laptops... 4K or 1080p?

Fuiosg

So I finally have the funds to buy a work laptop, but one thing I can't seem to decide on is whether 4K is an asset that will be useful for doing game art, or if it's more superficial in terms of practical use. If it was a desk monitor I would go with 4k without hesitation, but being on a 15" screen seems questionable to me. The upside of 1080p is that it's significantly cheaper and there are no scaling abnormalities, also better battery life.

Anyone have experience with this? I'm looking at the dell xps 15, the new one with a gtx 1050.

slipsius

I think at that size screen you wont notice a difference if you go 1080p. I've seen some things that suggest 4k isn't worth it until you get to like 50" screens. 

I'd personally opt for the 1080p

Fuiosg

I'm inclined to agree, though with 4k I thought the advantage was more that you didn't need to zoom in as much, like for photography and large images in general, all the detail is right there. They also have wider color gamuts. But again, whether that translates into real world use I'm not sure.

chriszuko

I'd say 1080p is probably not the best choice given the move to higher and higher resolutions pretty much makes that out-dated. However, I think a perfect middle ground is 1440p. If you can find a nice laptop at 2560x1440 res that would be perfect.

Add3r

Fuiosg said:

I'm inclined to agree, though with 4k I thought the advantage was more that you didn't need to zoom in as much, like for photography and large images in general, all the detail is right there. They also have wider color gamuts. But again, whether that translates into real world use I'm not sure.

One would assume that most 4k TV's do have wider and better managed color gamuts, but sadly that isnt so any more.  With the push to get cheaper and cheaper with 4K panels, they are slowly starting to degrade the base level quality you can expect when purchasing a 4K TV, monitor, or whatever panel.  I personally have experience with a wide range of TV's, monitors, and screens on various other devices ranging from 1080p all the way up to 4k+, and can say that color gamut is entirely subjective to quality of screen just like any standard 1080p.  

I have seen many "mid range" 1080p TV's ($200-$500) that handle color way better than some of the newer "lower end" 4K panels (that still cost in the $2000 range).  Just wanted to clear that up, as it is starting to become a misconception  

1440p with the supporting hardware within the laptop, meaning a solid GPU and CPU combo, would be a good resolution to future proof with.  

EarthQuake

I have a Retina display on my Mac Book Pro. End result? I zoom to 200% instead of 100% when I want to look at stuff at pixel level. That's the only time I notice it. Font is smoother too, I guess. Most images and content on the web render at 1080P resolution anyway.

Really, with screen sizes this small, going to 4K vs 1080P doesn't make much sense at all. It will look a little nicer, but won't provide you any real benefit other than that, unless you're one of those types who has to have "the latest" just so you can tell other people you have it.

Also, powering 4K content takes a lot more resources than 1080P, so while I can watch 4K videos on youtube on my MBP, the framerate is low and it's unpleasant. Really depends on the hardware level, though.

For 3D content, Your video card has to draw 4x the pixels. Can the mobile whatever GPU in your laptop handle that? Can it handle that with very complex models?

radiancef0rge

EarthQuake said:

I have a Retina display on my Mac Book Pro. End result? I zoom to 200% instead of 100% when I want to look at stuff at pixel level. 

You're just getting old. 

RN

While the pixels are fine, it's the UI of most software that looks too small and bothers me the most. It's a 1080p 17" notebook screen here.
If you're going for 1080p or higher on a 15" screen then it should look really small. Small buttons, small fonts etc.

On Windows you can go to Control Panel -> Appearance and Personalization -> Display and then use something bigger than the 100% default size. I'm using 138% here, you just pick a size where you don't have to "make an effort" to read or understand the UI at a glance.

Chimp

1080 is fine, use the difference in price to make sure the graphics card is capable.

1080 is readable on a small screen, and for 4k you can plug into a monitor when at work desk, and use the 1080 for on the go.

Kraftwerk

I just switched to 2k, looks awesome for gameing and Blender is nice and tidy as well but for everything else anything higher then 1080p is totally overrated if you ask me, also bad for people with an no optimal eye sight like me.

Millenia

1440p would be a great midway solution but I'm not sure if any laptops come equipped with it. Crisper than 1080p without any of the scaling or performance issues of 4k.

Chimp

Man it wasnt long ago that I was amazed at 1440p on a 27 inch, now it's old hat and I'm on 5k (that said im running it at 4k for practicality).

Actually it wasnt that long ago that 1280x1024 was amazing either

Fuiosg

thanks for the feedback everyone, honestly thought you all would tell me to go with 4k. But in my case, it was either that and an i5, or an i7 at 1080p for $300 less and I chose the latter-- hopefully the sensible decision.

I agree 1440p would have been a nice middle ground but didn't see that on any configurations, and I think it's kind of rare on windows laptops.

cptSwing

For me, the argument of weak-mobile-gpu versus need-to-drive-high-def-screen clinches it. Fairly annoyed that Microsoft's Surface Pros are following the high-def craze, for no apparent reason other than marketing checkboxes. Well, and by their silly pen - a sales rep recently told me the eraser-head button is perfect for middle mouse clicks. Yeah, no.

kanga

I just got a Median Erazer gamming laptop to help with software instruction, but I use the dang thing everywhere. It runs unity and ue4 plus max, blender, ps, all the substance stuff, zbrush and about a dozen other apps without any problems. For me a 17inch screen was the most important. The only time 4k would be interesting is with an external monitor. 17inch is still portable cause I can fit it in my laptop backpack and screen rez is pretty sharp. For me the price difference doesnt justify the layout,..... yet.

Joost

I opted for a 17.3" 4k laptop (Sager). Mainly because I'll be travelling without a monitor. The difference in resolution is not super apparent, but it's definitely useful for scaling down UIs in applications IMO. 
You can always downscale to 1440p if performance is an issue, you can't scale up from 1080p. Although with a GTX 1070 I don't expect that to be the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4k screens are more likely to have better colour accuracy too. My screen is 100% adobe RGB, which is a big plus for me.  

I haven't used it enough to definitively say it's better but I'll update this if I have any issues.
If you can use a monitor then just go for 1080p.

Shrike

1080p is very high DPI on a laptop screen, but 4k thats most likely just a waste of battery and you have to scale every software. 4k on a Laptop is pure marketing imo with near 0 actual value.  But as joost said, chances are that a 4k screen has a much better panel than a 1080p one.