The sad state of screen resolution in Windows PC laptops

[MBAir2010]

I mean, I am not a defender of Apple but that just seems like nonsense. I can be taking a video in 8 seconds if I wanted, just tested. Fingerprint does not work, 3 times entering the code wrong, downgrading from 50GB...

that just happened yesterday, and never experienced this since 2018 after taken many videos and photos instantly.
the dolphins live under the bridge and will take the Nikon next time.
the event was very frustrating and and understand that everyone else never had this problem, but once was too much!

 

[skaertus]

Looking at my code with a dark theme or the terminal is glorious on my OLED screen. I really hope mini led screens will at least come close to that.

Nice.

Which one do you have?

Is the OLED screen reflective?

 

[skaertus]

Linux with high dpi screens is "ok" (depends on the desktop environment) when you use an integer based scaling, and becomes a total disaster when you try to use fractional scaling. If you want it totally messed up, make sure to use a Nvidia GPU and screens with different scaling.

tl;dr Linux is stuck in the digital stone-age in regards of high dpi screens

I gave up Linux years ago. It is either Windows or macOS for me.

 

[grmlin]

Nice.

Which one do you have?

Is the OLED screen reflective?

I think every 15“ OLED uses the same Samsung panel. I can be wrong though. I use a P53 and the screen reflections etc. are ok. Not the best and IMO not bright enough for outdoors, but great otherwise.
The only thing that’s annoying is the sometimes visible touch layer.

 

[skaertus]

I think every 15“ OLED uses the same Samsung panel. I can be wrong though. I use a P53 and the screen reflections etc. are ok. Not the best and IMO not bright enough for outdoors, but great otherwise.
The only thing that’s annoying is the sometimes visible touch layer.

Most websites are not even reporting this, but ASUS unveiled a new laptop yesterday which looks promising.

The ASUS VivoBook Pro 14 has a Ryzen 5000 processor, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, and a 14-inch 600-nit 90Hz OLED screen with a 2880x1800 resolution (16:10), for less than $800 in China.

It looks far more promising than the Samsung models unveiled a few days ago.

ASUS VivoBook Pro 14: thin and light laptop with OLED screen and AMD Ryzen chips for $710

ASUS has announced its new VivoBook range laptop. The device has a 17.9 mm thick body, weighs 1.35 kg and has a 14-inch OLED display

gagadget.com

https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/05/04/asus-vivobook-pro-14-with-ryzen-5000h-series-harman-kardon-speakers-launched/

Slim and light Asus VivoBook Pro 14 with 2.8K OLED display plus AMD Ryzen 5000H APUs available for pre-order at only ~$770 in China

JD.com has the Asus VivoBook Pro 14 with Ryzen 5 5600H or Ryzen 7 5800H APU options and 2.8K OLED displays for pre-order at under $800. Great prices, no doubt, especially when factoring in the OLED specs with 90 Hz refresh rate, 600 nits peak brightness and 100% DCI-P3 color gamut. However, the...

www.notebookcheck.net

 

[Amethyst1]

The ASUS VivoBook Pro 14 has a Ryzen 5000 processor, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, and a 14-inch 600-nit 90Hz OLED screen with a 2880x1800 resolution

Nice to see more manufacturers (than Apple and Dell) go with 16:10 screens.

 

[grmlin]

Most websites are not even reporting this, but ASUS unveiled a new laptop yesterday which looks promising.

The ASUS VivoBook Pro 14 has a Ryzen 5000 processor, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, and a 14-inch 600-nit 90Hz OLED screen with a 2880x1800 resolution (16:10), for less than $800 in China.

It looks far more promising than the Samsung models unveiled a few days ago.

ASUS VivoBook Pro 14: thin and light laptop with OLED screen and AMD Ryzen chips for $710

ASUS has announced its new VivoBook range laptop. The device has a 17.9 mm thick body, weighs 1.35 kg and has a 14-inch OLED display

gagadget.com

https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/05/04/asus-vivobook-pro-14-with-ryzen-5000h-series-harman-kardon-speakers-launched/

Slim and light Asus VivoBook Pro 14 with 2.8K OLED display plus AMD Ryzen 5000H APUs available for pre-order at only ~$770 in China

JD.com has the Asus VivoBook Pro 14 with Ryzen 5 5600H or Ryzen 7 5800H APU options and 2.8K OLED displays for pre-order at under $800. Great prices, no doubt, especially when factoring in the OLED specs with 90 Hz refresh rate, 600 nits peak brightness and 100% DCI-P3 color gamut. However, the...

www.notebookcheck.net

Well. I took it because it’s a ThinkPad. But I don’t really enjoy the hot Intel CPU and a 16:9 screen isn’t optimal either. But the on site service is great and it’s a powerhouse.

 

[skaertus]

Well. I took it because it’s a ThinkPad. But I don’t really enjoy the hot Intel CPU and a 16:9 screen isn’t optimal either. But the on site service is great and it’s a powerhouse.

I think a 16:9 screen on a 15.6-inch laptop is just fine. There is plenty of vertical space and more room for side-by-side multitasking than a 16:10 15.4-inch screen. For me, at least, there is a limit of vertical space that can be useful on a screen, but horizontal space is always helpful. For this reason, I tend to prefer the 16:10 format in smaller screens, and 16:9 or even wider in larger ones.

 

[skaertus]

Nice to see more manufacturers (than Apple and Dell) go with 16:10 screens.

Yes, definitely.

And, in addition to having a high resolution, this screen is also OLED, very bright (600 nits), and has a high refresh rate (90Hz).

It comes with 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD storage, which is good.

The higher-end version comes with a Ryzen 7 5800H. I did some research and its multi-core score is above 8000 (on average) in Geekbench, which is higher than Apple's M1 (about 7500). It does not have the same single-core performance as the M1, nor the same level of energy consumption, but it is still quite impressive.

And it will cost $772 (at least in China).

 

[Amethyst1]

I think a 16:9 screen on a 15.6-inch laptop is just fine. There is plenty of vertical space and more room for side-by-side multitasking than a 16:10 15.4-inch screen

That is down to resolution. If we're comparing 15.6" 3840x2160 to 15.4" 3840x2400 (which doesn't exist AFAIK - at least not yet), the latter will naturally have more "room". And imo 16:9 is... crap, no matter what.

 

[skaertus]

That is down to resolution. If we're comparing 15.6" 3840x2160 to 15.4" 3840x2400 (which doesn't exist AFAIK - at least not yet), the latter will naturally have more "room". And imo 16:9 is... crap, no matter what.

Theoretically yes, you are right.

And a 16:10 15.4-inch screen is actually larger than a 16:9 15.6-inch screen (it has a 2.5% larger area).

But the pixel density is also higher on the 15.4-inch screen. A 16:10 15.4-inch screen at 3840x2400 would have 294 ppi, while a 16:9 15.6-inch screen would have 282 ppi.

In any case, you would have to scale a 4K screen at this size. And, if you use scaling, you may have to lose some horizontal space on the 15.4-inch screen (compared to the 15.6-inch one) to have the images at a decent size.

I do not think a 16:9 screen is crap. I have a 16:9 32-inch monitor, which I think is just fine. A 16:10 32-inch monitor would be too tall.

 

[lcseds]

Deleted

 

[Kung gu]

The higher-end version comes with a Ryzen 7 5800H. I did some research and its multi-core score is above 8000 (on average) in Geekbench, which is higher than Apple's M1 (about 7500). It does not have the same single-core performance as the M1, nor the same level of energy consumption, but it is still quite impressive.

The Ryzen 5000H series processors are not meant for thin and lights, they will get throttled in that Asus vivo chassis.
In longer workloads the performance will decrease.

And, in addition to having a high resolution, this screen is also OLED, very bright (600 nits), and has a high refresh rate (90Hz).

Not iPad Pro lvls bright, 600 nit for SDR content and 1000nits for full-screen brightness and 1600nits for HDR content on the iPad Pro.

But if you live in China its a bargin buy. I suspect the trackpad, speakers and battery life won't be good.

"With import taxes and VAT, prices should still be sub-$1,000 in the EU or NA" - as mentioned in the article.
either way the laptop market is getting exciting again.

 

[Steve Adams]

Another bonus of the 16:9 is for photo editing where most of your menu and tools are on the sides. It makes sense to use a 16:9 screen then as well. Ask me how I know. Ha ha ha.

 

[Amethyst1]

It makes sense to use a 16:9 screen then as well.

A 16:10 screen of the same horizontal resolution is still better due to more height. 16:9 only makes sense for watching movies, but for everything else, 3:2 or 16:10 wipes the floor with it.

I have both 16:9 (3840x2160) and 16:10 (3840x2400) "4K" monitors. And of course, 16:10 is better. More screen estate. It's as simple as that.

 

[Kung gu]

Another bonus of the 16:9 is for photo editing where most of your menu and tools are on the sides. It makes sense to use a 16:9 screen then as well. Ask me how I know. Ha ha ha.

16:10 is better.

 

[Steve Adams]

Again, for certian things. Not for others. My son has a 16:10 screen and I prefer 16:9 for photo editing.

 

[grmlin]

How is less vertical space better than more in a laptop of the same size? That makes no sense

 

[skaertus]

A 16:10 screen of the same horizontal resolution is still better due to more height. 16:9 only makes sense for watching movies, but for everything else, 3:2 or 16:10 wipes the floor with it.

I have both 16:9 (3840x2160) and 16:10 (3840x2400) "4K" monitors. And of course, 16:10 is better. More screen estate. It's as simple as that.

16:10 is better.

Again, for certian things. Not for others. My son has a 16:10 screen and I prefer 16:9 for photo editing.

How is less vertical space better than more in a laptop of the same size? That makes no sense

Well, theoretically a 16:10 screen is better than a 16:9 if they both have the same horizontal size and the same amount of pixels horizontally.

Now, due to the different aspect ratios, those screens never have the same size. I will give an example of how these things are not so simple.

Assume you have a laptop with a 16-inch screen with a 16:10 aspect ratio (similar to the one in the 16-inch MacBook Pro). Assume this screen has a 3840x2400 resolution. Does this screen have more or less real estate than a 4K screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio?

The obvious answer would be that the 16:10 16-inch screen has more real estate due to having a higher resolution and more pixels vertically. But that does not seem too obvious to me.

A 16:10 16-inch display has approximately the same horizontal size as a 16:9 15.6-inch display. If you compare the two of them, the 4K 16:10 16-inch display would be superior, as it has the same pixel density and more pixels vertically than a 4K 16:9 15.6-inch display, therefore having more real estate to work with.

But a 16:10 16-inch display has approximately the same vertical size as a 16:9 17.3-inch display. And now things get interesting. If you use both of them at native resolution, then the 16:10 16-inch display has more real estate than a 16:9 17.3-inch display. But you will probably conclude that images and text look too small at this resolution and that you need scaling.

Perhaps you reach the conclusion that, for images to be of an acceptable size on your 16:10 16-inch screen, you need to scale it to resemble 1920x1200. If you keep exactly the same number of "simulated" pixels vertically, you would have scaling that resembles a 2133x1200 resolution on the 16:9 17.3-inch display. This number may seem odd, so you might want to use something similar such as scaling that resembles 2240x1260 or even 2080x1170. In any of these cases, the 16:9 17.3-inch display will provide more real estate than the 16:10 16-inch display, despite having a slighter lower resolution.

Of course, this would not be the case if the two displays were Full HD. In this case, the 16:10 16-inch display with a 1920x1200 resolution would always have more real estate (and sharpness) than a 16:9 17.3-inch display with a 1920x1080 resolution.

But, the way I see it, when the resolution is high enough and allows flexible scaling, it comes down to personal preference.

 

[grmlin]

Take the Dell XPS 15 for example. It has a 15.6" 16:10 screen with a resolution of 1920x1200 or 3840x2400. This is obviously 120/240px more than a 16:9 in screen. I don't really see any point of discussion here, it has more vertical real estate, simple as that.

You can't compare a 16" 16:10 display with a 17" 16:9 display, because they have different physical dimensions. They don't fit into the same case.
If anything compare it with a 17" 16:10 display, and it will be the same story as with 15"

 

[skaertus]

Take the Dell XPS 15 for example. It has a 15.6" 16:10 screen with a resolution of 1920x1200 or 3840x2400. This is obviously 120/240px more than a 16:9 in screen. I don't really see any point of discussion here, it has more vertical real estate, simple as that.

You can't compare a 16" 16:10 display with a 17" 16:9 display, because they have different physical dimensions. They don't fit into the same case.
If anything compare it with a 17" 16:10 display, and it will be the same story as with 15"

A 16:9 15.6-inch and a 16:10 15-6-inch screen DO NOT have the same physical dimensions. The 16:9 screen is shorter and wider than the 16:10 one. And a 16:10 screen has 5.18% more area than the 16:9 one.

I compared a 16-inch 16:10 display to a 15.6-inch 16:9 display because they both have the same horizontal space. And I compared the 16-inch 16:10 display to a 17.3-inch 16:9 display because they both have the same vertical space.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that a 16:10 and a 16:9 screen can be of the same size.

But even if you compare them both. Assume you would like to use a 2x scaled resolution on a 16:10 4K 15.6-inch display so it resembles 1920x1200. If you use the very same scale on a 16:9 4K 15.6-inch display, it will have a smaller real estate, but images and text will look bigger.

To have the text and images on the same size, you would have to use the 4K 16:9 15.6-inch display with a resolution that resembles 1974x1110. That means you will have less vertical but more horizontal space on the 16:9 display. You may say that a 16:10 display provides more real estate even then, but do not forget that its area is 5.18% larger.

So, as I said, when resolution is not a factor, and you can scale flexibly, no screen ratio is inherently better than the other, it becomes a matter of personal preference.

 

[lambertjohn]

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

I agree with this. The 1080p screen on my Thinkpad T490s is perfect for what I do, which is writing. Not everybody wants or needs a 4K screen, me included. The planet is full of us humans, and no two are the same, which is why what is good for you, OP, may not be good for me.

 

[grmlin]

A 16:9 15.6-inch and a 16:10 15-6-inch screen DO NOT have the same physical dimensions. The 16:9 screen is shorter and wider than the 16:10 one. And a 16:10 screen has 5.18% more area than the 16:9 one.

I compared a 16-inch 16:10 display to a 15.6-inch 16:9 display because they both have the same horizontal space. And I compared the 16-inch 16:10 display to a 17.3-inch 16:9 display because they both have the same vertical space.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that a 16:10 and a 16:9 screen can be of the same size.

But even if you compare them both. Assume you would like to use a 2x scaled resolution on a 16:10 4K 15.6-inch display so it resembles 1920x1200. If you use the very same scale on a 16:9 4K 15.6-inch display, it will have a smaller real estate, but images and text will look bigger.

To have the text and images on the same size, you would have to use the 4K 16:9 15.6-inch display with a resolution that resembles 1974x1110. That means you will have less vertical but more horizontal space on the 16:9 display. You may say that a 16:10 display provides more real estate even then, but do not forget that its area is 5.18% larger.

So, as I said, when resolution is not a factor, and you can scale flexibly, no screen ratio is inherently better than the other, it becomes a matter of personal preference.

Assuming the physical width of the 16:10 15” is the same as the 15” 16:9 images will have the exact same size. But the 16:10 will show more. If the 16:10 screen is wider physically, they will be bigger on this one if anything.

even with a different width the 16:10 screen will have more real estate, because you will use both at the same scaling. I really don’t understand your arguments ?

 

[Amethyst1]

even with a different width the 16:10 screen will have more real estate, because you will use both at the same scaling.

Yep. I don't want/need stuff to be the same size across my screens and use 200% scaling on all of them.

 

[skaertus]

Assuming the physical width of the 16:10 15” is the same as the 15” 16:9 images will have the exact same size. But the 16:10 will show more. If the 16:10 screen is wider physically, they will be bigger on this one if anything.

even with a different width the 16:10 screen will have more real estate, because you will use both at the same scaling. I really don’t understand your arguments ?

You cannot assume a 16:10 15-inch screen has the same width of a 16:9 15-inch screen because, at the moment you change the aspect ratio, you change either the width or the diagonal.

A 16:9 15.6-inch screen has, in fact, the same width as a 16:10 16-inch screen. These two screen sizes do exist, and the 16:10 screen is larger because it has more vertical space.

With a different width, the 16:10 will not necessarily have the same real estate because you do not have to use the same scaling. If you use the same scaling at both a 16:10 3840x2400 and 16:9 3840x2160 screen, the 16:10 one will provide more real estate. The size of text and images may differ, though.

My point is, scaling is flexible. A 16:9 screen is wider than a 16:10 one. If you have a screen resolution so high that you can use any scale you want, then it becomes a matter of adjusting text and image size so it becomes comfortable. Depending on the scale you use, one may provide more real estate than the other. The vertical/horizontal ratio will differ, though. The 16:10 display will always have proportionally more vertical space, but the real estate will depend on the size of the display and the scaling.