Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnklos | Hacker News Reader

Hold on - it's 2022, and an extremely high end $4000 laptop with the latest Intel CPU and an NVIDIA 3080Ti comes with a display that's... 1080 resolution?

My 2008 17" MacBook Pro has a screen that's 1920 x 1200. My iPhone 6+ is 1920 x 1080.

What am I missing? Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions?

View on HN

"1080p display with a 360Hz refresh rate" as they are for distinct use.

> Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions?

Exactly one specific version of one exact laptop has 1080p, and you jump to that conclusion? You are missing 99.999% of the picture here!

It’s one laptop. But it’s not a $350 laptop. It’s $4000. It has the top of the line Intel chip and (what I believe) is the top of the line GPU out now.

If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one.

Nope. $1100 Air has a better screen.

> If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one.

Well no... they put a very fast (high refresh) gaming screen in a gaming laptop.

If you want QHD or 4K screens, they are out there. That's not... more than a Google away. So it's a really bad assumption to make.

Here, first google result for "Intel 4K laptop", it's $1500.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-zenbook-flip-15-q538ei-15-...

Your faulty logic was disproved.

According to The Verge there is another configuration of this machine with double the RAM and a 4K 240Hz for the same price.

Why in the world would you want a 1080p display just to get an extra 120 FPS? Even if you can perceive that difference (which I kind of doubt) you’re not going to get rates that high with your settings up high anyway. In The Verge’s tests only the old CS:GO got above 150 (it got over 400!).

“ In conclusion, putting a 1080p screen on this system is like sticking an MLB player in a Little League game. Sure, he’s gonna look impressive, but what is the point? These are 4K chips, and I’m not just referring to the price of this unit.”

There are people who want extremely high framerates, and they are the people this product is for. They play games that are not CPU-bound below the framerates they want, and they adjust the graphics settings until they achieve those framerates. The fact that they are throwing expensive modern GPU hardware at graphics that may be relatively primitive on a per-frame basis doesn't matter; for them, it's the framerate that matters.

Can’t you just set the game to FHD on a 4K screen and get the same frame rate? Or does the higher resolution still „consume performance“ from the GPU?

I don't think 4K@360Hz is a thing yet.

Beyond that, one imagines there may be some performance and power overhead, and many hardcore high-FPS players will probably prefer a display that natively matches their target resolution. It eliminates unnecessary variables that might affect performance.

Current GPU can't handle 4K120Hz on latest game with higher settings, and 4K on laptop for gaming isn't strongly needed. 1440p240Hz would be another sweet spot but 1080p360Hz is for who prefer the top refresh rate.

Professional CS:GO is played mostly at 1280x720 and 300-400FPS+ There is definitely a market need for this type of setup, whether you think it's a dumb idea or not.

You don't play on the highest settings in competitive shooters even when you are CPU bound and your machine outputs same amount of frames regardless of performance. Higher settings means more distractions for them.

$1100 Air has 60Hz screen, which is equal to oldest LCDs found in laptops. That's not a good screen, that's horrible.

Resolution isn't everything.

The original PCWorld article linked in the Macworld article compares three different laptops (Asus AMD, MSi Intel 11th gen, MSi Intel 12th gen). All three have 1080p resolution displays.

How are three high end laptops from two vendors "exactly one specific version of one exact laptop"?

It's a gaming laptop. The refresh rate is 360hz.

My 7 year old laptop is 1440p, and 4k laptops have been a thing for a long time. Every manufacturer has one.

Yes basically 95% of PC monitors are < 100 DPI.

That's just sad. Personally, I can't go back to displays with low DPI. Too much strain for my eyes.

you would if you used windows. DPI scaling is _horrible_. macos figured this out years ago. it'll take a decade to solve this problem on windows and it'll never be 100% solved, because legacy apps don't support any kind of scaling at all.

I've used Windows 10 on a 4K monitor at 200% for a couple years and I didn't have any issue. macOS' scaling works best, but Windows has been HiDPI ready for a while, and only a small handful of old apps need you to enable the application-scaling option manually. Especially since Windows still runs 15 years old applications that use crappy old APIs, while macOS doesn't.

It's not fantastic by any means, but it's a disservice to call it _horrible_.

200% is easy mode since legacy apps look sort of ok. i'm on a 4k monitor with 150% scaling right now and e.g. task manager (hardly a legacy app) looks absolutely awful.

For gaming refresh rate is generally preferred over resolution.

And this panel has 6 times more frames per second than any of the apple devices you listed.

Best for high refresh rate gaming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com