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

UHD>QHD>FHD

but then that depends on the monitor refresh rate, I rather stick with a 120hz with GSYNC in a 1920x1080 monitor than a 4K or 3K without those said perks.

And you're right about decrease in performance during gameplay with a 4K monitor on a laptop, even a even a full blown desktop GTX 1080 can barely ran 4K @60 FPS ---- it always dips to 50 or lower so compare that to a laptop Pascal that is 10% less powerful than their desktop counterparts.

Right now I can say that current GPU's available in the market is not 100% ready for a 4K gaming plus windows scaling in a laptop sucks!

Maybe a GTX 1080ti or a GTX 1180....

 

150% scaling on 4k here. but no, scaling doesn't defeat the purpose of 4k. 400% scaling would, but not 125 or even 200%. Again, since 4k is the wave of the future--having other in-between resolutions like 1600p/1800p/3k simply is a cost-prohibitive stop-gap. So having manufacturers jump directly to 4k is the logical alternative--even though software manufacturers have not caught up yet.

As to current mobile GPU performance...I agree. But 1070 GTX not being able to hit 60k on ultra with all games at 4k...doesn't mean it's not worth it. I don't JUST game with my laptop. And when I do, I usually run windowed, which on a 4k means more real-estate to do things with on the side.

 

Is there a big difference gaming at 60fps vs 120fps? Wouldn't 60fps at 4k look better than 120fps at 1080P?

 

120Hz or high refresh rate with GSYNC means smooth gameplay, 4K is gorgeous but it will only take a matter of time until your eyes get used to it.

 

I'd take 4k 60hz over 1080p 120hz. Some small amounts of tearing, perhaps, but the increased resolution is something I enjoy always. 120hz only helps me in some situations.

 

I find higher hz overwhelmingly superior in any fast action game that requires precise game. Something like Rise of the Tomb Raider is great in 4k, but Black Ops III is way better at 165Hz. My kd agreed with me when I switched monitors.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer 1080p on a laptop for battery life when I'm on the go

I'll get a QHD or 4k monitor on my desk so I could plug it in at home, more choices for a good quality panel as well

 

I'm constantly plugged in. Because even though I'm on the go all the freaking time, gaming on battery power is just silly. Same reason why I'll never own a Tesla; the battery is great if you're only in a 50 mile radius urban area.

I get the black ops thing. Twitch shooters would be better with higher Hz. I'm an old school UT gamer, so I totally get that. I also don't play as much twitch shooters anymore, and games like MMORPG, RTS, & others...just don't have the need for the Hz, but do look a LOT bettter with the UHD.

 

even with normal task, a lower res screen makes a difference in battery life. YMMV, I'm a student so I constantly carry my laptop to the library, and quite a few times I could forgo bringing along the power brick because my laptop could last 6 hours at most on a full charge at 40% brightness or so

 

QHD + 120Hz + GSYNC hands down.

 

I think if I were doing dedicated scholastic work/research, I'd probably invest in an ultrabook or something. Laptops are inherently a trade-off. Battery life vs. processing/gaming power vs. screen size vs. screen resolution vs. desktop performance vs etc, etc, etc. And obviously the battery life on a 10" screen is going beat battery life on a 15"-18" screen.

If you're poor and you can only pick one thing...then having a flip phone & a 14" integrated graphics laptop....might be the way to go. IDK.

 

Different needs for different folks. I still enjoy some mid to high end gaming when my laptop is on the desk, but battery life is sort of a priority when I'm on the go, and no I never game while on the go. Desktop is not an option for me right now because I'm a foreign student so I move accomodation every year and I'll need to fly back to my home country. This year end it's gonna change when I finally settle down, I'll go for a desktop and forgo my laptop, maybe looking for something much lighter and more power efficient.

 

Possible 8K external display for Mac`s but Apple dont make their own display`s, So LG or Samsung, whoever will most likely use the panel in other devices possibly notebooks, though 4K is a wasted of time in anything lower than 32" or unless it`s a VR headset.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/new-apple-8k-retina-display-rumours-release-date-3474851/

John.

 

"wasted (sic) of time in anything lower than 32" or unless it's a VR headset".

Demonstrably wrong, based on real-world testing with a 15" laptop. Anyone who says that automatically has lost credibility in my book.

 

Hi, I'm planning on buying a Dell XPS 13. Do you think is worth the 4K display?

I don't plan to game with it, it will be used to work and to see movies sometimes while traveling.

The problem I see is i want to get it with i7+16GB and this is only offered with a 4k display.

Is not I don't want a 4k display, I just want to be sure is not a bad thing for working, i mean it would be as good for working as having a FHD display.

Anyone has experience both resolutions in a 13 display?

Thanks!

 

My Yoga 2 Pro has a 3K display (3200x1800), and I hate it.

 

15" is on the lower end of what most people will be able to see with 4k. I can't really tell the difference between 3k and 4k on a 15" screen...but I can tell the difference between 1080p and 3k.

IMHO, go with the 4k...if that's what comes with the hardware you want. Scaling still isn't perfect...but you might as well have future compatibility. I can't DOWNSCALE 1080p to 75% without some serious hacks of win 10 registry...but a 4k screen works great at 150-175% scaling.

 

Thanks! But as I say I'm looking for the 13'' version. So as I understand from your words, is not worth going for the 4k version in this resolution.

 

As an upgrade by itself, probably not. As part of a hardware package (the parts of which you'd prefer to have), absolutely.

And if you're even remotely interested in using an external display doing anything 3D related...4k makes a LOT more sense.

 

If you can, I would skip the 4k display for two reasons:

(1) battery life. More pixels usually means worse battery life
(2) scaling. You're not going to run 4K native on a 13" display, so you'll effectively be running it at 1080p resolution anyhow.

I hate it when OEM's think you want the highest resolution display and can't opt for something different.

In your case, I'm not sure what you're trying to do with your laptop, but 8GB should be more than sufficient with the ULV CPU.

 

Conversely, I hate it when OEM's think that I want 1080p & don't even give me a UHD option.^

 

Hi thanks for your response. I will use the notebook for development, that's why i prefer to have 16GB memory, i have to run some memory intensive algorithms sometimes.

 

While having more screen real estate for multitasking appears to be nice at first glance, anything above 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) on a 17" doesn't work very well with my eyes, especially when working on it for a long period of time. I was pondering going with a 4k screen and setting the resolution to 1920x1080 (no font scaling), but fonts and lines get slightly blurry so it wasn't good enough for me. Several of the programs I use don't scale properly either, so running an UHD resolution with 200% scaling isn't doing it for me either (and there is also some blur introduced with it). Plus there is no (laptop) video card that can run all modern games constant 60+ FPS at maximum image quality settings either and multi GPU support has been getting worse and worse for several years now. Thus I've elected to go with a 1920x1080 screen again with my new laptop and am perfectly happy with it.

 

GIzmo, that must have been one bad 4K screen if native 1920x1080 looks better (not my experience at all).

 

^ agreed. 175% scaling on a 4k gigabyte p35x v6 looks WAY better than 1080p ips on my msi. and both are matte.

 

I was talking about 1920x1080 with 100% scaling (many of the programs I use for work don't scale well so scaling isn't an option, plus 175% scaling at UHD is still too small and strainful for my eyes on a 17" screen) on an UHD screen vs. A FHD screen. FHD simply looks sharper on a native FHD screen than it does on any UHD screen I've seen so far.

 

I'm currently using 12.5" FHD display @ 100% scaling (with 120% full zoom level in Firefox, because otherwise smaller text on some websites is extremely hard to read). I would definitely pick a 12.5" 4K if there was an option, for more clarity. However, at this zoom level navigating using touch is somewhat cumbersome; hope Microsoft implements better Tablet mode, someday.

 

Well it shouldn't look any different as a true UHD is just treating each 1080p pixel as a 2x2 block... Perhaps you were using one of the 15 inch pentile un-true-4K abominations?

 

No offense, but your eyes must suck, or you cheap out on screens. UHD makes a clear difference on a 15" screen for me, and on a 17" screen with identical settings would make the difference even more pronounced. FHD has been a forced downgrade for nearly 10 years. I'm not about to go back to being chained to it. Not even with all the fancy gizmos & doo-dads like 120hz & frame sync that they do to FHD just to keep selling it. FHD is pure rubbish & I'm not about to get caught holding the bag when scaling finally does catch up.

 

One would think that, but it seems there still is. I've been to various friendly computer stores that let me toy around with their things, looking at all kinds of 17" laptops with UHD side-by-side as well as my experience with some other UHD screens I have at home, and even switched between GPU and display scaling to see if it makes a difference (it does, although display scaling on an UHD panel @1920x1080 still is blurrier/less sharp than 1920x1080 on a native FHD panel). I wish it wasn't that way, but it appears to be. Maybe it is because the "pixels"/clustes of pixels are larger, I don't know. I wish it wasn't that way.

Sure there is a difference. But what good is a sharp UHD image where the text, icons and images are too small to read without straining one's eyes? Maybe that isn't the case for you, but there are plenty of people that don't have the best eyes anymore.
Yes, you can scale the fonts, etc. in Windows, but fact is, many programs (at least many of those that I need to use for work) don't scale properly and their text etc. appears either tiny or it's placement gets all out of place due to it's resizing.
That said, I like UHD screens. However, the only ones my eyes are comfortable with when using the computer the way I do at UHD resolution (without windows scaling applied) are 40" screens and larger (one such sits on my desk right now). If smaller screens at UHD are good enough for you, that's good, I was just sharing my experiences. In fact, even FHD is almost too high a resolution for a 17" screen for me. I was definitely more comfortable with the visual size of that resolution on my old 18" Alienware M18x-R2 screen than I am on my XMG U727, but it's good enough.

 

Have 2 big 4k TV
65 inch sony (Absolutely gorgeous picture - quantum dot)
75 inch vizio (good brightness, good contrast blah blah good technically but quite inferior to sony overall in watchability)

99% of the time Wife watches Sony 65 at SD definition - says not much difference between 4k/upscaled to 4K FHD and SD
but
when I got a 4K phone she was annoyed that the photos on the small 4k screen were so much BETTER than her Iphone 6s plus

EACH to his own
I cannot stand to watch SD on a big screen

I preffer 4k at ANY size
I do a lot of photo and video editing
and
I LIKE 4K at any size
It is not just the resolution
It is also the high bandwidths the device needs to process for 4K and how much better such an image and circuitary is, and how much less stress on the eyes
It is like saying what has got more money
your wallet
or the
Bank.
I will take the bank any time

 

I agree with most here, having 4K on the laptop (even a 17" screen) is ridiculous.

But remember just because your laptop screen is only 1080p doesn't mean you cannot dock it to a 4K 32" monitor as long as you have a decent video card in it.

I just ordered a Thinkpad P71 with 1080p screen but it is rocking a P5000 card which will drive any 4K monitor out there!

 

A client upgraded their meeting room from a 40" 720p TV ($700 cost) to a 49" 4K TV ($700 cost). Mostly used for viewing 'world channels' (i.e. other language channels) in very, very bad quality.

The 4K TV shows everything better - even when fed with less than 720p content.

No fuzzies, no jagged lines, just smooth areas of color that blend seamlessly from one shade to another.

Best part? No over-sharpening of the content. Whereas the 720p model could make hair look like chicken wire or worse.

(Much) more pixels allows banding to be much less apparent in shadows and smooth graduations of a single color. This is why 4K TV's shine.

Even at a distance of 20 feet or so.

When I showed a few of my own (4K) images with a single pixel blown out (on purpose) in each one - almost everyone in the room could tell right away - and that was at about 15 feet away or more.

As a photographer when will I be happy with a monitors resolution? When it matches and/or exceeds what our eyes are capable of.

4K is still very far from that...

Even in ~6" screen sizes...

Let alone 17" screens...

 

I'm glad at least Tiller gets it. There's a lot of luddites in here.

 

this is a never-ending debate that never really solves much of anything because of the myriad of variables ...the most obvious being that different eyes see different things. at B&H in NYC (or most any local Best Buy), they have 60 (or more) different new model/make displays (factory calibrated) ranging in price lined up side by side ....and there are always obvious notable differences. if there are a dozen different people standing in front of that row of displays, the extent of those differences between those displays (color accuracy/saturation/contrast/resolution/sharpness etc) will vary depending on which person you ask. not to mention that the environment that you view those/any display in (in a day-light room, or a room using over-head florescent or tungsten lighting, a dark room etc) will have a distinct bearing on how your eyes adjust to any said display, and how you interpret the quality of the display's image. at the end of the day, it is simply about personal preference.

 

It WOULD be just about personal preference, if those of us who know and understand the benefits of 4k--actually had freaking options to choose from. Until then, we're saddled with **** 1080p until we convince enough troglodytes to stop standing in the way of progress.

/rant

 

Yeah, the variables are an issue, superficially.

Unless you focus on what is important to compare it to (i.e. a real scene). And not to another imperfect option that is excused away as 'personal preference'.

The analogue world around us is what I compare all our digital tools to (re; sight, sound, feel...). Nothing has been invented or created that is above my (trained) senses yet.

The never ending part of the debate is from people who like to believe that man-made is better than 'man'.

 

as an image professional i can easily offer up more than a few other variables that shape one's perspective as it relates to perceived image quality of any given display, aspects that many times get overlooked in this kind of conversation by some who seem to think there is some kind of easy definitive answer to this debate or a golden rule that applies to everyone, or to every display :
- the specific technical process/methodology implemented & exact manufacturing process used/the exact materials used in production/final technical specs of a given display (there are many aspects that vary from one manufacturing process to another : coating(s), metrology, circuit boards, photovoltaic, chemical milling and wet chemical processes etc)
- the inherent quality of manufacture of any given display panel(i.e. quality control ...as panels, despite exact panel type or exact stated native resolution of a panel, quality can still vary from batch to batch, panel to panel even with the same exact panel model)
- the exact "true" native resolution (and refresh rate) of a particular display panel (as per the manufacture's data sheet specs, not the general usage term used for company marketing, as many inaccurate general labels/terms are casually thrown around these days)
- the coating(type/quality) used on display panel (if any)
- the glass/glass substrates(type/quality) used over/within display panel (if any)
- the physical distance/angle/eyesight level one is viewing the said display
- the nits/brightness output and the native color tint of a given display (this can vary tremendously from one model panel to another model panel)
- yes, a persons natural eyesight (20-20/wear glasses/stigmatism/sensitivity to light etc)
- yes, the environment/type of lighting (color temp/ and in the case of florescent lighting : flicker) that a display panel is being viewed/used in
again, when choosing a specific display panel, since much is based on personal preference (not to mention your own eyesight), best to actually see (in person) the said display panel first before purchasing (even try it out and yes, look at a variety of "scenes" & moving and static images on the panel, and even play with/adjust the white point or gamma or contrast etc if you can, and also try to compare it to other display panels(or monitors/laptops) side by side if at all possible). then, you can make an educated decision when making a final purchase.
a few interesting helpful links :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution
https://recombu.com/mobile/article/quad-hd-vs-qhd-vs-4k-ultra-hd-what-does-it-all-mean_M20472.html#
http://www.nanolumens.com/what-is-pixel-pitch-and-why-should-i-care/
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/eyesight-4k-resolution-viewing
https://futurism.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye-in-megapixels

 

You're making this more difficult than it has to be (really).

No doubt all the variables you state (and more) will make varying degrees of 'better' or 'worse' monitors for each of us.

But the point of our digital tools is to mimic our actual world. That is where the buck stops for me. You can't have 'better' than real life (though some people think like that.

The variables below will be always present when comparing two or more actual products/monitors/screens.

What you should be comparing them to is not other imperfect products (in isolation). The real world is there to compare our digital representations of the world to and NOTHING comes close so far.

Pixel density (i.e. 4K+ vs. anything lower res on any size screen/monitor) is one way to achieve a better representation of what/how our eyes perceive the world.

And for the rest of the variables listed? I am assuming that they are equivalent between two or more actual products I'm considering. If they're not? The results will be glaringly obvious...

So while our personal preference does steer our decisions - they shouldn't steer it blindly.

The direction to steer in is in perfectly reproducing the actual world we're trying to represent.

And even when monitors hit effectively infinite resolution*** let alone 576MP as the eye is believed to have - I believe we'll be preferring the analogue world over them.

*** because resolution by itself doesn't translate into a better image... of course.

 

no worries my friend naturally everyone is entitled to their own perspective/point of view. my point was simply that since many of us spend increasingly more & more time viewing much of the goings-on in the world (as well as communicating with family & friends, watching sports & entertainment, playing games and the like) from/thru some kind of "display" (be it a cellphone, laptop computer, monitor or a flat screen television etc), that we should try to consider all the aspects and (hopefully) make a wise, educated choice when purchasing. like it or not, soon enough the cross-over/overlap between seeing much of the world thru some kind of two-dimensional "display" medium will be supplanted with possibly experiencing much of the world's sights and sounds(and even touch and smell possibly) thru innovational bleeding-edge technologies such as "VR" headsets/stations and the like ...an eventual progression that will be not only be fairly seamless over time, but ultimately ubiquitous.

 

Agreed.

And my education has shown me how little 'academia', 'stats' and 'scores' translate into the real world for our direct benefit.

Bottom line in anything you can purchase is that the pursuit of 'profit' is always going to be above the delivery of 'perfection'.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole (and comparing it to the 'real world' is how I'm able to view any device/component/platform as a 'sum' rather than being mired down in the mostly unimportant (in the end) details).

 

For coding, a lot of real estate on the screen is needed, would a 4K 17.3" display be better than a 1080p 17.3" display?

 

Depends. How good is your eyesight (and how long do you want it to stay 'good' if you're thinking of running the 4K 17.3" screen 'natively'.

Overall; the 4K display will be the one that will be more comfortable to work on for long sessions at a time; even at the same effective resolution (assuming your programs scale well/properly in Windows).

 

Sure, if you enjoy working on your laptop with a magnifier in your hand

/sarcasm

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

 

Are there any laptops who ship 4k screens without scaling turned on by default? Or does Windows do it by default without OEM intervention? Dell replaced my father's Skylake XPS 15 with a Kaby Lake 4k XPS 15, and it came with scaling on. But yeah, hopefully all programs you use support scaling, because if they don't, grab that magnifying glass.

 

Windows usually picks a scaling on its own for higher res displays (usually 150% DPI Scaling is common for 3K and 4K screen resolutions) but you can easily turn it off

 

I saw no period at the end of that sentence, so I assume you meant to finish with something like this.

 

4k. 1080p was old and outdated when it first debuted on a PC. It needs to diaf. NOW.

 

What's old and outdated is the 16:9 format, high refresh, high response, and poor image quality and color gamut, that most laptops still offer. The industry opted for higher resolution over higher performance, when nobody really asked for it. Oooh, 4k is bigger than 2k so it must be better. It's all because of buzzwords. At least the desktop LCD market has decent options, and 4k makes more sense on a larger LCD. But even then I'll opt for better specs over higher resolution.

 

Sorry, but you'll have to give me at least 3k UHD before I'll concede the point. The day that WUXGA died on laptops--is the day I decided to never forgive 1080p. All those who support it are not videophiles. All those who disagree are lying or traitors.

If tomorrow your desired display of choice featured an unfavorable aspect ratio change and a noticeable decrease in pixel count, you'd be a little bit pissed too.

I'll gladly suffer the pangs of sub-ideal refresh/response/color accuracy--if only to get back something that was unwelcomely ripped from the consumer market almost a decade ago.

When the last 1080p panel rolls off the assembly line somewhere, I hope someone lets me know. I want to buy it, burn it to cinders and piss on the ashes.