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

My preference would be a 2560 x 1600 LCD on a 15" or 17" display. Or even 1920 x 1200 if it had to be, at least it's 16:10. But I don't want a 3840 x 2160 display compromising all the other specs. I like a larger desktop workspace than 1080p, but to a point that I can use all the pixels and not having to scale to fonts and icons to be able to read it, to me it defeats the purpose of a larger pixel density display. Why have all those pixels if you're just going to scale it to run like a lower res screen anyhow (and looks like crap usually too by doing so).

 

WQXGA on a 15" laptop has been a wet-dream of mine for a decade. But so far, the only company that has even bothered was Apple--and that's one compromise too many to settle for an Apple (and overpay in the process).

 

Yeah, I never understood the shift to 16:9 for laptops. Games don't need it. Desktop workspace doesn't desire it. Only thing that drives it is video media, which a laptop isn't primarily a machine for watching TV and movie, at least not one that's more than a netbook or Chromebook.

 

The 'shift' happened because it was cheaper to source in that resolution/aspect ratios and 99% of most consumers would rather pay $50 less for garbage than spend that $50 and have something worth owning.

 

I find it difficult to believe that sourcing a WQXGA screen is more costly than a 4k screen. Just saying.

p.s.
Oh, and 16:9 is fail anyways. The entire premise was to match the native aspect ratio for media watching, and Hollywood has gone 22:9, so you'll still get letterboxing. No thanks.

 

That is not what I said.

LED screen manufacturers have their own reasons for pricing certain aspect ratios/resolutions the way they do. The notebook manufacturers can only pick from what they can source.

MS Surface Pro is a good example of paying extra for a more usable experience over the lifecycle of the system...

 

Does 16:10 3k or 4k even exist anywhere in the market?

 

no. And that's why i'd be happy to just have WQXGA as an option on a 15" gaming rig. Half the pixels of 4k, but still double the pixels of FHD.

 

https://www.techspot.com/news/50676...hould-be-2560x1600-dreams-linus-torvalds.html

 

And that was in 2012! yeah, 2560x1600 should still be the standard for laptops. Yet it's still 1920x1080.

 

This is probably because smartphones and tablets gained priority over notebooks and for a lot of people who use computers for web browsing, etc., most smartphones were already powerful enough a while ago.
The focus these days appears to be on highly mobile technologies, so screen quality and resolutions are mostly seen there... whereas in laptops... not so much... plus it doesn't help that the main manufacturer of LCD panels predominantly still makes 768/720p resolutions panels.
For other people, notebooks are becoming main computers much like desktops are.
As the hardware improves, more and more people will probably be shuffling their workload to their tablets and phones... we see people doing this already - so there's a greater market for improving those kinds of screens/panels as opposed to ones found in laptops.

4k in a laptop should be doable if scaling is implemented correctly.
Like on smartphones, the higher resolution might improve overall image quality... but in terms of user interface space gain, this would be more useful on large screens (plus, you would want to be able to READ what's what/where and avoid letters from being too small).

Also, a lot of websites are designed around 768/720p, and facebook for example loses a lot of space on the left and right with 1080p (at least it does for those of us who use Adblock).

 

This is the best comment I have read in the last 2 years. Absolutely on point! Very well said.

 

And this is why the industry keeps trucking along with FHD trash screens. SMH.

 

Check out the links below:

 

I used 4K 17" for 6 months
Then back to 1080p 17", first 60hz then 120hz, for 9 months
Now back on 4K 17"
So a nice A-B-A test

The difference to me is obvious

Text is much clearer especially small text

I have a bunch of photos I took with a macro lens that pretty clearly show the difference whether it's fine detail (leaves on a distant tree) or text curves or corners

Its like high AA on a game. The effect will vary between games. Some people will notice it. Others won't. I'm in the camp of having seen it... will never go back.

Sent from my iOCEAN X7 using Tapatalk

 

You mean you can actually see anything at the native 4K resolution on a 17" screen? I certainly can't, so I have to do a 200% to 250% DPI Scaling, and when you do that, the text becomes blurry in some applications or you get misaligned stuff like buttons or dialogue boxes in programs which don't play nice with scaling. Which removes the whole beauty and point in having a 4K screen. I mean just why? if you have to do DPI scaling, then might as well get a 1080P screen and enjoy the sharpness of running at the native resolution without having to do any DPI scaling.

To me, 4K is good for a 32 inch monitor and above, anything less and it's just a pain in the butt

 

I currently have 2 No. 15 inch laptops, one with an IGZO IPS UHD display and the other an IPS FHD display. Both have same specs i.e. intel 7700HQ processor, Nvidia GTX 1070 and 16GB DDR 4 RAM. I run CAD, BIM and photo editing applications.

I had to get the laptop with the FHD display after 3 months of using the laptop with the UHD display because I was so sick and tired of having to deal with the scaling issues when running my applications as well as the ridiculous power drain while carrying out productivity tasks on the go.

When I dropped the resolution to 1080p on the UHD laptop and toggled with the scaling to try and address these issues, guess what? Texts and icons...in short the entire desktop looked blurry...it was horrendous!

So while you have your A-B-A test, I have laptops with these displays in front of me right now. Looking at both screens I can't tell the difference in sharpness at normal viewing distance. Its only when I bring my nose close to the screen that I barely notice any difference.

What I have noticed though is that the colours on the UHD laptop are more vibrant. The colour reproduction on the FHD laptop is also very good but not as vibrant as the UHD laptop.

 

I totally agree with you!

 

I kinda disagree now maybe 4k on 15" is too much which i think you are right but I just got evga sc17 with 17" 4k display and its amazing .I mean i would prefer a 2k 1560 120Hz display but it was not an option i can choose with this laptop i mean running rocket league and BF4 on 4k is just Epic !

and for apps to this day i never encountered a major issue with scaling maybe with win 10 new update and the ability to choose Enhanced System scaling fixed a lot of the issues i had at first .

 

Of course I scale and I've had very little problem with scaling. Right now, Throttlestop is the only thing running that has scaled text a tad blurry. MSI afterburner graphics are fuzzy because I shrink it down to 75% (the text stays OK). GIMP had unusable tiny buttons but a UI mod exists (I found the better paint.net anyway), that's about it. I have also run my desktop and games at a variety of non-native res (1080p, 1440p, 2880x1620) and saw minimal scaling artifacts or fuzzies.

And to me at a normal viewing distance I can clearly see the difference. I swap between the 4K and 1080p still (that's my hybrid watercooling mod guinea pig) and notice it every time. 1080p is no longer "sharp" to me.

All up after scaling 4K nets me a 20-50% increase in desktop real estate depending on app/usage, with improved visual quality.

Viewing experience is subjective, so I'm not trying to say everyone will have the same experience as me, or will find the added expense a worthy investment, but I do think its worthwhile to note that these points about 4K being blurry or that DPI scaling negates the benefit are not universal. 4K is beyond the early adopter phase of a couple years ago, scaling issues will continue to decrease, and usability will continue to increase (e.g. more games will come out with scalable UIs)

As with anything else, individuals should go get personal experience and make up their own mind according to their values, rather than have randoms on the internet, including me, tell them what to do

 

To each his own, my eyes can easily detect ANY blurriness and I cannot live with ANY, sorry.

Try this:
1) CTRL + R
2) services.msc
3) look at how blurry the text is, it's super duper sharp without DPI scaling
4) go to computer management > Disk management, same crap

these are freakin' Windows built in stuff that do not scale properly

But hey, if you're happy with it, that's all that matters. Not for me

 

This has been kinda fixed the in new fall creator update !

Just FYI even in 1080 on a 17" dispaly you need 125% scaling either way so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

It has been claimed to have been fixed in FCU, it hasn't. Tested it myself

With a 17 inch you don't need any DPI scaling, heck I was able to run a QHD display on my previous 17 inch Clevo P870DM3 and didn't need any scaling. It takes a while for your eyes to adjust then it become fine but with an FHD display on a 17 inch screen if you need scaling, then you need to have your eyes checked (no pun intended)

 

I don't 17 on 1080 without scaling is doable though I still think UI is small I guess you can get used to it either way .... I think we have to make the jump to scaling either way maybe not not now but it's coming very soon .

Apps are becoming more DPI aware recently hopefully it continues...

 

Well there is a fix for this, although it's a PITA

1) Right click on the EXE of the app that isn't scaling well and go to properties > compatibility tab
2) Enable the Override high DPI scaling behaviour scaling
3) Set it to system or system enhanced

That should fix the problem for that app that isn't scaling well.

A good example you can try, if you run VLC, it sucks with DPI scaling, the media control buttons would be small, on a 4K screen with any type of scaling, they'd look tiny. If you do the above trick, VLC would scale properly.

But it's just so tedious to do this for all the apps that don't scale well they are many.

 

Thanks for the info I am very familiar with this.
The only app right now that gave trouble is potplayer ( I don't like vlc) the app scale fine but the skin is not hidpi so it's small I tried to find online but nothing .

Also it was so hard to find a cursor set that is hi DPI .
But this problem fixed I am fine with it browsing the internet is just a joy man 4k browsing is just awesome the text is so detailed.

 

I use 150% to 175% scaling on a 15" monitor with 4k. So yeah, I can see better than you. 4k > any 1080p.

Scaling is a legacy issue. Just like x86 programs were a legacy issue. That's fine. But don't insinuate that the market should entirely ignore progress like 4k displays just because legacy software hasn't gotten the memo and upgraded their stuff. In fact, HAVING to cater to 4k scaling might actually kick some legacy in the butt and make it compliant.

I agree with bennyg. Make your own informed choices. What peeves me though, is people who believe that even having the OPTION is pointless. I am most emphatically one of the people who does see and enjoy the difference--and on a 15" no less. Again, maybe I can't see the difference between 3k and 4k on a 15", but I sure as **** can see the difference between 1080p and 3k on a 15". And since 3k isn't going to be mainstream (and WQXGA isn't going to be either) I insist on having 4k options on my 15" laptops.

 

I stopped reading after your first comment. you deserve no respect for your rudeness and avoiding the curse word filter is against the forum rules.

For a person that has been registered since 2009, you ought to have some etiquette and now how to play by the forum rules.

Use what suits you, no one is forcing you to agree with my opinion which many others agree to as well. I stated what suits me, 4K is garbage on a 17.3 inch screen or less. Period.

See ya

 

(edit: Phoenix says the ignore list comment was a mistake so my response is therefore no longer relevant)


But, I do criticise his opinion about blurriness, I followed his instruction list and saw nothing but sharp text in services.msc, diskmgmt.msc, or any other Windows system dialog which he insisted would be blurry.

Moral of the story, if you state a strong opinion you better be sure you continually update it according to a changing factual landscape, or you risk being wrong by the passage of time.

 

To bring in a third party perspective...

There must be some people that do not have an issue with the small sizing, no bluriness on scaling, or are willing to live with the sizing and/or bluriness issues. However, if there wasn't a market or desire for this panel, then it wouldn't be offered by the vendors or resellers.

That's the beauty of laptops like this, there's an option for everyone. Diffr'nt strokes for diffr'nt folks... Which I believe is what the old "Matrix Leader", benny and imperfectdarkness have all said. However, there's no need to become insulting or spout superiority of one view over the other.

 

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

 

My thought exactly. Very well said brother.

 

Yikes! I won't use anything but 100% scaling because I think anything more than 100% (regardless of resolution) just looks way too ugly for me to be willing to put up with it. That's my subjective personal opinion (which we all have... like belly buttons...) on the matter. Try using your 4K laptop at 100% scaling for a while and tell us how you like it. Calling respected members of this community that have contributed so much of themselves for so long an egocentric and adding a /facepalm just makes that person look bad to those reading it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can negate any value they might bring to a community by being nasty, caustic and seething with vitriol toward people that have a differing view. It's unfortunate that the moderators have to be baby sitters for that kind of spoiled child/immature adult. Less than 400 posts and 75 likes since 2009... kind of hard to understand the basis for such a display of disrespect.

The strong opinions are based on personal experiences and they are very accurate to those that hold them. YMMV with 4K is still applicable and could vary by operating system and applications one utilizes. While some may have been improved, it is unlikely that everything looks good. Plus, not everyone is willing to stoop to using Windows 10 and UWP filth only for the sake of progress made on 4K scaling in the limited areas where Micro$loth has focused their efforts. The progress isn't necessarily all that compelling, depending on one's perspective.

I think it is still pretty excellent advice that nobody should buy a system with a 4K display based on another person's recommendation because whether it is good or bad truly is subjective. Buying it because some like it is not very intelligent, and I think the smartest folks in our community (which includes you) would agree with that.

It really does not matter what kind of experience the advocate of 4K has with it because beauty is 100% in the eye of the beholder, and one man's trash can be another man's treasure. Anyone considering a 4K laptop display really need to spend some time with one, doing a wide variety of tasks with it, if they want to avoid the possibility of risk for major disappointment and buyer's remorse.

 

100% Agree with you bro!

 

Noted. I've now locked my profile as tight as a dolphin's butt--since that's the only way to prevent people from blatantly digging up details on me; and fox/phoenix have already demonstrated it's en-vogue.

---

The issue is still the dearth of UHD on the high end...especially at 15". I've been saying this whole time that a 1070gtx & UHD screen in a 15" should be an OPTION. Unfortunately, in most cases, it's simply not--or at least it wasn't in January 2017 when it was Clevo or Gigabyte (nothing else). That's entirely unacceptable. Which makes all the UHD hating even more silly--because it's not like UHD is the mainstream; it figuratively requires pulling of teeth to even have the option.

So yes, it's QUITE personal to me. Because each and every "White knight" who comes in here to defend the industry and it's decade-long downgrade of 1080p as more than sufficient for any laptop offering--is (to my purview) a luddite. I'm tired of it. No, WAY beyond tired of it. I'm livid.

My job precludes desktop solutions. My eyes preclude 1080p. Stop encouraging the industry to rob me of the choice.

 

I respect your right to have a different preference. I am not sure why you would think otherwise. Having options is a good thing. I know what the lack of options feels like, because there is only one model of laptop left that I would ever consider purchasing. Yup, just one. And, that's a shameful state for the industry. The industry is going to do whatever they think makes them the most money. Whether that is something good or something crappy makes no difference to them. They don't give a rat's ass what any of us actually want; but, they do try to manipulate consumers into believing that whatever they want to make the most money on is awesome and best for everyone. That's just how they roll.

What we are encouraging people to do it not spend any money on something just because the idea is popular with their friends on Facebook and the "professional reviewers" (shills). They need to know if it works for them and if they can actually expect to be happy with what they buy to avoid disappointment. 4K doesn't work for everyone, just like big, heavy and extra-powerful DTRs do not work for everyone.

FYI - I never visited your profile, and I don't remember ever seeing any of your posts before today. The "details" are on the left side of the thread, next to each post and under your user name.

 

Many people have come up with strong statements like "4K on 17" is silly" or "4K is way much nicer than 1080" etc.

Once I was in a very dark room trying to debug an application running unfortunately on a half-broken CRT screen which was flickering/ would not sync properly so I could read only a small part of the screen and only for very little time before it would flicker away. After I spent some time in front of that screen I opened the door and exited the dark room and walked into a well lit room where people were working on their computers. Instantly I noticed that everyone's screens were all broken because I could the frames flickering on their screens! It took a few minutes for my eyes/brain to adjust to this new reality.

Many other times I have realised I cannot hear at all high pitch sounds that younger people can clearly hear and even complain about.

I think therefore that there may be some people that will get annoyed/headaches when looking at some resolution or refresh rate and others that will not even notice it. It's just preference.

 

I got a 4K 15.6" display I could never go back down to any lower resolution, especially for gaming. The level of detail increase is extraoridary over 1080p. Even when I can't get high enough fps for vsync it's still worth it.

Desktop scaling is a bit problematic though. While I can visually see text fine at 100% scaling, it's so small that it takes a while for my brain to focus on the text and process it, so I typically run 150% scaling.

Linux is awful at scaling and I need to lower the screen res to 3K.

With that said I don't think 4K at 15.6" is ideal for most people. 2.5K or 3K would be better options considering how good my eyesight is, scaling problems, and most people not gaming on a GTX 1080.

1080p is trash though and it should die a fiery death. We need more intermediate resolution displays at 2.5K and 3K.

 

I can agree with this. ^ The issue is still that 3k will never be a widespread, mainstream solution. I may not be able to see much difference between 3k and 4k on a 15.6", but I can definitely see the difference between 1080p and 3k on a 15.6". So unless the industry is going to make 3k a standard (they won't)--then 4k options are what makes sense, and the MFG might as well get on board with offering it while the software programmers get on board with scaling to it.

p.s.
A DECADE ago, all I really wanted was WQXGA on a 15" (Ironically, which is still a tick below 3k). I still think that's probably the ideal for the form factor...but the industry went full derp.

 

I just want my 1920 x 1200P back or 16:10 resolutions in general

 

Yep. WQXGA is a sorely missed option in the laptop segment.

 

I just got the Acer Predator 27-inch one as I have to edit both pictures and play games And yeah its 4K. Actually read its review here:
https://factschronicle.com/best-4k-gaming-monitors-to-buy-in-2018-9406.html
There are others but I liked this one the best.

 

That list seems incomplete. I love my 40" curved 4k AOC monitor.

 

double post

 

will 144hz make a difference for non fps games?

 

4k is not for hardcore gamers, we care way more about our 144 or 240FPS rather than 60FPS 4K.

 

144hz is irrelevant for non FPS gamers. I consider myself to be a pretty heavy gamer. I'd much rather have 4k than 240hz or even 120hz. 1080p is only a stop-gap, non-ideal solution for computers that can't handle 4k or overheat on 4k.

 

absolutely not, even in dota higher FPS helps a lot.

 

DOTA isn't much removed from an FPS, imho. No way in h.e. double-hockey-sticks am i going to go back to puny 1080p no matter how many hz it has. 40" 4k is damn close to perfect dot pitch.

 

What are you talking about? It's like day and night, it's a completely different genre. Even action RPG's, Beat em ups, and 3rd person action games can be greatly affected by low fps/high fps.

Every competitive gamer who has skill does not play on garbage 4k panels, they are way to slow and don't have enough refreshtime. Even some CS:GO players are still on CRT monitor because modern monitors aren't fast enough. 4k is a nightmare for every competitive gamer, we don't need garbage like 4k. We even lower graphics to get best FPS and an edge.