When will we finally see some 17" 4k or atleast something better than 1080p thin laptops though? Or any better than 1080p 17" panels?? That's what I really want....particularly in 17" thin design like Razer or MSI GS70.
It would probably make more sense to run at 1080p, given the clean quarter res scaling. And you probably wouldn't want to go beyond that with an 860M without turning a lot of settings down.
Anyone can tell me what's the point of a very high resolution with a (pretty) low mobile graphics card? What's the FPS gonna be in particularly demanding games with this kind of resolution?
Isn't it better to just have a good 1080p IPS panel on a 15 inch (DPI will not be so bad)?
Until now, the best compromise is still the Razer Blade 2013. Decent GPU, decent resolution (still prefer 1080p for better framerate), thin, light and sexy body, but price that makes me never want to think about it again.
The screen should still look great in games at 1080p with scaling - effective pixel density of 1080p panels at this size is already quite high anyway. If anything, the slight blur from the bilinear scaling will give you a sort of free "anti-alisaing" without the destructive artifacting that results from non-integer scaling.
Then you get the benefits of a high-res screen outside of gaming, for example with photo editing. I like the look of it quite a lot!
I doubt most buyers of this laptop will actually use it for gaming. For some reason, PC manufacturers love to brand their best consumer hardware as "gaming" hardware. Just look at mice and keyboards. The high-res screen helps it fill a niche similar to the 15" rMBP: the best possible laptop under 5 pounds. The 2014 Razer Blade is close, but battery life is rather poor at under five hours. The 2013 Razer Blade on the other hand has a screen reminiscent of a $200 netbook, which makes for a very unpleasant user experience. Hopefully Asus will get the formula right.
Agreed. I barely game, but I do need a slim design with a high DPI display (and preferably macro keys) for working! Razer shot themselves in the foot with the terrible screen, so now I'm just waiting to nab whatever has the best screen, is under 2cm, and has macro keys...
Right, because the only thing people do on laptops marketed for gaming is game, right? If you can't see what the benefits of a higher dpi display might be for general desktop use, then stick with your 2013 Razer Blade, I guess. And if I remember correctly the 2013 Blade had a 1600x900 display, not a 1080p, and a pretty crappy one at that. But judging by how much you like that laptop, it's easy to see why you might not put much of an emphasis on display quality.
My only concerns for this laptop are the poor support for dpi scaling from Microsoft and the Windows ecosystem, and the likely $2000+ price range. Gaming on this thing should be fantastic. Like I said in a previous comment, you're unlikely to be running games at the native resolution. The sweet spot to me would be 1080p, which should look just as good as a native 1080p display due to the clean quarter res.
I like that it's thin and light, like Gigabyte or Razr. But I'm willing to pay $0 extra for resolutions beyond 1080p. So hopefully they offer this with a normal panel. As noted in this article, that GPU can't even handle 4K, I very much doubt it can handle 1440p. That's a brand new GPU too. It just doesn't make sense to go beyond 1080p yet, it's neat for early adopters who don't care about taking that financial hit to be early. But until mobile GPU's can handle the latest and greatest, maxed out, with full AA at 1080p I'm not even thinking about going beyond that.
I don't understand why people complain about 4k - if you want 1080p screen there are plenty other options, go knock yourself out. Why would you want a 4k screen in this you ask?
1) Everything looks stunning in Windows & regular use (which arguably is a a certain % of the use time - work/school/browsing/movies -> you know for instance the stuff that you are doing right now :)) - people who say 1080p is plenty enough haven't seen 4k or QHD+ screens. Once you go there, you can't go back 2) Certain games will play at 4k & others will play incredibly well at resolutions between 1080p and 4k. I have XPS 15 with 750m and can push 60fps on DOTA2 @ 1142 (or something like that) and 30-40fps @native 1800p. And it looks awesome. 3) If you play something demanding you scale it down to 1080p and it looks just as good as on native 1080p screen.
I very much appreciate Asus going 4k and for the reasons outlined above I am willing to pay premium for the screen. Some people won't and for those there are other choices. To each its own. But to argue that all gaming laptops who don't have 870m + should stay at 1080p is plain stupid.
Hey, why complain if you get 5 fps out a 4k gaming laptop, LOL? I have 1080P, but 4k will look nice for NON gaming use. People got it backwards, buy a real gaming laptop. Then, buy a real 4K external monitor. Let the complaining begin...
Hrm...Isn't there an LG GX500 tablet? There are a whole slew of other letters (And numbers, too!) out there to use when naming products. They may not be as cool as G or X, but they're out there if you look hard enough!
I just don't understand the hate. If you want raw power, it's not like these companies STOPPED making the massive DTR boxes. They're still around and as big, ugly and powerful as ever. These are designed with pricier materials, a slim profile and a gorgeous screen for gamers who want to travel. Granted they're obviously not built with $2k worth of parts but they're able to charge a premium since there's clearly a ton of demand for it.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
makerofthegames - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link
Eugh, after my G75's horrible build quality, I just can't see myself buying another Asus laptop.frostyfiredude - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link
Little correction here, screen density is 280PPI on this beast rather than 140PPI.Looks mighty awesome, it's great to see this influx of high density and high quality displays finally hitting all over the place.
Ryan Smith - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link
Good eye. Thank you for pointing that out.jasaero - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - link
When will we finally see some 17" 4k or atleast something better than 1080p thin laptops though? Or any better than 1080p 17" panels?? That's what I really want....particularly in 17" thin design like Razer or MSI GS70.HellzHavoc - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Inb4 this cost $2k+...dragonsqrrl - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
It would probably make more sense to run at 1080p, given the clean quarter res scaling. And you probably wouldn't want to go beyond that with an 860M without turning a lot of settings down.Xinn3r - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Anyone can tell me what's the point of a very high resolution with a (pretty) low mobile graphics card?What's the FPS gonna be in particularly demanding games with this kind of resolution?
Isn't it better to just have a good 1080p IPS panel on a 15 inch (DPI will not be so bad)?
Until now, the best compromise is still the Razer Blade 2013.
Decent GPU, decent resolution (still prefer 1080p for better framerate), thin, light and sexy body, but price that makes me never want to think about it again.
Spunjji - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
The screen should still look great in games at 1080p with scaling - effective pixel density of 1080p panels at this size is already quite high anyway. If anything, the slight blur from the bilinear scaling will give you a sort of free "anti-alisaing" without the destructive artifacting that results from non-integer scaling.Then you get the benefits of a high-res screen outside of gaming, for example with photo editing. I like the look of it quite a lot!
madmilk - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
I doubt most buyers of this laptop will actually use it for gaming. For some reason, PC manufacturers love to brand their best consumer hardware as "gaming" hardware. Just look at mice and keyboards. The high-res screen helps it fill a niche similar to the 15" rMBP: the best possible laptop under 5 pounds. The 2014 Razer Blade is close, but battery life is rather poor at under five hours. The 2013 Razer Blade on the other hand has a screen reminiscent of a $200 netbook, which makes for a very unpleasant user experience. Hopefully Asus will get the formula right.MDX - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link
Agreed. I barely game, but I do need a slim design with a high DPI display (and preferably macro keys) for working! Razer shot themselves in the foot with the terrible screen, so now I'm just waiting to nab whatever has the best screen, is under 2cm, and has macro keys...dragonsqrrl - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Right, because the only thing people do on laptops marketed for gaming is game, right? If you can't see what the benefits of a higher dpi display might be for general desktop use, then stick with your 2013 Razer Blade, I guess. And if I remember correctly the 2013 Blade had a 1600x900 display, not a 1080p, and a pretty crappy one at that. But judging by how much you like that laptop, it's easy to see why you might not put much of an emphasis on display quality.My only concerns for this laptop are the poor support for dpi scaling from Microsoft and the Windows ecosystem, and the likely $2000+ price range. Gaming on this thing should be fantastic. Like I said in a previous comment, you're unlikely to be running games at the native resolution. The sweet spot to me would be 1080p, which should look just as good as a native 1080p display due to the clean quarter res.
Hrel - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
I like that it's thin and light, like Gigabyte or Razr. But I'm willing to pay $0 extra for resolutions beyond 1080p. So hopefully they offer this with a normal panel. As noted in this article, that GPU can't even handle 4K, I very much doubt it can handle 1440p. That's a brand new GPU too. It just doesn't make sense to go beyond 1080p yet, it's neat for early adopters who don't care about taking that financial hit to be early. But until mobile GPU's can handle the latest and greatest, maxed out, with full AA at 1080p I'm not even thinking about going beyond that.Connoisseur - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
I think you mean that it can't even handle 1440p, much less 4K. 4K res is much higher than 1440p.MDX - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link
Then this laptop obviously isn't for you. Move along.227 - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
I don't understand why people complain about 4k - if you want 1080p screen there are plenty other options, go knock yourself out. Why would you want a 4k screen in this you ask?1) Everything looks stunning in Windows & regular use (which arguably is a a certain % of the use time - work/school/browsing/movies -> you know for instance the stuff that you are doing right now :)) - people who say 1080p is plenty enough haven't seen 4k or QHD+ screens. Once you go there, you can't go back
2) Certain games will play at 4k & others will play incredibly well at resolutions between 1080p and 4k. I have XPS 15 with 750m and can push 60fps on DOTA2 @ 1142 (or something like that) and 30-40fps @native 1800p. And it looks awesome.
3) If you play something demanding you scale it down to 1080p and it looks just as good as on native 1080p screen.
I very much appreciate Asus going 4k and for the reasons outlined above I am willing to pay premium for the screen. Some people won't and for those there are other choices. To each its own. But to argue that all gaming laptops who don't have 870m + should stay at 1080p is plain stupid.
One blind eye - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link
Hey, why complain if you get 5 fps out a 4k gaming laptop, LOL? I have 1080P, but 4k will look nice for NON gaming use. People got it backwards, buy a real gaming laptop. Then, buy a real 4K external monitor. Let the complaining begin...Flying Goat - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Hrm...Isn't there an LG GX500 tablet? There are a whole slew of other letters (And numbers, too!) out there to use when naming products. They may not be as cool as G or X, but they're out there if you look hard enough!junky77 - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
Another $1700-$2000 gaming laptop. $800-$1000 for a display that costs 30-50 more.Connoisseur - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
I just don't understand the hate. If you want raw power, it's not like these companies STOPPED making the massive DTR boxes. They're still around and as big, ugly and powerful as ever. These are designed with pricier materials, a slim profile and a gorgeous screen for gamers who want to travel. Granted they're obviously not built with $2k worth of parts but they're able to charge a premium since there's clearly a ton of demand for it.MDX - Monday, June 16, 2014 - link
What he said.sparkymaggie - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link
Does this have a separate microphone jack and separate headphone jack. I can't use a combined which they're doing on a lot of the new laptops.