5 ms·

I am the exact opposite. If a laptop isnt 4k it isn't even a contender. 4k really makes a huge difference to me because the image quality is that much better. B

I am the exact opposite. If a laptop isnt 4k it isn't even a contender. 4k really makes a huge difference to me because the image quality is that much better. Battery life is generally shit on all laptops whether it has 4k or not. So this is good news from amd because I like them much more than Intel

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I'd encourage you to plug in the screen size and resolution into a calculator like https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator before making a decision that it's required. A 4k display is 'retina' at distances much closer than people sit, even at 27". On a laptop size screen, it's even worse. I have a xps 13 and I specifically chose the 1080p version. Even at that res I still have to zoom / scale.
- short12 5y ago
  I have an xps 13 and specifically chose the 4k. I love it and there is no going back to 1080p for me. When I am using the dock it is connected to a pair of 4k 27" dells and it's glorious all around
  - The_Colonel 5y ago
    What you might be seeing is actually the difference between matte and glossy display. I was like you, seeing how supreme 4K panel was ... until I saw glossy 1080p which was much sharper than 1080p matte (which desharpen the image) and not much different from 4K (to my eyes). (all comparisons took place on XPS 13s)
- basilgohar 5y ago
  Different people see things differently. Pixels may not be individually resolvable, but that is far from the only feature that impacts viewing quality. Anti-aliased fonts will look clearer and smoother at smaller sizes on a higher resolution screen. Lines will be sharper. Those with better near vision can pack more details into the page.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    Yep, I think this is called 'subpixel visual acuity' and there is a marginal benefit
    - basilgohar 5y ago
      I would argue it depends on the person. I'd love to be able to test this independently myself, but I don't have enough cash to spare to do so. If you're aware of folks testing this, it'd be great to share that. The fact remains that 4k displays have been available for non-AMD laptops for a very long time (at least a few years) so they keep making them and people keep buying them, so I'd like that arrangement to be offered at least for AMD laptops as well, because it's definitely something lots of people, as this thread clearly demonstrates.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  There isn't any need to plug something into a calculator – the difference in text clarity is immediately obvious. 4K is a little overkill for a 14" screen, but I understand why the jump instead of making custom resolutions.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  I can clearly see the pixels on a 13" or 15" laptop display at 1080p. It doesn't start looking seamless until 1440p or so. The advantages of 4K depend heavily on the quality of your eyesight
- acdha 5y ago
  How's your vision? The difference for me is noticeable even without glasses — even on a 13" display, the higher resolution display is quite obvious since you don't see visible pixel boundaries and I find it's less strain over the course of a day. (And to be clear, I’m not asking to be mean — I have multiple friends who were skeptical about retina displays, got an updated eye exam, and became huge fans)
  - tomtheelder 5y ago
    Not the person you asked this to, but I have 20/20 recently tested. I can certainly see the difference between 1080p and 4k on a laptop screen. I just don't see how it's worth the extra cost and reduced battery life. Either way I think 1440p is the sweet spot. Wish more laptops would go that route.
    - acdha 5y ago
      That’s certainly fair - not everyone has the same priorities and budget. I don’t think anyone is saying you must buy a high resolution screen – it seemed more like rejecting the idea that it’s not useful.
- tehnub 5y ago
  I'm not sure if 4K is enough to be Retina on a 27 inch at normal viewing distances. Apple made their 24 inch iMac 4.5K, and they call that Retina. And also their 27 inch collab with LG is a 5K screen.
hangonhn 5y ago
What is it that you do that requires 4k? Genuinely curious. I'm a software engineer and to me 4k sounds like it wouldn't make a difference. But maybe you are one too and I just don't know any better. Thanks in advance.
- mike_pol 5y ago
  Text looks sooo much better in 4K. Antialiasing especially around curves kills text for me in 1080p. Plus if you have good eyesight you can fit more text on your screen.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    1440p would have the same result on a tiny screen.
    - short12 5y ago
      Personal experience but no. 1440p doesn't even come close
- indeyets 5y ago
  Eye strain is much lower on 4k because fonts are smoother. It's not about screen estate (but sometimes it is, if you really need it), but mostly about clarity and smoothness in 2x retina mode
- lultimouomo 5y ago
  For me the only, huge, selling point of 4k is text rendering. I could watch movies, do graphics or play games on a full HD screen all day long, but for programming I cannot go back.
- eulers_secret 5y ago
  I like the extra screen space 4K offers; but only on large screens. I run without any scaling (well, 100%), my editor offers 101 lines visible vertical and 470 columns. (each line is ~1/4" measured on a ruler; 27" screen 23" from my eyes) I can view ~6 open files at once (more depending), and this can be very helpful when trying to remember context: instead of remembering, I just split the screen and open the same file again. When I got a 4K monitor, it replaced my previous dual monitor setup. I now prefer just one high-res monitor. Only disadvantage is that I spend time tweaking font sizes, but that's mostly front-loaded and once it's set up (Linux) I don't even think about it.
t-writescode 5y ago
How close are you sitting to your 4k, presumably like 15 inch, screen? Or, how good is your vision? A 4k, 15 inch screen is "retina" at 12 inches away and has a ppi of 293.72. There may be something to be said about subpixels; but, it may be a placebo effect over a 1440p screen, honestly.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

I'd encourage you to plug in the screen size and resolution into a calculator like https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator before making a decision that it's required. A 4k display is 'retina' at distances much closer than people sit, even at 27". On a laptop size screen, it's even worse. I have a xps 13 and I specifically chose the 1080p version. Even at that res I still have to zoom / scale.

short12 5y ago
I have an xps 13 and specifically chose the 4k. I love it and there is no going back to 1080p for me. When I am using the dock it is connected to a pair of 4k 27" dells and it's glorious all around
- The_Colonel 5y ago
  What you might be seeing is actually the difference between matte and glossy display. I was like you, seeing how supreme 4K panel was ... until I saw glossy 1080p which was much sharper than 1080p matte (which desharpen the image) and not much different from 4K (to my eyes). (all comparisons took place on XPS 13s)
basilgohar 5y ago
Different people see things differently. Pixels may not be individually resolvable, but that is far from the only feature that impacts viewing quality. Anti-aliased fonts will look clearer and smoother at smaller sizes on a higher resolution screen. Lines will be sharper. Those with better near vision can pack more details into the page.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  Yep, I think this is called 'subpixel visual acuity' and there is a marginal benefit
  - basilgohar 5y ago
    I would argue it depends on the person. I'd love to be able to test this independently myself, but I don't have enough cash to spare to do so. If you're aware of folks testing this, it'd be great to share that. The fact remains that 4k displays have been available for non-AMD laptops for a very long time (at least a few years) so they keep making them and people keep buying them, so I'd like that arrangement to be offered at least for AMD laptops as well, because it's definitely something lots of people, as this thread clearly demonstrates.
akvadrako 5y ago
There isn't any need to plug something into a calculator – the difference in text clarity is immediately obvious. 4K is a little overkill for a 14" screen, but I understand why the jump instead of making custom resolutions.
tomc1985 5y ago
I can clearly see the pixels on a 13" or 15" laptop display at 1080p. It doesn't start looking seamless until 1440p or so. The advantages of 4K depend heavily on the quality of your eyesight
acdha 5y ago
How's your vision? The difference for me is noticeable even without glasses — even on a 13" display, the higher resolution display is quite obvious since you don't see visible pixel boundaries and I find it's less strain over the course of a day. (And to be clear, I’m not asking to be mean — I have multiple friends who were skeptical about retina displays, got an updated eye exam, and became huge fans)
- tomtheelder 5y ago
  Not the person you asked this to, but I have 20/20 recently tested. I can certainly see the difference between 1080p and 4k on a laptop screen. I just don't see how it's worth the extra cost and reduced battery life. Either way I think 1440p is the sweet spot. Wish more laptops would go that route.
  - acdha 5y ago
    That’s certainly fair - not everyone has the same priorities and budget. I don’t think anyone is saying you must buy a high resolution screen – it seemed more like rejecting the idea that it’s not useful.
tehnub 5y ago
I'm not sure if 4K is enough to be Retina on a 27 inch at normal viewing distances. Apple made their 24 inch iMac 4.5K, and they call that Retina. And also their 27 inch collab with LG is a 5K screen.

hangonhn 5y ago

What is it that you do that requires 4k? Genuinely curious. I'm a software engineer and to me 4k sounds like it wouldn't make a difference. But maybe you are one too and I just don't know any better. Thanks in advance.

mike_pol 5y ago
Text looks sooo much better in 4K. Antialiasing especially around curves kills text for me in 1080p. Plus if you have good eyesight you can fit more text on your screen.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  1440p would have the same result on a tiny screen.
  - short12 5y ago
    Personal experience but no. 1440p doesn't even come close
indeyets 5y ago
Eye strain is much lower on 4k because fonts are smoother. It's not about screen estate (but sometimes it is, if you really need it), but mostly about clarity and smoothness in 2x retina mode
lultimouomo 5y ago
For me the only, huge, selling point of 4k is text rendering. I could watch movies, do graphics or play games on a full HD screen all day long, but for programming I cannot go back.
eulers_secret 5y ago
I like the extra screen space 4K offers; but only on large screens. I run without any scaling (well, 100%), my editor offers 101 lines visible vertical and 470 columns. (each line is ~1/4" measured on a ruler; 27" screen 23" from my eyes) I can view ~6 open files at once (more depending), and this can be very helpful when trying to remember context: instead of remembering, I just split the screen and open the same file again. When I got a 4K monitor, it replaced my previous dual monitor setup. I now prefer just one high-res monitor. Only disadvantage is that I spend time tweaking font sizes, but that's mostly front-loaded and once it's set up (Linux) I don't even think about it.

t-writescode 5y ago

How close are you sitting to your 4k, presumably like 15 inch, screen? Or, how good is your vision? A 4k, 15 inch screen is "retina" at 12 inches away and has a ppi of 293.72. There may be something to be said about subpixels; but, it may be a placebo effect over a 1440p screen, honestly.