AMD Laptops finally reach the 4k screen barrier | Hacker News Reader

AMD Laptops finally reach the 4k screen barrier

amd-now.com

117 pointsbasilgohar109 comments

The P14 has reasonable ram configurations from what I can tell. Its insane to think that 16G max on a 16 thread processor is enough for any serious workloads that scale with core count (aka a lot of them) as is provided with the T14. But I still don't get why lenovo still provides _soldered_ ram at all on the T/P series machines, I've been repeatedly gimped by that with my work provided machines (besides the inability to match timings when the socket has 2x the capacity installed/etc).

But what I really want to know is where the full bios manual is, so that I can see if its possible to enable S3 standby. My use case for a laptop generally involves putting it in my bag overnight/etc and I expect the battery to basically be where I left it over the weekend/etc. I've yet to have a "modern standby" machine that can pull that off without hibernating the machine. Frequently even with hibernation it will wake repeatedly and drain the battery anyway. Toss in the fact that i've not had good luck with AMD machines power savings and that makes it doubly important that S3 works.

The lack of a pre-installed linux option doesn't provide much confidence.

Acer and some of the smaller vendors seem to be the only ones providing a full suite of BIOS options on their machines (they also have two dimm slots). The problem is that their machines are plasticy and have crummy form factors.

This is why the high resolution screen options were so important. The extra features are almost always available on the smaller OEMs, such a Asus, Acer, MSI, etc., but rarely from the tier-1 vendors (if that is the appropriate term). Hopefully Lenovo doing this will encourage all the rest of the vendors to start making more sensible design changes as well.

That's also the main motivation for me to call this out in such a detailed article – people should have all the choices available to them and not have them artificially directed to "Intel -> quality, AMD -> value/compromise".

I've given up. I disable hibernation and I shutdown my laptop whenever I used to put it to sleep. It's bizarre that standby/hibernation no longer works reliably.

> I still don't get why lenovo still provides _soldered_ ram at all on the T/P series machines

Cynical take: so you buy it, then realize it's soldered, then buy another computer?

> But what I really want to know is where the full bios manual is, so that I can see if its possible to enable S3 standby.

Some Lenovo laptops that come with Windows have a "Sleep State" option that you can switch from "Windows 10" to "Linux", which I think is what disables Modern Standby? I've seen C3 be enabled by one of the options on a recent Lenovo, I think it was probably that setting.

That's why I highlighted this boneheaded move by Lenovo prominently in the article and also blasted them for it.

>Cynical take: so you buy it, then realize it's soldered, then buy another computer?

Bingo! That's why they're all getting a big middle finger from me, and I'm gonna walk the walk and take my money to Framework as all the others try to push you to their premium-buisness-ripoff lines of machines if you want a laptop with more than 16 gigs of RAM.

FFS, just because I need 32 or 64 gigs of RAM doesn't mean I want a $4000 workstation enterprise machine with all the bells and whistles I will never use. Just give me your regular $1000 machine and bill me for the difference to 32/64 gigs.

You can look up such details before buying in https://psref.lenovo.com. Then usually the hardware maintenance manual is available in support, that's the main reason why I end up getting their laptops, although their obnoxious wireless card whitelists (don't trust "compatible" FRUs BTW) make me always look elsewhere in the first place.

If you don't care about "workstation" branding, or out-of-the-box Linux compatibility, you can get a high-RAM laptop by looking at gaming laptops.

This is also true. Gaming laptops tend to have a nice blend of performance features that lend them well to overall performance in may cases, but likely not focusing on super long battery life.

It'd be great if there was a marketing push for gaming laptop-like performance without all the gaming embellishments like RGB lighting, "stealth" appearance, etc. I'd love an elegantly designed, high-capacity battery version.

The Asus ROG Strix G15 Advantage Edition gets the best of these features, with the one exception of lacking a mux switch to turn off the integrated graphics when using the dedicated graphics for even more performance on the built-in screen. There are several YouTube videos that cover this, amongst the best are Jarrod's Tech.

One good thing about USBC charging is that power banks now exist which can charge laptops.

Never had thought about that. Thanks!

I have the 2019 X1 Carbon which has BIOS options for S3 Suspend and S0ix Modern Standby. In my tests both use the same amount of power when sleeping.

It appears that the P14s AMD does support S3.

Comment from @chx on a different thread I found last week:

You can check which ThinkPad BIOS has the option at their BIOS emulation site: https://download.lenovo.com/bsco/index.html

For mine it's under Config // Power // Sleep State. Windows 10 means useless Modern Standby, Linux means S3. https://i.imgur.com/Y5CchL9.png

You must be referring to the T14s with the 16 GB RAM limitation. The T14 has 8/16GB soldered and one free slot where you can install another 16GB.

Not sure if you mean the Gen 1 or Gen 2 T14s, but as I pointed out in the article, both the T14s Gen 2 and P14s Gen 2 can be configured with up to 48GB of RAM, albeit with the lopsided arrangement of 16GB being soldered on while the remaining 32GB are in the upgradable slot as a regular SODIMM.

I really feel an arrangement like this should be outlawed, it really makes little to sense to not have both be regular, upgradable SODIMMs like almost every other normal laptop.

Unfortunately, like the rest of these Thinkpads, some or all of the RAM is soldered.

Meh ... Better to wait for an AMD Framework laptop ...

That would be amazing!

4k on laptops is sort of an anti-feature for me, personally. It doesn't really improve my experience much, and often costs a lot of battery life.

You're not wrong. I would have preferred having the option of 2.5k instead of going all the way to 4k, but 4k is something I would choose to make use of with scaling for a clearer, crisper view of text when coding. I like working up close with my screen and, so far, thankfully, I have excellent near vision, so the appeal is there for me.

There's a Yoga 7 Pro (iirc) with Ryzen and 2.5K OLED. I recently bought one for my mother-in-law, and after setting it up I can say it's a nice machine. Not a ThinkPad keyboard, but not awful by any means and quite decent build quality overall. Didn't load it with compute, though.

If this is available in the US, then I have not been able to find it. I've seen it listed on other countries' respective Lenovo pages or stores outside of the US.

This was indeed in South Korea.

I bought a 4k ThinkPad X1 Carbon in 2019 and I love it, but in retrospect I totally should've bought the 1440p model. On a 14" screen you just don't appreciate the resolution.

And now they don't even make a 1440p model. What the hell? You have to choose between 1080p and 4k, one which is too low, and one too high.

You must never use PDFs then. On a MacBook, it's amazing to see what a difference HiDPI makes.

It's about have the _right_ resolution. On a 13-inch screen, that's about 1440p. On 15, it's 1800p. Both are HiDPI, but neither are 4k, which I do agree, is a waste and actually causes scaling issues.

Does not cause any scaling issue on macOS, ever, so that's a software issue.

And scaling PDFs on the screen to be next to code is really, really better with HiDPI.

I listed the exact resolutions of recent MacBooks. ;)

I am the exact opposite. If a laptop isnt 4k it isn't even a contender. 4k really makes a huge difference to me because the image quality is that much better. Battery life is generally shit on all laptops whether it has 4k or not.

So this is good news from amd because I like them much more than Intel

I'd encourage you to plug in the screen size and resolution into a calculator like https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator before making a decision that it's required. A 4k display is 'retina' at distances much closer than people sit, even at 27". On a laptop size screen, it's even worse.

I have a xps 13 and I specifically chose the 1080p version. Even at that res I still have to zoom / scale.

I have an xps 13 and specifically chose the 4k. I love it and there is no going back to 1080p for me. When I am using the dock it is connected to a pair of 4k 27" dells and it's glorious all around

What you might be seeing is actually the difference between matte and glossy display. I was like you, seeing how supreme 4K panel was ... until I saw glossy 1080p which was much sharper than 1080p matte (which desharpen the image) and not much different from 4K (to my eyes).

(all comparisons took place on XPS 13s)

Different people see things differently. Pixels may not be individually resolvable, but that is far from the only feature that impacts viewing quality. Anti-aliased fonts will look clearer and smoother at smaller sizes on a higher resolution screen. Lines will be sharper. Those with better near vision can pack more details into the page.

Yep, I think this is called 'subpixel visual acuity' and there is a marginal benefit

I would argue it depends on the person. I'd love to be able to test this independently myself, but I don't have enough cash to spare to do so.

If you're aware of folks testing this, it'd be great to share that. The fact remains that 4k displays have been available for non-AMD laptops for a very long time (at least a few years) so they keep making them and people keep buying them, so I'd like that arrangement to be offered at least for AMD laptops as well, because it's definitely something lots of people, as this thread clearly demonstrates.

There isn't any need to plug something into a calculator – the difference in text clarity is immediately obvious.

4K is a little overkill for a 14" screen, but I understand why the jump instead of making custom resolutions.

I can clearly see the pixels on a 13" or 15" laptop display at 1080p. It doesn't start looking seamless until 1440p or so. The advantages of 4K depend heavily on the quality of your eyesight

How's your vision? The difference for me is noticeable even without glasses — even on a 13" display, the higher resolution display is quite obvious since you don't see visible pixel boundaries and I find it's less strain over the course of a day.

(And to be clear, I’m not asking to be mean — I have multiple friends who were skeptical about retina displays, got an updated eye exam, and became huge fans)

Not the person you asked this to, but I have 20/20 recently tested. I can certainly see the difference between 1080p and 4k on a laptop screen. I just don't see how it's worth the extra cost and reduced battery life.

Either way I think 1440p is the sweet spot. Wish more laptops would go that route.

That’s certainly fair - not everyone has the same priorities and budget. I don’t think anyone is saying you must buy a high resolution screen – it seemed more like rejecting the idea that it’s not useful.

I'm not sure if 4K is enough to be Retina on a 27 inch at normal viewing distances. Apple made their 24 inch iMac 4.5K, and they call that Retina. And also their 27 inch collab with LG is a 5K screen.

What is it that you do that requires 4k? Genuinely curious. I'm a software engineer and to me 4k sounds like it wouldn't make a difference. But maybe you are one too and I just don't know any better. Thanks in advance.

Text looks sooo much better in 4K. Antialiasing especially around curves kills text for me in 1080p. Plus if you have good eyesight you can fit more text on your screen.

1440p would have the same result on a tiny screen.

Personal experience but no. 1440p doesn't even come close

Eye strain is much lower on 4k because fonts are smoother. It's not about screen estate (but sometimes it is, if you really need it), but mostly about clarity and smoothness in 2x retina mode

For me the only, huge, selling point of 4k is text rendering. I could watch movies, do graphics or play games on a full HD screen all day long, but for programming I cannot go back.

I like the extra screen space 4K offers; but only on large screens. I run without any scaling (well, 100%), my editor offers 101 lines visible vertical and 470 columns. (each line is ~1/4" measured on a ruler; 27" screen 23" from my eyes)

I can view ~6 open files at once (more depending), and this can be very helpful when trying to remember context: instead of remembering, I just split the screen and open the same file again.

When I got a 4K monitor, it replaced my previous dual monitor setup. I now prefer just one high-res monitor. Only disadvantage is that I spend time tweaking font sizes, but that's mostly front-loaded and once it's set up (Linux) I don't even think about it.

Also a programmer here. 4k 39" TV with zero scaling is my main setup. It's lovely - I highly recommend it. With a tiling window manager, I can see lots of code, run my tests, keep an eye on the command line, have API docs open, all kinds of stuff. It's even more dramatic than going from 1 screen to 2, IMO. In a way it's going from 2 to 4 :D

How close are you sitting to your 4k, presumably like 15 inch, screen? Or, how good is your vision?

A 4k, 15 inch screen is "retina" at 12 inches away and has a ppi of 293.72.

There may be something to be said about subpixels; but, it may be a placebo effect over a 1440p screen, honestly.

Agreed; I have a Google Pixelbook Go with a 1080p 13.3" screen. The native resolution of my screen is 80% scaling, while I run at "100%" scaling or "Looks like 1536 x 864". Native resolution turns it into a chesttop instead of a laptop.

Maybe if I bought a 17" laptop I could consider 4k.

I wish we'd have more 2k laptops; for me that's the sweet spot. 1080p decidedly too little, 4k overkill.

But then I'm one of those people who run with really small fonts, apparently.

You have now some with 3k resolution, 16:10 ratio.

I hope we get to see more of those.

FWIW, 4k is X x 2160 (where X is usually somewhere between 4096 (4k) and 3840), so 1080p which is usually 1920 x 1080 is effectively 2k.

It looks like there are some 1440p and 1800p standardish resolutions that probably make sense as a middle ground.

Huh, seems I'm confused with the terminology. Min 1440p is what I'm referring to, in either case.

That's because the terminology is dumb! Or at least, very misleading, since it's anchored on a different part of the spec than the previous dominant terminology

I strongly against to call 2560px 2K. It should be wrong and confusing.

4K is came from 3840 or 4096px. 4K/2=2K, so 2K should refer near 1920 to 2048px, so naturally the standard FHD 1920. 2560px must not be called as 2K. It's even near 3K if rounded. Sadly some smartphone manufacturers call 2560px 2K.

That’s one of several reasons I still like my 2013 Google Chromebook Pixel (runs normal Linux pretty well).

After a decade plus on a MacBook Pro, it always blows me away looking at non-retina displays. At this point, anything less than 4k might as well be a monochrome monitor limited to 80 characters per line. It just looks so dated and hideous. And when someone sends me screenshots that aren't from a 4k monitor... oof. Like, "Guys can you go re-do that deck on a computer that doesn't take quarters to operate?" Ha.

I have a 4k, 17" laptop and I've concluded that it's largely pointless. Everything needs to be scaled up anyway to make it usable.

That scaling isn't like a zoom, though. It makes letters crisper, borders pixel perfect etc.

This is an important distinction that some get fooled by. It's the same physical size when scales but is substantially more crisp

Particularly if you disable subpixel anti-aliasing because the color fringing is distracting.

I'm not so sure about 2k/3k screens @ 14" though. 1080p is about right for 1:1 scaling, but isn't sharp with smaller fonts. If one is going to scale the screen 2k definitely isn't enough to get that "smooth" look.

I tend to run fedora/kde these days though, and the scaling there is pretty bulletproof @ 4k/14". Once in a while something will fail to scale properly, but its rare.

It's not worth the price premium, IMO. Maybe on a mac it's good. But Linux's font rendering is a shitshow when the same font can look totally different in different apps. Windows isn't too bad, but there are even parts of that that struggle with fnt rendering.

It can be a bit overkill, and I run with 250% scale. Having something matching 200% scale would have lead to less artifacts. (or 300%, I guess)

However, when used to it, it's hard to go back.

Understood, but after using the Surface Book at 3000x2000@13.5" (267 PPI), I'm spoiled. The text is a lot better.

It is an advantage if you want to connect it to a large monitor and mirror the displays to have the same desktop on both screens

The real irony is their popularity on "gaming" laptops, where the 4k display results in noticeably worse game performance while not looking any better to the naked eye than a 1440p screen probably would.

I'm surprised at the authors reverence for the Lenovo T14. I purchased one in September of last year and returned it in less than a month!

While it was quite performant, the screen shipped with it was unusably color inaccuarate. Reviews online stating that it had a color accuracy of just 37% NTSC.

In addition to having horrible color accuracy in general usage (tomatoes would look like oranges for instance) using something like "F.Lux" or "Windows Nightlight" would cause this level of color-inaccuracy to appear

Windows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgjqeDF9c50

Linux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBx4mmPrM

Microsoft's own demo of the technology shows what it "should" look like on a more proper display https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QCRDn8-qLo#t=1m58s

Very glad to hear your insight. I have not purchased one myself yet for lack of a detailed review of most of these.

I wouldn't say I "revere" there, rather, I am just glad the options exist as all. I am hopeful for a network effect.

Historically, however, the T series of ThinkPads have been excellent. My wife used to have one and many others did as well, and its legacy extended into the Lenovo era.

Edit: I was specifically talking about the AMD T14s, specifically, so not sure if that's germane to your issue.

For quick reference on my AMD T14 with the 500nit display:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/knsjnbw6875buwo/PXL_20211018_17194...

(I do not have similar complaints about the color accuracy, personally, but I'm not especially sensitive to them.)

I will take your word for it, but I think captured video of screens' performance is probably not going to relay what you want to show in the best light (pun slightly intended).

As I said elsewhere, I don't doubt the issues folks are having, and I hope more people raise it. It's important they are known and the OEMs address them. The comment has definitely sparked good discussion in the thread so far.

I may cover that in future articles, too.

Sure, you're going through six degrees of color reproduction, my purpose was primarily to illustrate that I did not see mistaking the color of a tomato for an orange as likely in my case.

The market in which T series ThinkPads are normally sold value screen quality at the bottom. We order them by the truckload it seems and we always opt for the cheapest, crappiest screen they have.

Why? because these are business computers that spend all day looking displaying boring business applications. The most interesting thing they do is Zoom meetings.

We even get sub 1080p displays because, no shit, they are a waste on many of our users who have less than stellar eyesight. You may wonder why we don't just use the desktop sclaing feature in Windows 10. And thats because more than one of our niche industry specific core applications is completely incompatible with it. And if you try to use it the interface will become horribly mangled with missing text and interface elements that are impossible to click.

T series are great business computers but they aren't always the best choice for everyone. The best display they offer is just OK. Not great. But this isn't a given across the line. Lenovo does have models with great screens. Just not the T series.

I don’t know if it’s the best display they offer, but my T490 has a 1440P HDR IPS panel that suits me fine. I’d consider it more than “just okay”.

That said, I agree with your general point because all the other screen options were hot garbage.

This was really big news for me, so I really put a lot into documenting this important milestone and why I felt it was important.

Also, it was my first time including an audio version, so feel free to load the page and listen rather than read. Just forgive the "first time-ed-ness" and my awkward mistakes. I did so many retakes and still so many glitches made it into the final audio recording.

For now the biggest problem with modern laptops is the small amount of RAM - most limited by 16Gb. In the age of Docker, virtual machines, Electron applications and heavy Web applications this amount is quickly insufficient.

All these laptops I mentioned in the article can go up to 32GB, and two of them up to 48GB (albeit with unbalanced SODIMMs).

Problem is, AMD powered laptops are somewhat hard to find. Lenovo has some real nice lightweight models with 120 Hz IPS screens but they only come with 16GB soldered RAM and 512GB SSD.

And they are hard to find. Like real hard. Lightweight machines with 5800u/5850u and/or 5900hx are almost like unicorn like.

Trusted Lenovo with the A485 to have a good Ryzen laptop. Never again. Thinkpad is really loosing its edge.

That's interesting. My wife has the same but she loves it. Maybe there are different use cases. She runs Fedora on it, for what it's worth, and never complains to me about the hardware itself.

Debian here. Runs very hot, loses key, usb does not always recognize devices, WiFi driver hold-up boot sequence for 2m, all in all a rushed and bad design that is not aging well in my case.

By my math, a 4k laptop screen needs to be 20" diagonally before the pixel density drops to a perceptible level. Any smaller than that and the pixel density is so great that I don't think you are getting any improvement to clarity at a typical laptop viewing distance.

20" laptops are a pretty rare occurrence today, even in the desktop replacement space. Most laptops I see with 4k screens are 13" to 17".

So my question is, why waste GPU cycles (and by extension, battery) driving all these extra pixels?

Once you get older, you want less resolution, not more, because the pixels get too small. I've got a laptop with a native resolution of 1920x1080, which makes everything too small to see (blame Windows for this), but works just find for my secondary monitor which is twice the size, 4 times the area.

I've currently got it set at 1280x720, which is a reasonable size when you drag things between monitors, or use it without the big screen.

I definitely couldn't read anything with a font that fits more than about 30 lines of text on the screen.

Enjoy those small texts, and lots of them, while you can.

Shouldn't use resolutions which needs to be scaled by the panel and/or driver because it makes things fuzzy because of interpolation.

Exception would be if the resolution could be upscaled by exactly two in both directions.

If that isn't possible, varying the default font sizes seems more useful.

Another avenue to test would be small amounts of Cannabis, since that tends to lessen your inner eyeball pressure, and thus changes your sight.

For me it seems to be the other way around. The older I get, the easier it is to read small things, if, and only if they are in far enough distance. So more distance from screen is better. Was just over an arms length, now I need more.

I would vary the font size, but then stuff on the bigger monitor would be too big. Windows really doesn't handle the idea of multiple size monitors well.

Well if you go high-enough resolution, then you can scale the display and it will be big enough to read, but also much sharper. You want integer scaling though, otherwise you get unclean lines, weird "rounding" errors, etc. On my 2880x1800 macbook, 2x scaling gets me 1440x900 apparent resolution, perfectly sharp and very readable. If you've got a 4K screen, you can do 2x scaling to get 1080. If you've got 8K… well then I suppose you can do 3x scaling to get 1440p. Now I'd like to see that.

I've been using "Virtual Super Resolution", and it works well for at least watching Youtube videos. OLED for work isn't really a thing yet unless you're loaded, but that's what I'll be waiting for in more affordable laptops, more than 4k.

Good news as 4k has been long time coming to AMD.

However there is a bit of a problem when configuring 4k screen and 5850U on P14 on lenovo site:

*Ships in 4+ months*

Supply issues considered that is just horrible for a tier 1 manufacturer.

PS There were no 4k ready to ship preconfigured options at the time I checked.

T14 (AMD Gen 2 with Zen 3) has a higher res config too. But how useful is such resolution on 14" laptop? Can you see a big difference? And I'd imagine it comes at the shorter battery life price as well.

Many folks have commented on both sides – lots of folks think it's overkill and lots of other folks that have actually used those screens like it as it provides an overall higher quality display and viewing experience for sharpness and crispness of anti-aliased text and more.

If you do not have good near-sighted vision, it's understandable if the feature is not that appealing to you.

I see. I found it more surprising that there was no 2.5K option in between which could offer good balance between improved quality and not draining the battery too much.

How is Linux support on those? And how is Linux support on 4k/HiDPI in general?

I'm thinking of replacing aging Macbook Pro and those look pretty good.

HiDPI on Linux is certainly not as good as MacOS (from what I've heard) or Windows but it can be decent. If you are on Wayland than display scaling both integer and fractional works pretty well. Scaling older X11/Xwayland applications can be a bit of a pain so sometimes those windows look blurry.

4K itself without any scaling works perfectly fine so I typically try to get laptops and monitors with a DPI between 100 and 140 so that I don't have to worry about scaling. Higher resolutions on smaller screens i.e laptops also use more power anyway.

Thanks for sharing. I run my 4k monitor at home at 1:1 so I don't use (and don't need) scaling, but nice to hear someone else had some experience with it. I always worry about the lag on desktop features with Linux, but I've generally not had problems in recent years with Fedora, for example.

I currently use a 4K monitor and a 2K monitor side by side for my work with 1.5x scaling on the 4K monitor, so things are the same size on both. Gnome only allowed integer scaling by default, but IIRC I enabled fractional scaling with a dconf setting that I found through googling. I don't have any issues with this setup, although obviously things look more clear on the 4K monitor, so some people might not like the disparity.

On my 2013 Google Chromebook Pixel (running real Linux) I set Xft.dpi: 240 in my .Xresources file, matching the screen resolution. Seems to work well. I’m not sure what “scaling” is. Is that it? I wouldn’t want to use a 140 dpi screen, unless it were a big one mounted 6 feet or so away.

ThinkPads overall tend to have great Linux support. Being AMD-only tends to improve that. The wireless networking drivers and sometimes features like brightness adjustment and Fn-based functionality are where there tends to be issues on early release but they are usually addressed quickly as adoption increases and more kernel devs look into reported issues.

I'd love to buy some of these and do full-on reviews but the funding isn't there yet. AMDNow! currently makes me exactly zero dollars.

I use fedora gnome desktop and although it could be better, I'm happy with the scaling.

The native apps like the terminal and Firefox scale perfectly. When in-between screens one screen may show the window very zoomed in, but when totally on one screen it will show correctly.

Apps which still use x11 (Chrome, Steam, vscode, anything electron) show at the scale factor of the primary monitor. They're perfectly fine if you only use one monitor. When I have multiple monitors I make sure the x11 windows are on my externals (as they're the same scaling factor and one of them is my primary).

Linux support for HiDPI is not great. GTK3 apps are scaled appropriately, but GTK2 apps are not, and there are still quite a few of those, like GIMP. Such apps are displayed ridiculously tiny on a 4k display with unreadably small text.

I've heard that if you use Wayland, these older apps get pixel scaled up, but most Linux distros have spotty support for Wayland, so getting it running can be labor intensive.

Unfortunately fractional scaling in wayland is broken to the point where even X works better: For videos in 1.5x scale, the player renders it at 2x and wayland scales it down to 1.5x, costing performance and causing artifacts. In X the video player just renders directly.

I’ve had a 4K 15” Dell for a couple of years, and the Linux support for 4K has been very sucky with Ubuntu.

There are lots of corner cases, and every now and then you run into a program that just won’t scale and the text is teensy weensy, and there is no usable workaround.

I wished I had chosen the 1080p matt screen (or maybe 1440p 15” if that were an option on the XPS).

Apart from that I have been pretty impressed with the Dell with Linux drivers - for example still getting necessary firmware updates via Ubuntu.

It's lenovo so is there still a display lottery for such display? 50/50 chance to get one that is garbage?

It would be nice if this were accurately tracked somewhere so it can be called out and Lenovo being shamed for offering. If you have references to where this is logged, it'd be great. I've not heard of such a problem independently, but I'm interested in knowing more about that.

Whatabout laptops like the Asus rog flow 13? It's been 4K and possible to buy for half a year at least? Am I missing something?

One of the key points I was making was that pure AMD laptops have not had the high-end features afforded to those with either Intel or nVidia hardware. These Lenovo ThinkPads use AMD both for mainline CPU as well as GPU purposes (i.e., it's an APU that serves both functions).

Laptops with only AMD for CPU and graphics acceleration have been notably absent from the 4k club until just now. That was the crux of the entire article.

On the day that Apple takes their next step forward, this announcement is effusive over a 2560x1600 screen? Am I reading this right?

They have never been available for AMD laptops before this and there are also, for the first time, 4k screens available on AMD laptops. The title really does hit all the important points I was trying to make, I believe. 2560x1600 is on the smallest of the 3 laptops featured in the article.

Sure but Lenovo has been offering some AMD models with 90Hz 2880x1800 panels for some time now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com