. I have not had that same impression of 4k screens yet, but the content I've viewed might not be the best comparison.

I have a 15.6" laptop screen at 1080 and I am usually 2-3 feet from eye to screen. On the other hand, my 100+ inch projector screen is 1080 and I'm extremely happy with that at a viewing distance of 8-10 feet. Some people prefer to be farther back. Depends on the person. I also like the front few rows at a movie theater for that immersion feeling.

Based on this I know I would not need further clarity from a screen beyond what 1080 has already been able to offer me. The only thing that would change this is if my viewing distance became shorter. But to sit 6 feet from a 100 inch screen is madness. Maybe future technology will help this make sense but when I'm viewing content I don't want to lose anything in my periphery if I think it might have been visual content I was meant to see.

VR could change this equation if done right.

 

So where does this leave Apples Retina dpi calculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

http://isthisretina.com/

John.

 

It's actually mostly right. I don't see as much benefit on a 4K phone vs 1440p. They are both so high the difference is pretty irrelevant. You probably can tell a difference between like a 1440p phone and like a 32K phone as but it would be a diminishing return.

 

My Nexus 10 is 2560x1600, for a dpi comparable to 4K at 17". Viewing at the same distance as my 17 laptop the same text is slightly smaller but I can definitely tell the difference of better clarity on the tablet. It is easier on the eyes as well. With proper scaling I would love a 17" 4K laptop.

 

Yeah, but that proper scaling is lacking, especially for these of us who would stay W7 to its last breath, and probably even beyond that. IMO the perfect resolutions (without scaling, since I'm one of these that want to use all that space) for 15.4" is 1920x1200 and for 17" is 2560x1600. While I haven't seen 2560x1600 on 17", since there's no such thing, I've seen 1920x1200 on 15.4" (I actually own one) and I think that it's pretty crisp. Refresh bump would be more than welcome. Of course the panel itself should be good as well (by good, I actually mean AWESOME). The 768p panel mentioned in the same sentence with headache, most likely has A LOT more to do that the panel (and its PWM back-light, most likely running at low Hz) is crap, than the resolution itself. I had 1280x800 wide gamut panel out of VAIO in my Acer, the only downside was the real estate, the panel itself was pretty good.

 

I'm just curious do you game? Like I loved Windows 7, but I needed to move from it. DX12 was a big benefit, and actually scaling was another. I know people don't like some of the stuff MS is doing, but your going to be forced to upgrade eventually. Why not have taken the free upgrade?

People always mention privacy, but you already have so much less that you think. A colleague of mine was talking to some of the higher ups at a phone carrier, and its pretty incredible what they can know about you. Hell ios 10 now tells you where your car was just parked by default, and that data goes straight through the carrier who can see it they really wanted to (though its technically illegal).

Its got the point where I just don't care anymore, I turn stuff off when its simple but... I'm not doing tons of illegal stuff on my computer, I don't care if you see what I do. Call me jaded.

 

I forgot to mention that 30fps isn't playable for games that get their emulation speed slowed by having 30fps instead of 60fps just like Street Fighter V.

 

FTFY

 

I do game and I wasted a W7Pro key on the upgrade, so eventually I'll run W10. Just not now, or in the next few years Or at the very least I'll dual boot and the only thing I'll do on W10 is game.

Anyway, that doesn't solve my main issue - I want to use all of the pixels. As I said 1920x1200 looks decently sharp already on 15.4". Why wasting performance on driving these, pretty much useless, extra pixels? Extra sharpness? How about extra refresh rate (120Hz, 144Hz) and better quality panels (10bit, 12bit; IPS, MEMS etc)? That's something everyone would enjoy. I want quality panels, I stare at the damn thing the better part of the day, so it better be GOOD.

 

Yes. I don't think 1920x1200 looks good at all on a 15" screen. Sure its better than 768p, but its still not a retina display, which means I still find it tiring to look at.

Extra Hz is definitely good as well, again I would say 1440p 120Hz is like the optimal display right now for laptops.

I'm waiting for Asus to release their 4K 144hz monitor.

I still actually prefer a nice 4K IPS display instead of 1080 120Hz TN, the current 120Hz screens look pretty much like crap. I like the IPS 75Hz displays that can be overclocked to around 100Hz instead.

 

The 15.6" Sharp IGZO 3200 x 1800 screen has a slightly higher PPI than retina, FWIW.

 

This is relavent to my current predicament. I'm planning to buy the clevo p650rs with the 1070. My options are the 1920x1080 LG IPS or 4K 3840x2160 Samsung PLS. My only real needs from the machine are gaming(old and new), school work, video streaming. Is 4K worth the extra $100 on this model for my purposes? 4K can ultimately be scaled down if need be, correct?

 

The LG panel gets pretty awful reviews for lightbleed. The 4K panel was what I went with for my P650RS (and my friends). The 1070 is strong enough to run a lot of games at that resolution on good settings. Things like Overwatch and BF4 you can just completely max out which looks incredible.

The color accuracy is also better on the 4K panel, and if 4K is too hard to run you can render at an inbetween that looks better than 1080p. (I wouldn't normally recommend this but I have the exact panel he's talking about so I know it actually works well)

The only downside to it for me is a hit to battery life. I'm more than fine with Windows 10 scaling.

Watching 4K content is nice too.

The grumps here refuse to use scaling for the most part

As long as you realize no scaling makes 4K completely useless (like a lot of people here have been saying) then you'll like it a lot.

Another note is the 4K panel actually has a better response time as well, the 1080 has a 25ms response time and the 4K one has a 16. Both are kinda bad, but the 1080p one is over a frame of lag, while the 4K is just under.

 

I'm saving that money to upgrade if/when a 1440p or 120hz are available

 

Very much in line with my way of thinking. QHD (1440p) at 120Hz with a low response time is literally the best option at the moment for gaming, assuming you purchase a GTX 1070 or 1080.

 

Why gaming? Actually it's the opposite. Games do scale WAY better than Windows. If GPUs can't drive these pixels (which is still the case), you can dial down settings and resolution and games still look good. Better than scaled Windows at least. Windows and everyday tasks are the ones that benefit 1600p/1440p on 17"/17.3" since they don't have to bother with crappy scaling. It just happens that current GPUs are more adequate for 1600p/1440p gaming, so it's a win-win for 17 inchers, no?

The grumps here (me at least) want better options. You can make use of 4K @100% @15.6"? Good for you and your eyes. I hope that you can enjoy that eyesight for the rest of your life. For the rest (again me at least, but this thread suggests that I'm not alone) we want better options, ones that feature great quality panels, which are not the either/or kind, while having useable resolution. There are no great quality 15.6" FHD panels, since the shift to the OMGAWESOME 4K made everyone put more money into them (both companies and consumers) and pretty much forgot about the "inferior" options*. Only NOW we are getting 1440p on 17.3" (the quality remains to be seen), that's AFTER we got three (as far as I know) 4K panels. I guess if people buy it more than the 4K option, we'll eventually get better 1440p panels. And finally to get to the scaling... again. It is NOT at Mac level, when it gets there, I would consider it, since even I can enjoy even smoother edges and book-like letters (although 1200p looks decent for me even on my 17"). Till then - 1200p 15.4", 1080p 15.6" and 1600p 17", 1440p 17.3". These are the real useable options for most of the people. You know what, why settling at fixed resolution at all? Let's just demand that AUO would pick-up their @$$ and finally release CNT-FED (CRT-like half-pixel drawing). I'm pretty sure that they can't push it for 4K on small displays (because the state of the technology - not fine enough) and that's "the main problem". It's kinda vicious cycle - you won't buy it because no 4K, but it can actually look better.

* BTW This would come as a "shocker", but there are no great 4K panels either. Even HP's and DELL's 4K options (in ZBook/Precision, the ones that had 10bit RGB LEDs before) are your run-of-the-mill panels you can find elsewhere. And this is about colors, combining colors and response time, like it is the case on desktops for a while, is non-existent in laptops and this is the either/or case I was talking about.

 

4K @ 100% is the opposite of what I'm talking about that's not using scaling at all... By scaling I mean setting it at like 200-250 so you can actually see things... So again I agree that 4K is stupid as hell with no scaling.

Your correct that it isn't as good as OS X, but that doesn't mean it has to be unusable for everyone else. It's not that bad. Most things the average users would be using are scaled well at this point (most normal windows ui, web browser, MS Office).

The Sharp 4K panel that was available is pretty good, full sRGB color iirc. On my Clevo at least the 1080p panel is worse in literally every way compared the the PLS 4K panel, worse response time, worse colors, and worse light bleed.

 

Resolution is meaningless without factoring in screen size. The point of diminishing returns begins once the pixels get too small to make out with the naked eye. 1080p on a 14-inch display is right on that edge, and likewise with 1440p on a 17.3-inch.

After that point, scaling is required to increase the text size to be usable. This is not a problem in OS X, but in Windows, scaling continues to be horribly implemented. For example, if you use Photoshop, you're out of luck with very high-res displays since its interface doesn't support scaling. Good luck with the Windows magnifier app (or an actual magnifying glass). In essence, from a purely productive standpoint, the practicality of high resolutions stops once you're at the point where scaling is required.

Another point with the 3K/4K displays. The layperson thinks they look good because they're 3K/4K. The resolution has little to do with the picture quality beyond its relative sharpness. The picture is up to the panel and more importantly, the backlighting unit (BLU). Ask a credible photographer what makes a good picture, and it's the lighting. This concept is universal - good lighting equates to a good picture. An average TN panel can look very good with a proper BLU. However, they're usually paired with garbage blue LED BLUs, and suffer accordingly. It works the other way around, as well; an excellent quality IPS display can look terrible with a bad BLU.

One good aspect of 3K/4K panels is that most of them tend to look very good, with wide color gamut especially. This is due to good panel quality paired with a decent BLU. Manufacturers seem to understand good picture quality is expected when buying a display advertised at 3K or higher. I've recently used a 17.3-inch 4K AUO109B panel, which looked totally fabulous after calibration.

The AORUS X7 v6 with the 17.3-inch 1440p G-Sync anti-glare panel looks very interesting, but I haven't seen a review.

Charles

 

Photoshop is horribly scaled indeed haha. That's not necessarily going impact everyone though. Again Windows is implemented worse than OS X but photoshop is a third party app. That being said it may be a poor choice to go 4K if that's something you use all the time.

Most of my coding applications have come to support scaling pretty well in the last year or so as well. Jetbrains IDEs are all looking crisp, and editors like Sublime are now a pleasure to work on.

Edit: You can manually fix photoshop btw, but I get its annoying that you need to do that.

 

When the Windows' scaling is involved, people have to know. The truth is that the proper response to a question "Should I get 4K?" is "See it yourself". That's it. The problem is that few can actually find a place where they can see it and make a decision. That's where we enter - we push our believes towards the ones who ask, but in the end we more or less paint the whole picture (with the opposing comments that is), so one can make a decision based on the discussion (hopefully).

Actually the Sharp panel covers aRGB. The same panel is used in the Precision 7710 4K and ZBook 17 as DreamColor 3. Haven't seen it in person, but I'm not sure that I want to. HP used to push the boundaries when it came to color in notebook, not anymore. Anyway, your opinion about the 1080p panel is exactly what I mean. There are VERY few good 1080p panels, let alone excellent.

Excellent post. Since the transition to 16:9, cheapness is like plague, especially when it comes to panels. With 16:10 there was a wide variety of quality throughout the resolutions. I'm not shocked that 16:9 panels are mostly crap, just frustrated. Especially when it needed 4K to get some movement in the quality department. Ironically, at 4K the mass-market and the "upper tier" meet exactly at the same place. DreamColor is just a fancy word now. Whatever, it seems that getting the perfect laptop panel is a pipe dream.

 

Is there an app that will show me my lcd panel manufacture and model.

I have an 20" Tablet/Notebook see my sig, It has an 1600x900 IPS display the hardware id in device manager says "DEL408E" but google search does not show much.

I have had 50+ notebooks and this is one of the best displays i have ever seen, the viewing angles are amazing,

John.

 

HWINFO64

 

Same information as device manger "DEL408E", that must be all that`s available.

Thanks

John.

 

Huh its way more detailed than that on my machines.

 

Hwinfo64 gives quite a bit of information about the panel... Very detailed info IMO..

 

The new 4k Dreamcolor IGZO panel on HP's Zbook line is really nice. I was originally turned off from high dpi panels because they were either glossy touchscreens or had a pentile layout which had a yellowish cast to the screen. Scaling works pretty well with Windows 10. All of my work apps support it, including Photoshop CC, however I am using 200% scaling rather than the suggested 250%. The only downside I have seen so far is that the display doesn't scale perfectly from 3840x2160 to 1920x1080. An image at 1920x1080 is noticeably blurrier than the same image at 3840x2160 zoomed to 200%. However this may be limited to the 15.6" IGZO panel that is used on my Zbook because others have reported that the 17.3" 4k AUO panel scales perfectly down to 1920x1080. Funny thing is my battery life has actually gone up because the 4k Dreamcolor3 panel uses less power than the 1920x1080 Dreamcolor2 panel that was used in the Zbook 15 G1...

 

After spending some more time experimenting with scaling on Windows 10, I have noticed that for the best experience, all displays right now need to be using the same scaling percentage. If I use an external 27" 2560x1440 display and the internal 4k display at the same time, then very weird results happen with certain apps switching between the internal and external LCD. With a few apps (Git Bash) the windows will scale up in size every time it moves back and forth between the displays, eventually going to 800% scaling and beyond. However if I set both the internal and external to 200% scaling, the rescale event never occurs so it is switchable between them just fine. Photoshop CC also seems to be hardcoded to either scale to 100% or 200%, detected at startup.

Because of this, I would say that for now it would be best to pair a 4k laptop with either a 4k 24" or 5k 27" external display, and use them all at 200% scaling.

 

After reading this whole thread, I'm now informed WHY progress in the laptop segment is so god-awful slow. It's because of parochial resistance to change, reliance upon urban myths, and an unwillingness to experiment firsthand to compare/contrast.

Every eye is different. I can't argue that the ideal resolution on a 14" should be a different standard than the ideal resolution on a 17". I do know that 4k is a SUBSTANTIAL improvement over 1080p--even at 14". Therefore, even if 4k is "overkill" for most laptop displays--I emphatically maintain that 1080p is most certainly NOT "good enough". What would make sense is to migrate the entire laptop market to 4k as standard. Netbooks/ultrabooks & tablets that require more battery life can/should still attempt to make do with more energy efficient displays.

I've seen & compared firsthand glossy & matte 1080p displays, 3k displays, 4k displays--all at 15". If anyone tells you that there's no benefit to UHD on a 14-17" display--they're badly misinformed or lying. I'm right now sitting about 6-10" further away from my 4k display 15" laptop than I am on my 1080p display 15 laptop; and even though the text is tiny, I can see everything very, very clearly.

The only LOGICAL argument against 4k is the ability of the GPU to drive games at that resolution--and the GTX 10 series (high end) are beginning to put that argument to rest. Do yourself & your eyes a favor--ACTUALLY compare displays, or borrow a friends...before you saddle yourself with a resolution that was outdated 15 years ago. (Yes, I was gaming in 1440p back in 2002).

 

I think you would be in the very small minority that would actually enjoy using native 4K on a 15" panel without any scaling. Most people would use scaling, windows scaling is nowhere near mac os scaling, as is using a lower non-native resolution on a native 4K panel, so most people stick to sxga+ or fhd. I personally find wuxga as the best compromise, but alas, 16:10 is dead.

 

As I've stated, 1080p is the best option only because of availability. It's either 1080p or 4k. So very few 2560x1440 options out there. 4K is for crap when it comes to Windows scaling. If you're only using a web browser, fine. But so many legacy applications and even newer ones scale for crap. You get super tiny text that can't be adjusted or overly large text that doesn't fit in a button, or other weird anomalies. It's not the LCD, it's the OS and apps.

I've reviewed a large number of laptops with 4K LCD's and dozens of apps and can tell you first hand that Windows scaling is total crap. It may work in some instances, but not for a large portion of the applications out there. This is no "urban myth" or "unwillingness to experiment" because I've wasted dozens of my own hours using 4K and can say unless you can drive the screen and use native 4K without scaling, it can be downright frustrating. Desktop is OK if the LCD is big enough, but for 15" laptop display, forget it.

You may have been using 1440p since 2002, but it was a CRT, because first Full HD LCD wasn't around until 2006. I was using a Sony Trinitron for many years at 4:3 2304 x 1440 resolution as well. But that doesn't mean we've gone backwards. LCD's have advanced significantly in the last ten years. Just that Microsoft hasn't cared to follow suit with proper OS implementation. Sure, some of it is legacy application problems, before such high resolutions were even a thought on the radar. But that just means until everything we use is updated appropriately or willing to update to new apps (if they even exist) that could cost a small fortune in itself, 4K is still not the way to go.

 

That's where you and I disagree. I didn't wait until every movie I wanted was available on Blu-Ray before I switched over from DVD--and for the same reasons. There's a substantial difference between the two offerings--and while perfection may not yet be achieved for 4k...the places where I can capitalize on its advantages are sufficient justification, imho. Now I realize that 4k may not be a "Best of both worlds" solution--given that MS & a few others haven't seen fit to properly adapt to the higher resolution. Perhaps something more in the middle like 1440p or 1600p would be more ideal. However it's unrealistic to expect one technology company to handcuff itself from the march of technology...simply because another tech company can't get with the program; ergo, I don't expect these resolutions to be offered--vice 4k.

Thus it becomes a question of which offers greater benefit; 1080p's compatibility with outdated programming/scaling, or 4k's more well-rendered picture & potential for higher-resolution gaming. And that's an easy choice from my perspective. For those who don't game much/or at all...perhaps the conclusion is different from mine. I can say that even while browsing, 4k offers far more screen real-estate while still viewing full-sized web pages.

 

If you're on 4K and scaling 200% it's the same as using it as a 1080p LCD. For gaming, 4K is fine, and I've notice it scales really well at 1080p, even 720p. But unless you're using your laptop solely as a gaming platform, you're compromising. I don't care what other people use, it's their option. Just expressing my views and findings.