Even in writing, you'd need smaller tips to write chinese + kanji character well in 0.5x0.5 grid. I think 0.03mm or smaller pen is popular in Japan for the same reason.
Really? It's never been an issue reading Japanese on my Pixel C (2560 × 1600).
I think this is more of a case of features for features sake. I'm sure this trend will die out like ultra-high definition audio technologies. People will eventually realize they can't tell the difference and not pay for it. For an example see Super Audio CD or DVD Audio.
"I think this is more of a case of features for features sake." if you guys were in charge of anything, we'd still be working on 12" monochrome 640x480 monitors. :D "80 columns is all you need!"
There are people who can tell the difference. I don't care if I read 1000 more articles that "prove" that lossy compression schemes like AAC and MP3 sound identical to uncompressed 16-bit 44.1 audio. They don't. Moreover, even with Macbook Pro laptop speaks (really crappy) I can hear the difference between 16-bit 44.1 and higher spec. I can also hear the differences between the three dithering schemes in Logic.
16-bit 44.1 KHz audio sounds pretty good (and vastly better than lossy compression) but the sampling rate isn't as good as it should be. DVD audio is slightly better at 48. 20-bits at 88 KHz is likely enough for anyone.
SACD uses lossy compression, also. I don't know if it impacts the sound quality, though, because I have never heard one.
I owned a Pixel-C for much of this year though I've converted to a Tab S4 as of late since it has an absolutely fantastic OLED display. I definitely would love to have at least 4K at that screen size. If you're used to having QHD on a phone then this is insufficient on a tablet. Plain and simple. Looking forward to new technology. I have a 4K laptop, but I actually watch content on my tablet as it's more convenient. With a 4K+ tablet, I'd be able to watch 4K content natively. It's well worth the higher resolution as you can always adjust the distance between the tablet and your face.
A derivative of the 8" panel's technology could be useful in a future high-end VR product. The 13" panel is in the same PPI ballpark as the Vive Pro and Samsung Odyssey.
As actual laptop or tablet displays though, I doubt there's actually a useful purpose. At normal viewing distances I find it hard to believe these would be distinguishable from 4K, especially in the 8" size. I'm a believer in the idea of smoothing at sub-visible levels being useful to a point, but even 4K in a 13" laptop seems to be pushing the limits of utility unless you spend your life in a coach seat with the screen 10 inches from your face.
I am curious what the subpixel configuration is of course. I'll be amazed if the small one is RGB. Probably Pentile or similar.
My thoughts exactly. The 120hz 8K 13.3 inch screen, depending on how they manufacture it, might be scalable on a new line in the future to a 120hz 4K 6.65 inch VR display.
Or cut it in half for a 7680x2160 display across both eyes (~3800x2160 per eye) @ 120hz. I'm really hoping we do see something of that nature in the future. SDE would be gone if the Pimax coverage is any indication.
Actually, lemme backtrack on that last one a bit; the Pimax doesn't look quite as good at release as it did when they showed it off: https://imgur.com/a/eJNXqJ8
We'll continue to see improvements with higher resolutions but I don't think we're at elimination yet.
If Pentile, then the higher resolution makes more sense. Though 8K is still excessively high, I'm sure there will be a level of euphoria that'll make it enticing.
I'd say 4K is needed for laptops. Since the displays are larger, lower resolutions are noticeably less sharp.
Well those are still OLEDS & all do we still don't know the matrix used I wouldn't be surprised that it turns out to be Pentile so 13.3" ones PPI could be in the margins of what's visually recognisable...
Could be really good for VR headsets, but even Carmack stated that 4K was mostly unneccessary for a VR headset a few years ago. Maybe he'll change his tune when the tech becomes viable.
AMD had a scientist publish a whitepaper that claimed 16K is needed for full VR fidelity.
People, though, should remember that foveated rendering is absolutely essential for VR realism so 16K of pixels won't need to be fully rendered in any scene. It's not the way the eye works. In fact, the highest-resolution part of the eye can only see a small portion of the overall visual image we see at a time.
For OLED with the pentile design sure does. I find Nexus 5 display sharper than my Samsung S8 which has higher DPI. My eyes are not perfect anymore in my 30s.
...so is the table correct (and thus the title incorrect, as those are only 4K, which is not an achievement today), or the table is screwed up totally?
Since it doesn't have a backlight to block with the transistor for each subpixel, does an OLED's resolution affect its power draw at all? (Ignoring the processing required by the GPU)
I have exactly the same question. Is there something intrinsic to OLEDs that means more-but-smaller pixels is worse than fewer-but-larger pixels, when the total lit area is held constant?
Or is this purely about the image-processing and signal-transmission power losses?
Only the prosessin power needed to populaatio that screen. You have to make more write calls because resolution is higher. That is why even 2080ti is not enough to 4K not to mention 8K that would need four times more prosessin power than 4K.
RTX 2080 Ti is solid for 4K. Just don't expect >60FPS on every AAA title. However, that's for very high-end gaming. You don't need much graphics power just to smoothly run at a certain resolution.
This may be a strategy for compensating for the poor lifespan of blue OLED subpixels. Having a massive excess of resolution needed for anything other than a close-to-the-eye wearable (e.g. VR) means pixel duplication can be used. Have half of the blue subpixels active when the device is new. Then, when the subpixels wear out, begin to bring in the others or simply turn the old ones off.
Of course, the drawback to this strategy is that — the smaller the pixel is, the quicker it will wear out. So, I don't know if there is anything to be gained by doing this.
Other than potentially better VR, I could see this also being used in digital gauge clusters for cars. People love to talk about the resolutions our eyes can see, but time and time again, cramming more details into the same space results in a noticeably more realistic image.
Gauges seems like one of the least necessary applications, since it's only something that needs to be readable at a glance from quite some distance away. No manufacturer is going to put ultra-high resolution panels into gauges to rack up costs at near zero benefit.
People absolutely care about car gauge resolution & clarity and manufacturers are listening. Rolls-Royce already uses 120Hz and/or low-persistence LCDs for the gauges in the 2019 Cullinan SUV. Technology trickles down...or are you still shopping for $1000 Blu-ray players?
Hope they make that panel easily accessible, last think you need is to tear a dashboard apart on a $100,000 car because the screen burned in on a static (but reconfigurable) display.
"cramming more details into the same space results in a noticeably more realistic image"
Only within the limitations of human visual acuity, which isn't much to write home about. The further away an object is, the lower the resolution can be with the same perceived fidelity. This is why 8K is totally unnecessary for HDTV.
They only really work with Sharp as far as I know (on IGZO) and Sharp already use CAAC-IGZO of course. Not sure if JDI has began to take steps to produce IGZO-displays yet. It's really only Foxconn's Sharp that could commercialize OLED with IGZO TFT's (besides LG) in the near future and maybe JDI/JOLED if they license the tech, no other manufacturers has a strong connection with Japan. Sharp's only OLED production is on plastic substrates I think though. LG's large OLED panels already uses IGZO though, but I haven't seen a connection between them and SEL.
Insane. WAAAY beyond useless, it is actually detrimental to both performance and battery life. Too many stupid people in the market making things worse for the rest...
Blatantly false. Perhaps the technology is not that useful for you, but it's quite amazing for some others. I understand that people who really care about high resolutions are in the minority, but there's certainly a market for these displays. I want one. Now.
Caring is irrelevant. What is relevant are the visual limitations of the human eye.
Distance totally affects how much resolution is required for "retina" quality. There are no human eyes on the planet that need, for instance, 8K resolution for a television they're standing 30 feet away from. I don't know how close the sharpest-eyed person would need to be for 8K to be relevant in an HDTV usage scenario but tftcentral has posted the equations if you care to find out.
I hope you realize that there are no tablets with 4K (or any resolution higher than QHD+) at all and neither are there any with higher than 60FPS refresh rate.
I definitely want a 4K/120Hz tablet. That's highly useful at the very least. Though I'd want it at around a 10-Inch screen size or somewhat larger. 13.3" might be a bit too large though also worth the compromise.
In addition, of course, with higher and higher resolutions, there will be dwindling returns. However, even if 8K itself is beyond "what is perceptible" (which I'd possibility disagree with depending on distance) it would be perceivably sharper than 4K even on smaller screens.
Reading about 'CAAC-IGZO' on Sharp's site shows the advert 'Outstanding feature -- White OLEDs + RGB color filters'. Still better than LCD for power draw and contrast (full off). If the white OLEDS last better than RGB OLEDs, that is another point.
Rec 2020 might be the better feature (75% of visual spectrum), vs DCI P3 (~50%) and Rec 709 (~35%). Like higher resolution, the benefit is if content is uplifted / made for it.
I went to the store, and the smallest 4K screens they had were 43" or so. Even if I'm specifically looking at monitors, I seem to only be able to get 4K at 36" or something. Meanwhile, most phones come with a 5" 1080p at minimum.
I would love 1000 angels dancing upon the head of a pin. It doesn't mean it's going to do anything for me other than part me from cash I could use more wisely for things that truly matter.
I don't think you understood the commenter's point. They're saying that larger displays will benefit from the high PPI that we see already on mobile panels. And the sizes they are quoting are straight from the article (8K @13"). They aren't theoretical.
And if you don't see the value, that's fine. It obviously depends on the individual. In any case, these panels are not close to being released. We also don't know any potential costs, so it's difficult to determine how worthwhile they would be in the future.
How pointless are these resolutions. the ideal resolution they really should be giving in laptops is 2k 3:2 for all screens 15 inch and up. Even a 4k screen in a laptop is absurd. Advantage of 4k in a laptop. - NONE Disadvantag - Battery drain. - need for discrete graphics for gaming in native resolution. - lower screen refresh.
I am surprised why there are so few who release 2k screens in laptops lenovo releases it only fot14 inch, and not 15.
Perhaps the costs outweigh the benefits for you. However, that doesn't mean it's unnecessary for others. I definitely would say that QHD is insufficient for 15+ Inch laptops. These are large displays that you generally keep close to your face. Perhaps you keep a large distance between yourself and your laptop? After using QHD+ on mobile devices, not going for a higher resolution on larger displays seems a poor choice for me. It's very clearly less sharp since it's a far larger display. Plain and simple.
I'd also note that with any actual 4K (UHD) panel, you can simply run the display at 2K (FHD) as there's even scaling. So there's no disadvantage choosing a 4K panel over a 2K panel especially if the cost difference is minimal.
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
59 Comments
Back to Article
Santoval - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
The first two resolutions of your table are incorrect. They both report a 4K rather an 8K resolution.Ian Cutress - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
My fault. Fixed.logamaniac - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Is there a point to these resolutions for this size of a screen?austinsguitar - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
just sounds like a stupid resolution for any small size display... this is just dumb, cool, but dumb.Ian Cutress - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
The demand for clarity with Chinese and Japanese characters is quite high, especially less than a few inches from your facemr_tawan - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Even in writing, you'd need smaller tips to write chinese + kanji character well in 0.5x0.5 grid. I think 0.03mm or smaller pen is popular in Japan for the same reason.PeachNCream - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Super Famicom...Flunk - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
Really? It's never been an issue reading Japanese on my Pixel C (2560 × 1600).I think this is more of a case of features for features sake. I'm sure this trend will die out like ultra-high definition audio technologies. People will eventually realize they can't tell the difference and not pay for it. For an example see Super Audio CD or DVD Audio.
Death666Angel - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
"I think this is more of a case of features for features sake." if you guys were in charge of anything, we'd still be working on 12" monochrome 640x480 monitors. :D "80 columns is all you need!"Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
There are people who can tell the difference. I don't care if I read 1000 more articles that "prove" that lossy compression schemes like AAC and MP3 sound identical to uncompressed 16-bit 44.1 audio. They don't. Moreover, even with Macbook Pro laptop speaks (really crappy) I can hear the difference between 16-bit 44.1 and higher spec. I can also hear the differences between the three dithering schemes in Logic.16-bit 44.1 KHz audio sounds pretty good (and vastly better than lossy compression) but the sampling rate isn't as good as it should be. DVD audio is slightly better at 48. 20-bits at 88 KHz is likely enough for anyone.
SACD uses lossy compression, also. I don't know if it impacts the sound quality, though, because I have never heard one.
aenews - Monday, December 31, 2018 - link
I owned a Pixel-C for much of this year though I've converted to a Tab S4 as of late since it has an absolutely fantastic OLED display. I definitely would love to have at least 4K at that screen size. If you're used to having QHD on a phone then this is insufficient on a tablet. Plain and simple. Looking forward to new technology. I have a 4K laptop, but I actually watch content on my tablet as it's more convenient. With a 4K+ tablet, I'd be able to watch 4K content natively. It's well worth the higher resolution as you can always adjust the distance between the tablet and your face.wolrah - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
A derivative of the 8" panel's technology could be useful in a future high-end VR product. The 13" panel is in the same PPI ballpark as the Vive Pro and Samsung Odyssey.As actual laptop or tablet displays though, I doubt there's actually a useful purpose. At normal viewing distances I find it hard to believe these would be distinguishable from 4K, especially in the 8" size. I'm a believer in the idea of smoothing at sub-visible levels being useful to a point, but even 4K in a 13" laptop seems to be pushing the limits of utility unless you spend your life in a coach seat with the screen 10 inches from your face.
I am curious what the subpixel configuration is of course. I'll be amazed if the small one is RGB. Probably Pentile or similar.
LordanSS - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
An 8k OLED panel with low persistance at 90Hz would be a big boon for VR products. We'd be one step closer to removing the screen-door effect.haukionkannel - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
Yep!Really usefull! Ofcourse we need more gpu power for that but even 4K is too Little for VR 8 to 16k could be enough...
mukiex - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
My thoughts exactly. The 120hz 8K 13.3 inch screen, depending on how they manufacture it, might be scalable on a new line in the future to a 120hz 4K 6.65 inch VR display.Or cut it in half for a 7680x2160 display across both eyes (~3800x2160 per eye) @ 120hz. I'm really hoping we do see something of that nature in the future. SDE would be gone if the Pimax coverage is any indication.
mukiex - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
Actually, lemme backtrack on that last one a bit; the Pimax doesn't look quite as good at release as it did when they showed it off: https://imgur.com/a/eJNXqJ8We'll continue to see improvements with higher resolutions but I don't think we're at elimination yet.
aenews - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
If Pentile, then the higher resolution makes more sense. Though 8K is still excessively high, I'm sure there will be a level of euphoria that'll make it enticing.I'd say 4K is needed for laptops. Since the displays are larger, lower resolutions are noticeably less sharp.
ZolaIII - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Well those are still OLEDS & all do we still don't know the matrix used I wouldn't be surprised that it turns out to be Pentile so 13.3" ones PPI could be in the margins of what's visually recognisable...rtho782 - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
even smaller and even higher would be good for VRxTRICKYxx - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
60hz though :(edzieba - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Computational displays. Such a high pixel density means even a naive lenticular lightfield display would have an acceptable angular resolution.norazi - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
VR...Samus - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Could be really good for VR headsets, but even Carmack stated that 4K was mostly unneccessary for a VR headset a few years ago. Maybe he'll change his tune when the tech becomes viable.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
AMD had a scientist publish a whitepaper that claimed 16K is needed for full VR fidelity.People, though, should remember that foveated rendering is absolutely essential for VR realism so 16K of pixels won't need to be fully rendered in any scene. It's not the way the eye works. In fact, the highest-resolution part of the eye can only see a small portion of the overall visual image we see at a time.
Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
According to tftcentral's Visual Acuity article, this sharpest part is the foveola, which is a subset of the fovea:Wikipedia:
"The foveola is approximately 0.35 mm in diameter and lies in the center of the fovea."
zodiacfml - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
For OLED with the pentile design sure does. I find Nexus 5 display sharper than my Samsung S8 which has higher DPI. My eyes are not perfect anymore in my 30s.NXTwoThou - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
If they are able to get the higher refresh one and same pixel density and make it any size they want, sure. Screens for VR headsets.Gasaraki88 - Thursday, December 27, 2018 - link
VR headset displays.theuglyman0war - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
should be a boon to VR enthusiasts hoping for resolution race in small screens so they can benefit with immersive fidelity.nagi603 - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
...so is the table correct (and thus the title incorrect, as those are only 4K, which is not an achievement today), or the table is screwed up totally?Ian Cutress - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
My fault on the tableMrCommunistGen - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
whoa. That's pretty bonkers PPI. Not that it should make any practical difference, but I wonder what the sub-pixel structure looks like.Also, I love the term "Bendy" in the table. It's fun.
hd-2 - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
I signed up just to agree that the Bendy column got a laugh out of me.ajp_anton - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
"so the power draw would be quite interesting"Since it doesn't have a backlight to block with the transistor for each subpixel, does an OLED's resolution affect its power draw at all?
(Ignoring the processing required by the GPU)
boeush - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
I have exactly the same question. Is there something intrinsic to OLEDs that means more-but-smaller pixels is worse than fewer-but-larger pixels, when the total lit area is held constant?Or is this purely about the image-processing and signal-transmission power losses?
haukionkannel - Tuesday, December 25, 2018 - link
Only the prosessin power needed to populaatio that screen. You have to make more write calls because resolution is higher. That is why even 2080ti is not enough to 4K not to mention 8K that would need four times more prosessin power than 4K.ajp_anton - Tuesday, December 25, 2018 - link
My Intel graphics 540 runs 4K just fine, so I don't know what you're talking about...aenews - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
RTX 2080 Ti is solid for 4K. Just don't expect >60FPS on every AAA title. However, that's for very high-end gaming. You don't need much graphics power just to smoothly run at a certain resolution.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
This may be a strategy for compensating for the poor lifespan of blue OLED subpixels. Having a massive excess of resolution needed for anything other than a close-to-the-eye wearable (e.g. VR) means pixel duplication can be used. Have half of the blue subpixels active when the device is new. Then, when the subpixels wear out, begin to bring in the others or simply turn the old ones off.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
Of course, the drawback to this strategy is that — the smaller the pixel is, the quicker it will wear out. So, I don't know if there is anything to be gained by doing this.Sergio526 - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Other than potentially better VR, I could see this also being used in digital gauge clusters for cars. People love to talk about the resolutions our eyes can see, but time and time again, cramming more details into the same space results in a noticeably more realistic image.emilemil1 - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Gauges seems like one of the least necessary applications, since it's only something that needs to be readable at a glance from quite some distance away. No manufacturer is going to put ultra-high resolution panels into gauges to rack up costs at near zero benefit.ikjadoon - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
People absolutely care about car gauge resolution & clarity and manufacturers are listening. Rolls-Royce already uses 120Hz and/or low-persistence LCDs for the gauges in the 2019 Cullinan SUV. Technology trickles down...or are you still shopping for $1000 Blu-ray players?https://youtu.be/GSRAdaySmdU?t=152
"readable at a glance" = and the more life-like (i.e., crisp and clear), the easier it is to read
"Quite a distance away" = as cars become more technology-focused, screens become a differentiating factor and move closer to drivers (i.e., Tesla's).
Not to mention side-view cameras (Audi could've desperately used one of these screens with a higher peak brightness).
Gunbuster - Thursday, December 27, 2018 - link
Hope they make that panel easily accessible, last think you need is to tear a dashboard apart on a $100,000 car because the screen burned in on a static (but reconfigurable) display.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
OLED is a horrible technology for a vehicle unless they make the parts easily replaceable, inexpensive, and available for a very very long time.It's far better to use a technology that has a longer lifespan for something like a car.
Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
"cramming more details into the same space results in a noticeably more realistic image"Only within the limitations of human visual acuity, which isn't much to write home about. The further away an object is, the lower the resolution can be with the same perceived fidelity. This is why 8K is totally unnecessary for HDTV.
crotach - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
I guess this resolution would make sense if the screens were glued to my face. Perhaps they will be used in some form of VR or glasses?Penti - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
They only really work with Sharp as far as I know (on IGZO) and Sharp already use CAAC-IGZO of course. Not sure if JDI has began to take steps to produce IGZO-displays yet. It's really only Foxconn's Sharp that could commercialize OLED with IGZO TFT's (besides LG) in the near future and maybe JDI/JOLED if they license the tech, no other manufacturers has a strong connection with Japan. Sharp's only OLED production is on plastic substrates I think though. LG's large OLED panels already uses IGZO though, but I haven't seen a connection between them and SEL.peevee - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
Insane. WAAAY beyond useless, it is actually detrimental to both performance and battery life. Too many stupid people in the market making things worse for the rest...aenews - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
Blatantly false. Perhaps the technology is not that useful for you, but it's quite amazing for some others. I understand that people who really care about high resolutions are in the minority, but there's certainly a market for these displays. I want one. Now.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
Caring is irrelevant. What is relevant are the visual limitations of the human eye.Distance totally affects how much resolution is required for "retina" quality. There are no human eyes on the planet that need, for instance, 8K resolution for a television they're standing 30 feet away from. I don't know how close the sharpest-eyed person would need to be for 8K to be relevant in an HDTV usage scenario but tftcentral has posted the equations if you care to find out.
aenews - Monday, December 31, 2018 - link
I hope you realize that there are no tablets with 4K (or any resolution higher than QHD+) at all and neither are there any with higher than 60FPS refresh rate.I definitely want a 4K/120Hz tablet. That's highly useful at the very least. Though I'd want it at around a 10-Inch screen size or somewhat larger. 13.3" might be a bit too large though also worth the compromise.
In addition, of course, with higher and higher resolutions, there will be dwindling returns. However, even if 8K itself is beyond "what is perceptible" (which I'd possibility disagree with depending on distance) it would be perceivably sharper than 4K even on smaller screens.
Vincent33 - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
Reading about 'CAAC-IGZO' on Sharp's site shows the advert 'Outstanding feature -- White OLEDs + RGB color filters'. Still better than LCD for power draw and contrast (full off). If the white OLEDS last better than RGB OLEDs, that is another point.Rec 2020 might be the better feature (75% of visual spectrum), vs DCI P3 (~50%) and Rec 709 (~35%). Like higher resolution, the benefit is if content is uplifted / made for it.
mkozakewich - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
I went to the store, and the smallest 4K screens they had were 43" or so. Even if I'm specifically looking at monitors, I seem to only be able to get 4K at 36" or something. Meanwhile, most phones come with a 5" 1080p at minimum.I would LOVE a 13" 8K display.
Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
"I would LOVE a 13" 8K display."I would love 1000 angels dancing upon the head of a pin. It doesn't mean it's going to do anything for me other than part me from cash I could use more wisely for things that truly matter.
aenews - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link
I don't think you understood the commenter's point. They're saying that larger displays will benefit from the high PPI that we see already on mobile panels. And the sizes they are quoting are straight from the article (8K @13"). They aren't theoretical.And if you don't see the value, that's fine. It obviously depends on the individual. In any case, these panels are not close to being released. We also don't know any potential costs, so it's difficult to determine how worthwhile they would be in the future.
sharath.naik - Saturday, January 5, 2019 - link
How pointless are these resolutions. the ideal resolution they really should be giving in laptops is 2k 3:2 for all screens 15 inch and up. Even a 4k screen in a laptop is absurd. Advantage of 4k in a laptop.- NONE
Disadvantag
- Battery drain.
- need for discrete graphics for gaming in native resolution.
- lower screen refresh.
I am surprised why there are so few who release 2k screens in laptops lenovo releases it only fot14 inch, and not 15.
aenews - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link
Perhaps the costs outweigh the benefits for you. However, that doesn't mean it's unnecessary for others. I definitely would say that QHD is insufficient for 15+ Inch laptops. These are large displays that you generally keep close to your face. Perhaps you keep a large distance between yourself and your laptop? After using QHD+ on mobile devices, not going for a higher resolution on larger displays seems a poor choice for me. It's very clearly less sharp since it's a far larger display. Plain and simple.I'd also note that with any actual 4K (UHD) panel, you can simply run the display at 2K (FHD) as there's even scaling. So there's no disadvantage choosing a 4K panel over a 2K panel especially if the cost difference is minimal.