The sad state of screen resolution in Windows PC laptops

[skaertus]

It really annoys me to see how manufacturers failed to increase the screen resolution of PC laptops over the last few years.

In June 2010, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4 with Retina Display, which consisted of a 4-inch screen with a 960x640 resolution. According to Apple, the high pixel density (326 ppi) made individual pixels invisible to the human eye.

In June 2012, about two years later, Tim Cook introduced the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display, a 15.4-inch screen with a 2880x1800 resolution. In October 2012, the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro also received a Retina Display, with a 2560x1600 resolution. The iPad had already received a Retina Display a few months earlier.

The last Apple product to get a Retina Display was the iMac. The 27-incher got one in 2014, and the 21.5-incher, in 2015.

Smartphone manufacturers followed suit, and while they could not use the "Retina Display" trademark, shortly thereafter, they also started to offer high pixel densities in their screens.

In fact, I cannot recall the last time I saw a smartphone in which I could see the individual pixels. All models, including the cheap low-end ones, include a high-resolution display. I remember when I got a Moto Z Play, a medium-range phone launched in 2016, and it had a 1920x1080 resolution. Last year, I got a Galaxy S20 Plus, which had a 3040x1440 resolution in a 6.7-inch screen (which was far more than I needed).

Just take a look at Amazon.com and you will find a Galaxy A50 selling for $200, and it includes an AMOLED screen with a 2340x1080 resolution. Very cheap, and high pixel density.

High pixel density screens are in nearly every smartphone. But not in laptops.

In January 2016, I bought a Dell XPS 9550, which came with a 4K screen. It had a beautiful 15.6-inch display with a 3840x2160 resolution. I paid $1,900 for it.

I thought that these retina-like screens would become more popular in laptops over the years. Within 5 years, I thought, it would be in nearly every laptop. Nearly all smartphones already had retina-like screens by 2016, a few years after the iPhone got one, so it was just a matter of time. But it did not happen.

Now, we are in 2021. More than five years after I purchased my XPS 15, Dell still only offers a resolution higher than Full HD in its high-end XPS line of laptops. It never made into the Inspiron line.

But it is not only Dell. Nearly all manufacturers, with few exceptions, offer a retina-like resolution as an option in the highest-end line of laptops. And usually, it is not offered as standard even in the high-end products.

Two days ago, Samsung unveiled new laptops, the Galaxy Pro and the Galaxy Pro 360, thin and light models with AMOLED displays. And guess what? The displays are still Full HD only.

I have heard a possible explanation that higher resolutions on larger screens would make them far more expensive. I do not buy it, especially since there are 4K TVs, with screens far larger than any laptop, selling for as low as $250.

This is hugely disappointing, especially considering that the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display was released almost nine years ago. And that even the cheapest, lowest-end, phones have a screen resolution superior to Full HD.

The bottom line is, I can find a screen with a resolution superior to Full HD in (a) any Apple product, (b) any $200 phone, (c) most TVs, or (d) select high-end PC laptops, some of which will offer this only as an option but will not come standard.

Am I the only one really annoyed with this situation? Is it so hard to put a retina-like resolution in a laptop?

 

[grmlin]

4K screens (or similar resolutions) are everywhere in laptops. Don’t really know what you are talking about to be honest.
There are also tons of people who prefer lower resolutions like 1080p in laptops for better gaming performance and higher refresh rates over higher resolutions.
Btw. FullHD in 15” is pretty high res and sharp already

 

[The_Interloper]

I believe half the problem for a while was due to Windows. Scaling on HiDPI displays was horrible, causing tiny fonts in certain apps etc. This has now been fixed in the last few years, but it surely held the market back.

And then there's the questionable power management. Intel CPUs aren't exactly power-sipping at the best of times, but OS X/macOS always seemed to be able to squeeze out more battery life than Windows ever could. Again, things are now much better but adding 4K displays to Intel-powered Windows laptops always seemed to be a recipe for lousy battery life.

 

[mi7chy]

Glad there are options. Until they solve the battery life issue I don't want 4K resolution on a battery powered device that just drains more CPU, GPU and display power while offering very little difference on a 13" display. Sweet spot is 1080p or 1440p and I'll take quality such as OLED over quantity pixels.

 

[Amethyst1]

In June 2012, [...] introduced the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display. [...] In October 2012, the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro also received a Retina Display [...]

And in 2012, Asus offered the 11.6-inch ZenBook Prime with a 1920×1080 screen. The 2013 11.6-inch Sony Vaio Pro also has a 1920×1080 screen. When did the MacBook Air receive a "Retina Display"?

Dell still only offers a resolution higher than Full HD in its high-end XPS line of laptops

Even better - the XPS 13 can now be configured with a 3840×2400 (16:10) display.

 

[skaertus]

4K screens (or similar resolutions) are everywhere in laptops. Don’t really know what you are talking about to be honest.
There are also tons of people who prefer lower resolutions like 1080p in laptops for better gaming performance and higher refresh rates over higher resolutions.
Btw. FullHD in 15” is pretty high res and sharp already

Well, I do not see that happening.

I have just made a quick search on Dell's and Lenovo's websites. Lenovo has 78 laptops, out of 437, with a resolution superior to Full HD. And Dell has only 38 out of 483.

I live in Brazil, and, apart from Apple Macs, there is only one laptop for sale in the whole country which has a resolution superior to Full HD: the Dell XPS 13. No other model is available.

Now, take a look at smartphones: 100% of Samsung smartphones would classify as having a retina-like display.

As for your other point, Full HD resolution in a 15.6-inch screen means 141 ppi. Which is nowhere near the 13.3-inch MacBooks which have 227 ppi. 141 ppi may be fine for watching videos and YouTube, but it is far from great for working with documents.

 

[mi7chy]

Unless you live on the road that much why waste your money on a 4K 13" when you can enjoy a 4K 48" OLED? Even on larger screen sizes I still think 4K is gimmicky and 1440p is the sweet spot when considering GPU into the picture and I have AMD 6900xt and Nvidia 3090.

 

[GoldfishRT]

Phones are far more common devices and I don't doubt the economies of scale have informed availability of high resolution displays on them, there is probably some ease of production and better margins at play there too.

I think if you were to weed out all the budget notebooks, almost anything above a grand will have a high density option. Gaming laptops tend to not, since resolution is less of a priority over high refresh rate and business laptops wont because it's not considered a functional priority. Compare market segment to market segment, and I think you'd find that most laptops positioned similarly to Apple's will at least offer it. Every Surface device even from the lowly Go for instance. HP Spectres. Dell XPS. Razer Blades. All at least make it an option and where it's not present, it's usually as a way to undercut the competition or let the user spec to their particular desire. On my work computer, I really don't care as long as it's not so overtly bad as to make my eyes bleed and there's enough work space to get what I need done, done.

As an aside, right around 170 PPI is where I stop caring. My 27" 4k display is pin-sharp at normal viewing distances. I find 1080p at 13" is totally fine as well whereas at 15" I definitely notice how grainy it looks.

Unless you live on the road that much why waste your money on a 4K 13" when you can enjoy a 4K 48" OLED? Even on larger screen sizes I still think 4K is gimmicky and 1440p is the sweet spot when considering GPU into the picture and I have AMD 6900xt and Nvidia 3090

I find that surprising. I tried to move back down to a 1440P 144hz display from my 4K 60hz and decided I was just going to have to bite the bullet on a GN950 and whatever upgrade I can get to the 6800 I landed last month. Your tastes sound far easier and more affordable.?

 

[maflynn]

It really annoys me to see how manufacturers failed to increase the screen resolution of PC laptops over the last few years.

4k on a 15" inch laptop (never mind a 13") is a waste. The display is too small for such a high resolution - you're wanting to have even more?

 

[skaertus]

Unless you live on the road that much why waste your money on a 4K 13" when you can enjoy a 4K 48" OLED? Even on larger screen sizes I still think 4K is gimmicky and 1440p is the sweet spot when considering GPU into the picture and I have AMD 6900xt and Nvidia 3090.

Well, a 1440p screen would be enough for a 13-inch screen.

 

[skaertus]

4k on a 15" inch laptop (never mind a 13") is a waste. The display is too small for such a high resolution - you're wanting to have even more?

1440p on a 13-inch screen would be fine, as would be 1800p on a 15-inch screen. But the thing is, the vast majority of laptops do not even offer that. Nearly all laptops offer only 1080p, and nothing else.

As I mentioned before, less than 20% of Lenovo's offerings and less than 10% of Dell's offerings are above Full HD. And that is in the U.S.

Here in Brazil, out of 118 laptops offerings on Dell's website, there are 61 HD (yes, 1366x768), 56 FHD, and just 1 above FHD. And this is the only laptop available in the whole country (save for Apple's) with a resolution above FHD. The only one.

So, while there are laptops available with a higher resolution, they never made it to the mainstream.

 

[skaertus]

Phones are far more common devices and I don't doubt the economies of scale have informed availability of high resolution displays on them, there is probably some ease of production and better margins at play there too.

I think if you were to weed out all the budget notebooks, almost anything above a grand will have a high density option. Gaming laptops tend to not, since resolution is less of a priority over high refresh rate and business laptops wont because it's not considered a functional priority. Compare market segment to market segment, and I think you'd find that most laptops positioned similarly to Apple's will at least offer it. Every Surface device even from the lowly Go for instance. HP Spectres. Dell XPS. Razer Blades. All at least make it an option and where it's not present, it's usually as a way to undercut the competition or let the user spec to their particular desire. On my work computer, I really don't care as long as it's not so overtly bad as to make my eyes bleed and there's enough work space to get what I need done, done.

As an aside, right around 170 PPI is where I stop caring. My 27" 4k display is pin-sharp at normal viewing distances. I find 1080p at 13" is totally fine as well whereas at 15" I definitely notice how grainy it looks.


I find that surprising. I tried to move back down to a 1440P 144hz display from my 4K 60hz and decided I was just going to have to bite the bullet on a GN950 and whatever upgrade I can get to the 6800 I landed last month. Your tastes sound far easier and more affordable.?

Phones are more common and benefit from economies of scale, but laptops could as well. Many laptops across several manufacturers use similar 13.3", 14", or 15.6" screens. These screens could be 1440p or 1800p or 2160p instead of 1080p, and benefit from economies of scale as well.

When you say that almost anything above a grand will have a high-density option, you are clearly referring to laptops available in the U.S. And, even so, to the high-end. Most people buy budget laptops, and very few seem to care about spending lots of money on the high-end.

Any cheap $200 phone will have a high-density display, but only $1000-plus laptops will have them. I think there may be a distortion here. Perhaps because people were initially scared away by the scaling problems on Windows 10 and manufacturers never cared to offer high-density screens again.

 

[maflynn]

1440p on a 13-inch screen would be fine, as would be 1800p

i disagree, I have a 15" 4k laptop and the native resolution is just too small. True scaling improves things, but at that point you're scaling things up to 1080P Why bother with a 4k.

This article goes a bit into the pros and cons

4K on laptops: is it worth it?

4K or not 4K – that is the question…

www.techradar.com

4K is a very high resolution, cramming 3,840 x 2,160 pixels into the display. If you’re buying a smaller laptop, with a more compact screen, there’s certainly an argument that 4K provides diminishing returns. In other words, the smaller the screen, the less noticeable the improvement when you jack up the resolution.

So if 4k on 15" laptop is borderline how much less appealing would something higher be, on a 15" or even a 13"

If you want 4k on a 13" more power to you, but I believe you're desire of resolutions higher then 4k on 13" and 15" form factors are probably in the minority imo

So, while there are laptops available with a higher resolution, they never made it to the mainstream.

That's more of a regional issue, here in the US, its quite easy to find 4k laptops.

 

[LeeW]

If Apple dropped the Retina display or provided a model without it and reduced the price they would sell more and people would not complain. True story.

 

[MBAir2010]

The screen display on the non-4K Dell XPS 9380 is sharp, battery efficient and perfect for watching game of thrones season 8 episode 3 when the battle was taken and filmed during nighttime which depicted a better resolution than the iPad or TV.

the Dell's display was much sharper than the Macbook Pro 2019 according to the 2 other passerbys and an employee at Microcenter when we compared the 2 notebooks side by side.

-now back to the game!

 

[Amethyst1]

If you want 4k on a 13" more power to you, but I believe you're desire of resolutions higher then 4k on 13" and 15" form factors are probably in the minority imo

"1440p" means 2560x1440. "1800p" means 2880x1800. Both are lower than 4K/UHD which is referred to as "2160p" by some.

True scaling improves things, but at that point you're scaling things up to 1080P Why bother with a 4k.

Because that gives you the same screen estate as "1080p" but a much sharper picture. That's the whole point of small-but-high-res high-PPI displays.

 

[eljanitor]

It really annoys me to see how manufacturers failed to increase the screen resolution of PC laptops over the last few years.

In June 2010, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4 with Retina Display, which consisted of a 4-inch screen with a 960x640 resolution. According to Apple, the high pixel density (326 ppi) made individual pixels invisible to the human eye.

In June 2012, about two years later, Tim Cook introduced the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display, a 15.4-inch screen with a 2880x1800 resolution. In October 2012, the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro also received a Retina Display, with a 2560x1600 resolution. The iPad had already received a Retina Display a few months earlier.

The last Apple product to get a Retina Display was the iMac. The 27-incher got one in 2014, and the 21.5-incher, in 2015.

Smartphone manufacturers followed suit, and while they could not use the "Retina Display" trademark, shortly thereafter, they also started to offer high pixel densities in their screens.

In fact, I cannot recall the last time I saw a smartphone in which I could see the individual pixels. All models, including the cheap low-end ones, include a high-resolution display. I remember when I got a Moto Z Play, a medium-range phone launched in 2016, and it had a 1920x1080 resolution. Last year, I got a Galaxy S20 Plus, which had a 3040x1440 resolution in a 6.7-inch screen (which was far more than I needed).

Just take a look at Amazon.com and you will find a Galaxy A50 selling for $200, and it includes an AMOLED screen with a 2340x1080 resolution. Very cheap, and high pixel density.

High pixel density screens are in nearly every smartphone. But not in laptops.

In January 2016, I bought a Dell XPS 9550, which came with a 4K screen. It had a beautiful 15.6-inch display with a 3840x2160 resolution. I paid $1,900 for it.

I thought that these retina-like screens would become more popular in laptops over the years. Within 5 years, I thought, it would be in nearly every laptop. Nearly all smartphones already had retina-like screens by 2016, a few years after the iPhone got one, so it was just a matter of time. But it did not happen.

Now, we are in 2021. More than five years after I purchased my XPS 15, Dell still only offers a resolution higher than Full HD in its high-end XPS line of laptops. It never made into the Inspiron line.

But it is not only Dell. Nearly all manufacturers, with few exceptions, offer a retina-like resolution as an option in the highest-end line of laptops. And usually, it is not offered as standard even in the high-end products.

Two days ago, Samsung unveiled new laptops, the Galaxy Pro and the Galaxy Pro 360, thin and light models with AMOLED displays. And guess what? The displays are still Full HD only.

I have heard a possible explanation that higher resolutions on larger screens would make them far more expensive. I do not buy it, especially since there are 4K TVs, with screens far larger than any laptop, selling for as low as $250.

This is hugely disappointing, especially considering that the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display was released almost nine years ago. And that even the cheapest, lowest-end, phones have a screen resolution superior to Full HD.

The bottom line is, I can find a screen with a resolution superior to Full HD in (a) any Apple product, (b) any $200 phone, (c) most TVs, or (d) select high-end PC laptops, some of which will offer this only as an option but will not come standard.

Am I the only one really annoyed with this situation? Is it so hard to put a retina-like resolution in a laptop?

It really annoys me to see how Apple failed to make a touchscreen Mac, but they gave the world the touch bar. I mean they introduced the iPhone, and the iPad and those were ahead of their time. I remember when Apple used Samsung displays in all their products until the two companies ended their business relationship. But still how hard is it to make a touchscreen Mac if you can even get a touchscreen for your Raspberry pi for almost nothing. Oh, oh nevermind iPad sales might drop if they made a touchscreen mac, like a touchscreen Macbook Pro. I get it now it's about not loosing iPad sales and nothing more.

 

[c0ppo]

4K on a 15" laptop makes no sense. At all.
Laptop will have reduced battery life, Windows scaling is still lousy, Linux scaling is a joke, and both Win and Linux tend to slow down on higher resolutions + scaling down things. My personal experience.

But where Apple did things right, they didn't go to 4K. They went to something in the middle, something between FHD and 4K. So their screens are sharp enough, without slowing down everything. Apple simply did it right.

Where I don't understand PC OEMs is that they offer either 4K on a 13" laptop, or FHD. Nothing in between. Same goes for 15" laptops. Sure, you can find some exceptions in the last 2 years that offer 1440p screens for example. But those are just exceptions.

 

[BigPotatoLobbyist]

It really annoys me to see how manufacturers failed to increase the screen resolution of PC laptops over the last few years.

In June 2010, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4 with Retina Display, which consisted of a 4-inch screen with a 960x640 resolution. According to Apple, the high pixel density (326 ppi) made individual pixels invisible to the human eye.

In June 2012, about two years later, Tim Cook introduced the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display, a 15.4-inch screen with a 2880x1800 resolution. In October 2012, the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro also received a Retina Display, with a 2560x1600 resolution. The iPad had already received a Retina Display a few months earlier.

The last Apple product to get a Retina Display was the iMac. The 27-incher got one in 2014, and the 21.5-incher, in 2015.

Smartphone manufacturers followed suit, and while they could not use the "Retina Display" trademark, shortly thereafter, they also started to offer high pixel densities in their screens.

In fact, I cannot recall the last time I saw a smartphone in which I could see the individual pixels. All models, including the cheap low-end ones, include a high-resolution display. I remember when I got a Moto Z Play, a medium-range phone launched in 2016, and it had a 1920x1080 resolution. Last year, I got a Galaxy S20 Plus, which had a 3040x1440 resolution in a 6.7-inch screen (which was far more than I needed).

Just take a look at Amazon.com and you will find a Galaxy A50 selling for $200, and it includes an AMOLED screen with a 2340x1080 resolution. Very cheap, and high pixel density.

High pixel density screens are in nearly every smartphone. But not in laptops.

In January 2016, I bought a Dell XPS 9550, which came with a 4K screen. It had a beautiful 15.6-inch display with a 3840x2160 resolution. I paid $1,900 for it.

I thought that these retina-like screens would become more popular in laptops over the years. Within 5 years, I thought, it would be in nearly every laptop. Nearly all smartphones already had retina-like screens by 2016, a few years after the iPhone got one, so it was just a matter of time. But it did not happen.

Now, we are in 2021. More than five years after I purchased my XPS 15, Dell still only offers a resolution higher than Full HD in its high-end XPS line of laptops. It never made into the Inspiron line.

But it is not only Dell. Nearly all manufacturers, with few exceptions, offer a retina-like resolution as an option in the highest-end line of laptops. And usually, it is not offered as standard even in the high-end products.

Two days ago, Samsung unveiled new laptops, the Galaxy Pro and the Galaxy Pro 360, thin and light models with AMOLED displays. And guess what? The displays are still Full HD only.

I have heard a possible explanation that higher resolutions on larger screens would make them far more expensive. I do not buy it, especially since there are 4K TVs, with screens far larger than any laptop, selling for as low as $250.

This is hugely disappointing, especially considering that the first MacBook Pro with Retina Display was released almost nine years ago. And that even the cheapest, lowest-end, phones have a screen resolution superior to Full HD.

The bottom line is, I can find a screen with a resolution superior to Full HD in (a) any Apple product, (b) any $200 phone, (c) most TVs, or (d) select high-end PC laptops, some of which will offer this only as an option but will not come standard.

Am I the only one really annoyed with this situation? Is it so hard to put a retina-like resolution in a laptop?

You are not alone. 4K is a battery hog hardly aided by X86 chips, and 1080 just really feels like a step below 2560X1600. The upside however, IMO, is that the scaling on Windows blows things up, and i'm not entirely opposed to it.

Still... For text in particular it's so ****ing pathetic they haven't gotten to 2560X1600 or 2880xwhatever as standard for ultrabooks, and almost no one really talks about it either - journalists honing in on effing touchscreens.

 

[BigPotatoLobbyist]

I think Windows trackpads are actually fine if not sometimes preferable to MacBooks - as long as they're glass and using Precision Drivers, it's great, and I'm fond of some real feedback. Never gotten that hatred as of the last 2-4 years, and I like Windas gestures. They’re great and more customizable IIRC (though don't quote me here but).

But again the dismal state of power consumption and display resolution - not to mention nits until recently barring e.g. Dell/Razer - is so off-putting.

 

[BigPotatoLobbyist]

Design? Exceptional. HP Envy or XPS 13 for ex. look miles better than a MBP to my eyes.

 

[BigPotatoLobbyist]

4K on a 15" laptop makes no sense. At all.
Laptop will have reduced battery life, Windows scaling is still lousy, Linux scaling is a joke, and both Win and Linux tend to slow down on higher resolutions + scaling down things. My personal experience.

But where Apple did things right, they didn't go to 4K. They went to something in the middle, something between FHD and 4K. So their screens are sharp enough, without slowing down everything. Apple simply did it right.

Where I don't understand PC OEMs is that they offer either 4K on a 13" laptop, or FHD. Nothing in between. Same goes for 15" laptops. Sure, you can find some exceptions in the last 2 years that offer 1440p screens for example. But those are just exceptions.

lmfao I just typed this rant and you said it succinctly enough, wrt 4k and 1080 vs goldilocks territory of 2560. But yeah.

 

[BigPotatoLobbyist]

I will say: I'd like an XPS with a 4K screen IF:
Dell expanded the battery to a whopping 80Whr, and the chassis to house a 14-inch screen + thicker profile
Dell used some Nvidia/Qualcomm ARM chip in it, probably could still net a solid 30-60% efficiency improvement over alternatives.

But realistically I'd rather have the slack thrown into battery & settle at 2880 or some ****

 

[NT1440]

Unless you live on the road that much why waste your money on a 4K 13" when you can enjoy a 4K 48" OLED? Even on larger screen sizes I still think 4K is gimmicky and 1440p is the sweet spot when considering GPU into the picture and I have AMD 6900xt and Nvidia 3090.

I can’t use 1080p on a laptop screen anymore, everything looks grainy to me and eventually hurts my eyes. I’m a System Administrator at my company, I stare at screens all day. It’s not a waste when it’s called for.

I find this to be a bit ironic coming from you of all people to be honest.

 

[MBAir2010]

there is nothing grainy or wrong with this image from a Dell XPS 13" beside this game dragging.

there