I've noticed there are a lot of 4k options with them lately, but is it one of those "you'll know if you need it" situations?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Is there any reason to go above 1080p on a laptop?
higher resolutions mean more battery usage
resolutions don't matter as much as aspect ratio does on a laptop
16:10 and 3:2 is a step in the right direction of better aspect ratios but 4:3 should make a return
also yeah tbh I wouldnt mind having a 2560x1440 monitor and a 1920x1440 monitor for my second
You don't see beyond full HD anyway. The shitty laptop cannot even handle 4k graphics
homosexual has spoken
I personally think 1080p is awesome, however I do work that requires constantly switching between a 1080p window (to record it) and a video editor to edit the footage
That means I need a slightly larger resolution to have a little breathing area, and 2560x1440 is absolutely perfect, 100x scaling of course
4K is pure dogshit, literally unusable if you dont use scaling, and like if youre gonna do 200x scaling on a 4K display thats just 1080p again but with more detail I definitely don’t need
and if you need the extra detail that’s what TVs are fricking for
1080p & 1440p are king
imo
>200x scaling on a 4K display thats just 1080p again but with more detail
yeah the text actually looks like text instead of sludge
poor homosexual cope
bro I fricking hate 4k monitors on laptops
I am literally NEVER doing anything that would require it, and I am NEVER in a situation where I would enjoy it
I'd say it really depends what you do. For an office machine with much text editing I would prefer 200-250ppi. It really makes a difference in readablitity.
If you are doing stuff like gaming FHD is fine.
4k just looks better, even on a screen that small
personally I'd only go to 1440p, best of both worlds
Better text and vector graphics rendering?
you guys are mentioning text when in all situations text should be readable on a 1440p screen even at 100x scaling, how fricking small are you making the text jesus
also vector is… vector, the point is that when you zoom in you dont get pixels
>the point is that when you zoom in
the point is you shouldn't have to fricking zoom in on everything
Of course you use scaling for normal text, but sometimes you are zooming around on some spreadsheet or having to zoom out for some images in a pdf and then it makes a difference.
You can't scale everything.
Yeah I like not being able to see frickhuge squares when looking at my screen.
Those squares make things look better.
You looked at screens like that for decades and didn't notice or care. You're just being pretentious
there's something vaguely ironic about posting a badly scaled-down version of this (inaccurate) chart
I did notice and care, which is why I upgraded to 1080p, 1440p, and then 4K as those technologies became available.
Obviously it’s less of a factor if we’re talking about a large screen being viewed from farther away.
>ESL
That shit can't be good for your eyes
In what world are you sitting away from more than 1meter away from your screen, routinely?
Are you one of those console peasants?
>he doesnt have a couch a big tv/projector and a wireless kb/m and sit at magical 5-6ft
Personally I only buy 4K laptops because I want integer scaling of 720p/1080p content; even with a good upscaling algorithm there's some blurriness.
I was surprised how the market seems to have moved toward 1440p as the standard for higher-end laptops; there were only two or three models of gaming laptop with a 4K screen when I looked last year. I guess it makes sense since 1440p over 4K improves battery life, makes games easier to run, and you're still getting the benefit of higher pixels per inch in applications, but it makes me wonder if 4K really has much longer on high-end non-business laptops.
OLED screens seem to come in either 4k or that weird 2880*1800 resolution... is that 3k?
anything around 190-ish ppi is good enough for me
on the laptop itself? WUXGA is plenty, 1900x1200 on a 13-14" is pretty tiny without enlarging text but on high gloss glass ips at least you get the contrast and visibility HOWEVER the higher nit backlights tend to go to the upper tange models with higher resolutions. DOUBLE HOWEVER, you need more battery watt hours like 84whr not 57whr IF the screen is higher pixels. Look out for that
on the display if you have the internet bandwidth for one or the need to open large images, can read text and use DPI settings, hardware to match if you game, go for a higher resolution external monitor
but if you game does 4k matter on a external monitor? If it's single player and you don't mind fps loss go for it. If it's mp and it's troubling you I'ved heard that upscaling 1080p on 4k displays with the upgraded nv/amd image sharpening tools can produce even better fidelity than native 1080p (while only using 1080p on the 4k)
What is the use case for more than 1366x768?
In my experience with dell and Lenovo mobile workstations they use the panel segments to force expensive panel upgrades.
The UHD panels are often much brighter (500-600nit), produce a full color gamut, and more accurate.
The 1080p panels are often dim ( 220-250nit) and barely shit out 60% srgb coverage, despite brighter color accurate panels being available at that size for 15 years
So if you want decent color, or you want to use your laptop in a brighter setting ( like outside) then you get forced into an expensive 400+ upgrade at time of purchase, despite the panel itself only being 100 dollars to purchase online.
big pp(i)
I've got a 4k monitor for my desktop. It's a waste unless you're doing graphic design or watching 4k video regularly. I recommend a smaller resolution with a higher frame rate for gaming.
It's not, text quality is much higher.