1440p or 1080p

I see that the 1440p option for the desktop replacements have 5ms respone times. While the 1080 120hz one isn't specified.

At the same time I'm worried about the scaling for Windows 7 being bad for 1440p, because I'm gonna do some other stuff besides play games on it. Some games I'll be playing will have scaling option, but text may be a problem for me with other stuff.

I don't mind ghosting, but there's a certain level in which I'll find it intolerable. What's the minimum response time for minimal ghosting and for none at all?

 

It's a personal choice, but to me personally, I would never accept more than 1080P on a small taptop screen.

Click on the

Spoiler: DPI Scaling Text Mismatch Example

Windows 10 DPI Fix

The problem in Windows 10:
When you have a widescreen, with a resolution of 1920x1080 or higher or a bit lower, in Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 you would put your DPI scaling to 125% or higher to make text and images appear larger and more easy to read.
But when you put the DPI scaling to 125% in Windows 10, you see in a lot of dialogs and windows the font gets very blurry.
It does not matter if you are using the regular or custom Windows DPI scaling functions at your 'Screen properties'. Text will get blurry on 125%.
You can test if you have this bug also if you put your DPI scaling to 125% at your 'Screen properties', then reboot Windows (or sign in again when it asks you).
Then goto 'Control panel > Administrative tools > Services'.
If you have this issue also you would see the titlebar of the Services window has a font scaled good. But the services list itself is very blurry/unsharp to read.

The SIMPLE fix:
Right-click on the shortcut to your application that has blurry fonts, then select 'Properties'. Then tab 'Compatibility'. Then enable 'Disable display scaling on high DPI settings' and hit 'Apply'. then restart your application, and you see it will look good.

The DPI fix:
Windows 10 is using another scaling method for DPI as in Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1.
At some point we can understand Windows why they changed the DPI scaling in Windows 10. It is probably meant to support mobile devices more easy.
But if you like to use your Desktop as a Desktop, and you demand high quality only. Then you can use this fix until Microsoft has addressed this issue.
This fix simple tells Windows 10 to use the original DPI scaling as it was in Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1.

Why this is a small software program, and not some 'Registry Tweak' is because when you manually adjust the DPI settings at your 'Windows Registry'. Windows will reset your dpi settings every 2 reboots. Which means you would have to adjust the registry again (Microsoft forces you almost to use its new DPI scaling method).
You could use a batch file for it that starts when you start Windows(r) to change the registry DPI settings, but then a ugly CMD box would show if you turn on your computer.
This method we created simple works, does what you want. And will not show a ugly CMD box because its using pure API.

Side effects:
- It needs to start when Windows starts, but only for a couple milliseconds (you will not see it of course). Then it will adjust the DPI scaling to use the Windows 8 way. And then it will close itself.
- In Microsoft Edge (its new browser) some Adobe Flash objects will appear smaller, but you can simple overcome that by using Internet Explorer 11, or Chrome, or FireFox.

See before and after.

I never wanna deal with the above issues, I want everything consistent and thus, prefer 100% DPI scaling and THUS, running @ 1440P to me personally is not something I want to do @100% DPI scaling as it'd be too small for my liking.

Others might disagree but this is coming from a guy with good vision.

 

I disagree here. This argument has a lot of merit at 4K, but 1440p 120Hz is an amazing experience for gaming, the increased pixel density is noticeable and a 1070 or 1080 performs really well at that resolution. When scaling issues do occur they are easier to deal with a 1440p as well compared to 4K.

OP I think you need to try using a 1440p display in a store somewhere to decide for yourself. A lot of members here think scaling is the devil, while I would never consider going back to the graininess of 1080p. I rarely run into scaling issues either, and most are almost irrelevant that take under a second to correct by expanding the window.

Like for example those screenshots Phoenix posted don't bother me at all. I don't care if a menu I'll be on for like a minute looks a little blurry it doesn't ruin any experience for me. But it could for you so I suggest you check for yourself.

Also note a 5MS response time is good, that's under 1 frame so you won't be able to feel it in any way, even if the 1080p display is a 1ms response time (I highly doubt that) it will make no noticeable difference.

To me the benefits of a 1440p 120Hz display far outweigh the downsides of using scaling, like not even remotely close.

 

" i agree " Look how disgusting is 4k scaling..lol.... ( i had to resize because file was more than 2mb), With games or movies it's not acceptable

 

I respect your opinion and really would like to try the 1440P but I had a 1440P display on my previous 27 inch ASUS ROG Swift PG287Q and on a 27 inch monitor it was great, I wouldn't dare to use it on a laptop but hey, that's just me.

 

image not appearing because you uploaded it to the forum

Please use https://postimage.org

then copy/paste the forum hotlink (not the thumbnail forum hotlink)

 

What on Earth is that? That looks far far worse than my Windows 10 scaling with no modifications... Something is super wrong there. Task manager and file explorer in specific don't look like that at all. Are your desktop icon texts blurry too? It looks like scaling is on but you liked kept all the text blurry on purpose...

I've had 3 4K displays for reference... 12", 15", and 27"

That's why I emphasized try it to OP. Your position is valid, just a matter of preference. I don't tend to let things bother me unless they are seriously affecting my usage experience and scaling doesn't for me.

 

it was a joke lol! No it's perfect, its seem blurry because i had to rezize+ your zoom to check the picture give a sh** result., but 0 blurry at all with right settings. About desktop icon, i put a shadow. Only some old soft will might give some. I am totally happy and last week when i connected back the 1080p, i didnt like at all. For me 4k is greatfull but i would prefer to try the new 3k 120Hz

 

Lol oh... whoosh I guess. Btw I'd recommend not calling it 3k. That's far closer to 3200x1800 than 2560x1440p. Just call it QHD or 1440p.
HD = 720p
FHD = 1080p f is full
QHD = 1440p Q stands for quad as in 4 times 720p
UHD = 2160p U stands for ultra and is 4 times 1080p

2K = 2048x1024
3K = 3072x1728
4K = 4096x2304

 

Consider the pixel density change when going from one screen to another. It's not a difficult calculation to make, even though it looks complicated below.

For example, I'm upgrading to the Eurocom Sky X7E2 with a 1440p 120 Hz 17.3" screen. The dimensions of the laptop screen are about 15.0 x 8.5 inches, and a resolution of 2560 x 1440. The pixel density therefore is about 170 ppi (linear scale, not square area).

My current laptop (Asus N82JQ) has a max resolution of 1384 x 768 (WXGA), and it's a 14.0" screen with dimensions of about 12.2 x 6.8 inches. The pixel density therefore is about 113 ppi.

Since the new pixel density is 170/113 = 1.5 i.e. 50% higher, words and icons will now be 1/1.5 = 66% the size of what they would be (assuming a 14" screen), or 1/3 smaller (lengthwise! this is linear!). A 1-inch long object would translate into something just over 1.5 cm in size.

But since my laptop screen has also gotten bigger by 8.5/6.8 = 1.25 i.e. 25% bigger, the real change in size of icons, words etc. will be 1.25/1.5 = 0.83 i.e. 16% smaller. I confused myself for a moment. Screen size does not affect the apparent size.

I think I can live with that change. Really that's not a massive decrease in size, and I sit about 2 feet away from my current laptop screen (I will have to move it closer, say to 1.5 feet, to allow for some heat exhaust from the back of the laptop, currently it's expelled from the side). I also have very good eyes hahahah.

Sure the square area will also change, but realistically one must understand that if you don't change your mouse movement speed, you're not actually losing mouse accuracy, only a visual appearance that you're moving your mouse slower. I have gained an enormous amount of screen estate ( 15 desktop icons vs 8 currently) because the size of the icons in pixels don't change (and I'm not changing it either), and I simply have a much more massive laptop screen.

Hadriel

 

Oh my! So 4K is not exact multiplier from FHD? Then how the heck did it become the new standard at all without GPUs to support it and movies natively recorded in it? Solely for beautiful name, really? Or was it like Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD - it was pr0n choice? I don't get it.

 

4K is almost always referring to UHD. Its close enough its just not technically correct. Every 4K tv you see for instance is 2160p. The marketing thing is just to call it 4K though. 2K is 1080pish as well. 3K is the one people misuse the most referring to 1440p as 3K when that's not really very close.

 

Ooh, so 4K is like RAM it can be PC-10700, PC-10600, PC-10664 etc...

 

Best to say the spec instead of a fad term like 3K or 4K. Either abbreviated like 1080p or 1440p, or to be perfectly clear 1920*1080, 2560*1440, or 3840*2160 and then there can be no mistake (or debate).

Wonder what the deal is with all of the "K" stuff? 6700K, 3K, 4K... Special K. Marketing people must really like the letter K, LOL. I like it instead of zeros after dollar signs, but "M" is even better than "K" is. $1M > $1K

 

Kool-Aid?

 

J00 missed the main point. It all started with Y2K

 

The terminology for resolutions - and the amount of resolutions out there - is nuts. 4K can either mean 3840 × 2160 (a.k.a "psuedo 4K") or 4096 × 2304. Where does the madness end??

 

K for... wallet Killer!

 

Yeah 4K screens are really a wallet killer and blown out of proportion.. Seen a 15" 4K screen and almost went blind trying to use that laptop..

 

a friend of mine bought a Lenovo Yoga after the salesman told her it has an awesome 4K screen and she was tearing her hair apart after looking at text on that tiny 15 inch screen with a 4K display. So I had to set a 250% DPI scaling for her but many programs didn't display correctly and the buttons were misaligned and whatnot.

 

Going higher than 1080p only makes sense if the display is larger than 23" since that is the sweet spot for that resolution anyway. 4K is good if you're getting large external monitors or getting your next big screen.

 

I initially struggled to read text at 1440p @27"... 4K will need to be like 35" or just not an option for me... lol

 

Yeah me too, I had a hard time at first with my ASUS PG278Q @ 1440P but it was bearable, I think I am going to have to scale by at least 125% if I were to get it on the P870DM3

 

Just go my S2417 which now sits side by side with the P2415 that already had.
So 155 Hz vs 60 Hz , 2K vs 4K ?

The 4K display is noticeably crisper and all texts, images and websites look smoother than on the 2K display. However when things start to move, the 2K display has the upper hand and everything seems nicer on the 2K display.
It is also clear that staring for long periods of time at the 2K display at 155Hz doesn't seem to tire the eyes as much as the 4K display. I also believe we could go higher than 155 since there is room for improvement in terms of movement clarity. I do hope that at some point in the future we will get 300 Hz displays at 4K resolution and everything will look crystal clear.

If I could get it, I would definitely get a 24 inch 4K , 120Hz + display, but none exist currently on the market.

I suspect that on a 17 inch laptop, 2K should be fine, bringing the best of both words. Since I already own a 17 inch 1920x1200 laptop for 8 years now, I simply refuse to go back to 1920x1080.

Scaling and multi-display support in Windows is horrible. I also run macOS on my desktop and I have to say, macOS has absolutely perfect scaling and multi-display support. Windows should learn a thing or two from Apple when it comes to this.

P.S.
I'm sorry to say, but 16:10 are still better formats than 16:9. I wish we could go back to that.

 

Since you pretty much have to choose between them right now, at that size I'd go 120Hz every time. I'd have to go to a significantly larger screen before I started wanting 4K.

 

For gaming yes, 120 Hz is far better than 4K. For work, higher resolutions would be noticeably better the only downsize is scaling.

 

Video editing on a 27" 4K monitor seems too small, so 17" would seem like a monitor for ants I would imagine.

Although if you need color accuracy on the go, the 4K is a no brainer.

 

Silly question perhaps: If I have a Full HD screen in my laptop and connect a 4K screen externally, can I run that 4K screen at 4K and game in 4K or is it limited to the laptops resolution?

 

you can

 

FHD and 4K UltraHD 60Hz panels are 25ms response, both are IPS
QHD 120Hz is 5mm response, it is TN

 

Oh boy.. just got myself excited over 120Hz and now I get pulled back to Earth by learning it's TN...

 

You really don't want a 120Hz IPS screen. It's tits on a bull.

 

TN is not necessarily a bad thing. Given how the FHD 120hz IPS panel "rocks" a 25ms response time, which renders the refresh rate absolutely useless thanks to severe ghosting, a TN panel that actually sports a 5ms response time is the only choice adequate for 120hz. In fact, you need below 8.33ms response time not to run into ghosting on 120hz monitors. Someone else did the maths in this forum, not taking the credit for myself - just stating the facts.

Word is that TN has improved a lot, and viewing angles are not half as bad as before. While IPS displays are supposed to have more vibrant colours and better contrast, the new TN's are said to come close to them, while being the only real choice if you plan on enjoying smooth 120hz.

 

If the Chi Mei panel used in the new MSI laptops is any indication, the colour space covered is pretty much on par with your average IPS panel.

 

I'd agree with this. There have been some improvement in TN panels to bring better viewing angles and colors. There are some that are near IPS levels and are pretty good. Also, at the same time, some IPS panels have come down on response time, but still not quite as low as TN. Don't just assume because a screen is IPS or TN, that it is going to be completely horrible in some aspects. Each panel is different, and finding the specs (on panelook or a similar site) can give some good information if it is the right one for your needs.

 

http://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/2ad87436 - this is a good comparison between TN and IPS. BTW, the S2417DG Dell says has a 82% NTSC. http://i.dell.com/sites/doccontent/...hure-low-res-version-for-email-US-English.pdf

View angles are also almost as good as IPS and I can confirm that on my display. I would say that colour accuracy is better on the IPS and colours seem a tad more vibrant. If you guys want I can send you a picture of the screens side by side. I use them side by side all the time.

 

Come to think of it, my P670SG has a TN panel and that is pretty sweet, colorful and bright. For a second I was stuck in the past with my 'TN sucks' attitude. I correct myself

 

Gee, so it's either excellent color reproduction in IPS or insanely good refresh rates in TN?

I need to know cos not just for laptop screens but also for any future monitor upgrades

 

With desktop displays you can burn some extra power to over come some of the limitations so the rules are slightly different.

 

Citizens, what is that 1440p 17.3 5ms TN panel that everyone is talking about? Also, does anyone know if Clevo 670 series will be getting such an option / or is there a panel that we can install ourselves to it?

On another note, if it is not a possibility for 670 series, is there a Clevo reseller in Europe that sells Clevo 775dm with a QHD TN 5ms 120 hz panel? The waiting game is killing me!

 

The 1440p 120hz 5ms TN panel has the model number AUO B173QTN01.0. As far as I know, the 670 series suffer from bandwith limitations and won't receive such a screen, I might be wrong though. So far the P775 and P870 series can be ordered with such a screen. In Europe, I know that DreamMachines.pl (also a Prema Partner) offer ordering the 1440p panel on request, but they don't have it in stock and order it from Clevo directly which takes 4-6 weeks. I am considering buying from them and would have certainly already done so, if not for my work that let me relocate to China.

 

Thanks for your reply. Has anyone yet gotten their hands on and reviewed this panel? Like, Is it true to specifications like 5ms response time..

4-6 weeks waiting time, man I should have bitten the bullet a month ago and order that from DreamMachines already.

 

Shame the 670 aren't getting the 2K/4K screens. I am pretty much eyeing those for my next laptop, the P775 is simply too big and bulky for me.

 

Yeah, BTO.eu sells them.
They call them differently though. The P775 is called the X•BOOK 17CL79 and the P870 is called the X•BOOK 17CL80.
They don't show the 3K screens, but I know for a fact that you can order them and that they are inbound as we speak (on some container on a ship somewhere).

 

Have you played around on a 17.3", 4K screen in the past?

 

Only on 24 inch. Have seen them in shops though and I really like them.

 

All the display Info that you need, numbers, math, proof, HW etc. Again !!

FHD is the only viable option for myself.

QHD 120Hz can't keep up with the upcoming games but yeah as of now a GTX1080/1070 would make them scream but later on I doubt it. Still good than 4K anytime but the downgrading from QHD to FHD won't render properly in games and in windows as well, 4K downscaling to FHD is viable since the 1080 x 2 is 2160 but unfortunately Micro$lop windows blows the text being not clear at all, Still the full pixels have to be driven by the GPU(s) It's waste of buying the high resolution and not using them at it's fullest while taxing the GPU(s).

It's shame that there's no FHD 120Hz *real* with the Clevos as of now, not some fake IPS B$. MSI only has that with GSync certification as well iirc.

 

Right on, then! As long as it treats you well and you enjoy it, go for it.

 

If you drop AA and details the 1080 would keep up for a time, the 1070 less so.

 

Depends what you wanna do with your laptop. For gaming I have my watercooled desktop with a 5820K at 4.5 Ghz and a 1080 soon to be watercooled at 2.05 Ghz. For work I have my laptop but I still game on it from time to time something like Dota or Starcraft.
I will say it again, for anything else than gaming or 3D max/autocad a higher resolution display will be better than FHD.

Thing is I don't want to downgrade to 1920x1080. 2K would be fine and I am crazy enough to keep my laptop at native resolution (1440p vertical space), maybe scale it to 110%. For 4K I would scale to 175% and get 1230 vertical pixels ... which would be very close to my current display and still make everything nice and crisp. I was really determined to get a P775 but after some careful consideration I realised that thing is way too heavy and bulky to carry everyday around.

I still want to buy a Clevo, I simply don't trust any other brand. Just have to wait a bit longer. It's a shame when after 8 years (I got this machine in Dec 2008) I still can't find a proper replacement for my machine.