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?
higher resolutions mean more battery usage resolutions don't matter as much as aspect ratio does on a laptop16:10 and 3:2 is a step in the right direction of better aspect ratios but 4:3 should make a return
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 footageThat means I need a slightly larger resolution to have a little breathing area, and 2560x1440 is absolutely perfect, 100x scaling of course4K 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 needand if you need the extra detail that’s what TVs are fucking for1080p & 1440p are kingimo
>>100151755also yeah desu I wouldnt mind having a 2560x1440 monitor and a 1920x1440 monitor for my second
>>100151704bro I fucking hate 4k monitors on laptopsI am literally NEVER doing anything that would require it, and I am NEVER in a situation where I would enjoy it
>>100151776>200x scaling on a 4K display thats just 1080p again but with more detailyeah the text actually looks like text instead of sludge
>>100151704I'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.
>>1001517044k just looks better, even on a screen that smallpersonally I'd only go to 1440p, best of both worlds
>>100151704Better 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 fucking small are you making the text jesusalso vector is… vector, the point is that when you zoom in you dont get pixels
>>100152068>the point is that when you zoom inthe point is you shouldn't have to fucking zoom in on everything
>>100152068Of 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.
>>100151704Yeah I like not being able to see fuckhuge squares when looking at my screen.
>>100152321Those squares make things look better.
>>100152321You looked at screens like that for decades and didn't notice or care. You're just being pretentious
>>100152398there's something vaguely ironic about posting a badly scaled-down version of this (inaccurate) chart
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.
>>100152398I 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.
>>100151704anything around 190-ish ppi is good enough for me
>>100151704on 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 thaton 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)
You don't see beyond full HD anyway. The shitty laptop cannot even handle 4k graphics>>100151755Faggot has spoken
>>100152398In what world are you sitting away from more than 1meter away from your screen, routinely?Are you one of those console peasants?
What is the use case for more than 1366x768?
>>100151776poor faggot cope
>>100152571>ESL
>>100152495OLED screens seem to come in either 4k or that weird 2880*1800 resolution... is that 3k?
>>100151704In 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 yearsSo 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.
>>100151704big pp(i)
>>100155606>he doesnt have a couch a big tv/projector and a wireless kb/m and sit at magical 5-6ft
>>100152571That shit can't be good for your eyes
>>100151704I'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.
>>100159831It's not, text quality is much higher.
