4 ms·

> This laptop ships with either double or quadruple that, making me wonder what the trade-off is like of having this (for me) gimmick. Surely it doesn't double/

by lhl 4y ago

> This laptop ships with either double or quadruple that, making me wonder what the trade-off is like of having this (for me) gimmick. Surely it doesn't double/quadruple the battery drain or halve/quarter the performance compared to a normal screen? From their configuration site: "The 4K display consumes more power, averaging 8W but provides incredible detail and excellent scaling support that allows you to change the UI (User Interface) to a size that's comfortable for almost everyone. The QHD display supports a refresh rate of 165Hz, which offers a silky smooth experience. It consumes less than half the power of the 4K display at 3.2W. Limited scaling support on Linux means that the UI on this display is relatively small compared to other display resolutions" It seems like the QHD display would be the way to go for lower power. I'd guess the power would be lower if you didn't run it at the full 165Hz refresh (there's probably a 60Hz mode)...

lucb1e 4y ago
It's not the screen that I was afraid of so much as the processing power. From my understanding, the main power draw of a screen comes from its light output and area size (they advertise with about double or triple the nits mine has) rather than from how many pixels it has. Regardless, it's a good point that I should not ignore the screen while considering the processing power needed to drive said screen!
- lhl 4y ago
  Well, there is the backlight, but also the power usage of the TCON (timing controller board) for each display that will vary greatly. Usually the 4K ones end up being less efficient. If you get the 4K display, you can of course set the output to 1080p which would solve the "processing power" end. I think the difference between 1080p and 1440p (or their 16:10 equivalents) at 60Hz would be negligible from a GPU perspective (especially if PSR is set on), but ultimately you'd have to test the two different models with different resolution settings to really be able to tell.
  - scns 4y ago
    > I think the difference between 1080p and 1440p (or their 16:10 equivalents) at 60Hz would be negligible from a GPU perspective It is close to twice the number of pixels. 1080p = 2.073.600 1440p = 3.686.400 2160p = 8.294.400

by lhl 4y ago

lucb1e 4y ago

It's not the screen that I was afraid of so much as the processing power. From my understanding, the main power draw of a screen comes from its light output and area size (they advertise with about double or triple the nits mine has) rather than from how many pixels it has. Regardless, it's a good point that I should not ignore the screen while considering the processing power needed to drive said screen!

lhl 4y ago
Well, there is the backlight, but also the power usage of the TCON (timing controller board) for each display that will vary greatly. Usually the 4K ones end up being less efficient. If you get the 4K display, you can of course set the output to 1080p which would solve the "processing power" end. I think the difference between 1080p and 1440p (or their 16:10 equivalents) at 60Hz would be negligible from a GPU perspective (especially if PSR is set on), but ultimately you'd have to test the two different models with different resolution settings to really be able to tell.
- scns 4y ago
  > I think the difference between 1080p and 1440p (or their 16:10 equivalents) at 60Hz would be negligible from a GPU perspective It is close to twice the number of pixels. 1080p = 2.073.600 1440p = 3.686.400 2160p = 8.294.400