What's /g/ opinion to 4k screens in laptops. My opinion is that it's kind of useless. It's a tiny screen that doesn't need that sort of pixel density.
>>54380284
Why dont you use a 800x480 phone or tablet then?
1080p looks great on a smartphone screen. 4 smartphone screens mashed together would be about the same size, maybe smaller, than a laptop screen.
So I dont see why 4k on a laptop screen would be kind of useless. I've used 20" 4k displays and they look fucking incredible, but still dont match the pixel density of a good phone screen.
>>54380284
>It's a tiny screen that doesn't need that sort of pixel density.
wow nice argument fagtron, you sure convinced me with those hot opinions
>>54380284
>It's a tiny screen that doesn't need that sort of pixel density.
Okay.
I have a 15" laptop with a 4k screen
There is a noticeable difference and I would say its worth it if OS's learn to scale correctly. Windows is a must for 4k, every distro I have tried has had major issues with scaling.
>>54380284
A Retina screen on an Apple product is simply rubbish.
But a 4K screen on any non-Apple product is tops.
Because Apple.
>>54381730
Linux distros with the right DE work better on 4k displays compared to windows. A lot of windows programs have blurry icons and text once scaled up when most Linux programs don't look blurry once scaled.
>>54380382
>1280x800
>not having a 5.5" 4K display
>>54380311
>Implying I dont
>>54380284
I have a 4K display on my 14" laptop.
It's the worst thing ever. Windows scaling is fucking horrible.
>>54380284
ive seen 4k laptops next to 1080 laptops.
personally the difference is noticeable but it wont warrant me to pay 300 extra just to see something slightly better. that and the amount of battery it would burn through.
and none of the media i consume outputs at 4k comfortably. i guess i could pay for 4k netflix or something but at the end of the day 4k shows that we have perfected monitors so much that companies are desperate to find the new thing.
4k will be used in the future. but for now its just a luxury item.
It's a fucking meme. 1080p on a 11.3" laptop is tiny. Anything smaller than 40" for 4k is to small to read.
>he saw the linustechtip video
>>54383318
That left side name alignment is disgusting
>>54380284
With good scaling it is of course, useful. If you're only fucking around with general, integrated graphics shit like browsing and media, its fine. However, if you have that kind of resolution on a laptop and you have a discrete GPU for gaming, then its a tall order to play at your native res at times.
Though to be honest, I'm waiting for Thunderbolt 3 GPU boxes to mature a little more and then it won't be much of an issue. I'll pick up a GPU-less 4K laptop with a good processor, and then when gaming use the Thunderbolt 3 box/dock with a real desktop card instead.
>>54386051
A dockabke laptop with an eGPU would be cool but laptops are so tight on cooling already. I would do it if I could get extra cooling on the CPU
>>54386083
Supposedly it works fine so far. Most heat comes from the GPU. Razer Blade Stealth works like this with no issue, and even a 4k IGZO full gamut screen. Razer Core is their tb3 GPU box. Only problem with Stealth is the shiity dual core i7 instead of a proper quad core i7 or I'd probably buy one. It's basically a 13 inch laptop without a GPU, it can handle a full quad.
>>54386161
yeah, if you check out notebook check plenty of laptops can handle quad core cpu loads without throttling
asus and dell are good at it
>>54384662
>Anything smaller than 40" for 4k is to small to read.
Are you a literal retard?
>>54380284
serious question: which hidpi laptops have the longest battery life? I know that 4k on an xps 13 drags it down to like 8 hours but that isn't so bad; except of course when compared to the 12 hour 1080p version 1440p on the x1 carbon brings it from 9-7 hours. Macbook Pro 13 gets 10 hours.
anything else I dont know about?
Waste of battery
>>54383250
>Not having battery life
Higher than 1080P res eats battery life and generally most people want 8-12 hours battery life a day
>>54382590
Example please
4k is fucking ridiculous. Hardware can't even support 4k resolution. Especially not for mobile games.
>>54388636
>mobile GPU can't into 4k gaming
So set it to 1920x1080, it'll scale perfectly
>>54388673
>scaling up
>good graphics
pick one
>>54380284
My opinion is that new technology is good. People post for it, leading to research and lower prices. Better screens are made, with lower power consumption and better response. The people saying "stop the progress here, it's enough" are ALWAYS wrong in the technology sector
>>54388983
*pay for it
>>54380284
It's a great idea, sadly no 4k laptop got the execution right yet and gives up too much battery life. Plus there are scaling issues with Winshit and Linux.
>>54383250
Now that's pure idiocy. Anything beyond 1080p on a phone has literally no benefits.
Whatever it takes for Microshaft to fix their horrid scaling, we've just had a few XPS-13's in and the panels are gorgeous but need custom scaling to be usable, even then if you're running multiple resolutions it'll shit the bed.
>>54380344
They don't need to match that density because they are meant to be looked at from a greater distance.
>>54388698
You're retarded
>>54391387
Except they are not
If I had to look at my laptop screen twice the distance I look to my smartphone, it would be out of reach
Only apple can pull it off for the laptops since everything but OSX has absolute shit scaling
>>54385748
> neko atsume
muh negro
