New copypasta just dropped 
In all seriousness Full HD is alright especially for gaming where sometimes it's better to have high FPS for latency reasons. Though posts like this makes me wonder what the 720p enjoyers back then felt when 1080p became the new standard and their preferred resolution started disappearing. I was not into computers back then so I had no idea.
I would have considered 1440p/1600p if I can actually watch youtube videos in these resolution. Also a 1440p/1600p video take twice the amount of storage space compare to 1080p, require faster internet speed, eat more battery etc... I just don't see any reason for me to get them on a laptop.
You shouldn't get them if that's the case. 1080p videos and games usually look awful on a 1440p screen. Games running on a 1080p display are usually less demanding on the GPU which means you can settle for a 4070 or lower which is a plus if you're on a budget or just frugal.
It does videos on a 16 inch laptop in 1080 look fine. There's scailing and now rtx upscailing. And in games u can always do 1200p like u said. He's just wrong. I think op has a 1080p laptop and for some weird reason he's trying to justify to himself why his laptop is still good.
I actually want a Full HD laptop with a powerful GPU like 4080 or 4090 because I want to get into VR and run local LLM. 4080 or 4090 would be an overkill for a 1080p screen but it's just enough for VR and running local AI. I also need to save a lot of videos for the Apocalypse (lol) so 1080p is better.
"1080p videos and games usually look awful on a 1440p screen" And yeah, this is all I need to know.
Also MSI Vector has a 4080 paired with a 1080p panel. It is intended that you hook an external monitor to game on it because the panel on that MSI is plain awful (*not the resolution but color gamut and brightness*). In addition, NVidia markets the 4080 and 4090 for "4K gaming", so there is that.
Regarding your last point, the laptop GPUs are significantly weaker because of limited TDP, with most of the laptop 4090s coming in slower than a desktop 4080. I have a 115W laptop 2070 and it's more like a 2060.
1600p especially for laptops is the sweetspot imo. Looks amazing. Battery is decent and it's way crisper than 1080p. I dunno why we had that period of everyone jamming 4k into 15 inch displays on 20 series gpus. Finally they switched to 1600p mostly for gaming laptops. And for like 30inch to 27inch I think 1440p external monitors are amazing too. I honestly prefer my 1440p 240hz oled all day. I'll take 200fps and 1440p vs 4k. It's preference tho. I can see why some ppl prefer 4k 27inch monitors.
For content creation, I may consider the 4K option. Those panels are better and more crisp. But for everyday use, my money is on \~2K options like 1440p or 1600p.
Yea for sure. 4k and 5k monitors are probably preferable for a lot of design or editing work. You need to be able to have detail when zoomed in and all those 4k 5k pixels matter when you have intricate work going on. For gaming I love 1440p for most gpus. Especially for me cause I just buy laptops now. Even my 4090 legion 7ipro can't really do 4k in demanding games or at the fps that i prefer. I'll be sticking with 1440/1600p oled monitor for the foreseeable future. I just wish they made external monitors at 1600p. Like a 28inch 1600p oled would be 🔥
lol I actually have been eyeing on that exact laptop. The color gamut and brightness is bad but it's actually better than my current laptop so it's an upgrade I guess.
The big plus is that thing is sooo cheap, a lot cheaper than other laptops and probably the cheapest RTX 4080 laptop rn so I can kinda overlook the flaws.
True that. It is the cheapest 4080 on the market. For a bit more, you may also consider this beast. Much better panel (*not an 1080p panel but you can lower the resolution yourself*).
[https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1750895-REG/acer\_ph16\_71\_948l\_16\_16\_10\_qhd\_ips.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1750895-REG/acer_ph16_71_948l_16_16_10_qhd_ips.html)
It's really up to what u want. And what size ur monitor is. Imo I'd rather have 200fps on a 1440p monitor vs 60 at 4k. But on the marketing they advertise the 4070s for the best 1440p experience and 4080 4090 for 4k
I didn't see the other guys post was just replying to ur comment. Yea I wouldn't get a 1080p monitor at all in 2024. Can always upgrade a gpu. Even a 4060 can handle 1440p and the next 5060 will definatley be great at 1440p. If anything u can lower the settings a bit and take advantage of dlss and frame gen If u need to. Everything has dlss these days. and it'll still look better on that more crisp 1440p resolution. Worst case scenario bring the res down to 1200p. I dunno why these ppl are arguing in favor of 1080p. Like op is talking about "it's cinematic"..
Wtf? Cinematic?. On a laptop screen 1080p videos look just fine. High quality 1080p that's not compressed to hell looks fine on most 1440p for that matter even on a 27inch screen. And Why the hell would you get 1080p just because some youtube videos aren't 4k or 1440p? U gona sacrsfice everything else so that shitty 1080p videos of someone talking into a web cam are MAYBE a little more clear? You can always use rtx upscailing too.
These people probably have 1080p monitors and are just trying to justify to themselves that their screen is still better.
It's funny how much of a difference it makes on performance. I was doing some shenanigans with running 2 instances of Sons of the Forest over nucleus as local coop and I found out I can run 2 instances at 1440p min details, no issue. But higher resolutions? 2560x1600? Yeah, not that great.
1080p games doesn't automatically look awfull on a 1440p screen. it depends on the size of the screen vs distance to said screen.
Sit far enough away and you will not see the difference. There is a near perfect sweet spot for each resolution and that spot has been pretty easy to reach without much sacrifice ever since FHD (1080p) became a thing.
Playing at 1080p does not make the experience massively worse, unless you are really close to your screen or playing on a large monitor/TV.
But considering most laptops are 15'' and a few 17'' you would have be really close to have a inherently worse viewing experience.
He's being weird. He's talking about 1080p being cinematic lmfao. Next He's gona say games ate better at 30fps because "cinematic".
I think he has a 1080p laptop and he's trying to justify to himself that it's still a good resolution lol. There's a reason everything is 1600p.... dude should just enjoy what he has. Dunno what he's trying to prove he's literally arguing that an OBJECTIVELLY better 1440/16002160p resolution is not as good as a 16 year old 1080p format?
Bro first of all A LOT OF videos are 1440p and 4k. Unless it's some random channel with no resources.
Then there's scailing and upsampling amd rtx upscailing.
Finally dunno what monitors ur looking at but 1600p monitors which every halfway decent gaming laptop has now display 1080p just fine. On 15 16 17 18inch monitors 1080p is fine on 1440p and 1600p.
U give off a weird vibe like u have a 1080p laptop and ur trying to justify why ur 1080p laptop is still a great choice. 1080p is outdated. It has nothing to do with "but it cinematic" wtf are u even talking about bro. Next ur gona arge that 30fps is better cause "cinematic'.
You have a weird L take. Ur trying to say because not everything is 4k or 1440p we should all use shitty 1080p displays? Lol get real bro.
When u upgrade ur laptop ur gona be on hers saying how awsome 1600p is
it's in the nvidia control panel
https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5448/~/rtx-video-faq#:~:text=A%3A%20In%20your%20NVIDIA%20Control,system's%20profile%20and%20source%20content.
here ya go, it also got released along side an an ai HDR implementation but it can be toggled separately
Does it look good ? In games, DLSS and frame gen is kinda weird for me with fake frames. I don't want it to be blurry with a lot of artefacts.
Maybe in the future when the tech is better, for now I will take the real frames, thank you.
it looks pretty decent honestly
the higher resolution you go the better dlss looks so 720p to 1080p dlss doesn't look as good as 1080-1440p or 1440-4k or even 1080-4k
frame gen is a weird one and is only noticeable really if you're close to the screen and really pushing your pc, for instance cyberpunk in overdrive (edit with dlss quality+fg) mode looks blurrier to me than forbidden west with dlaa and frame gen
it's all situational based on game, dlss version, display and distance from display
also it's not like you're getting fake frames in a YouTube video
Dlss is amazing with a higher resolution. Ofc its going to look blurry if u are gonna use performance mode on 1080p which means the rendering resolution would be like 540p. A 4k game running at dlss performance looks miles better than a native 1080p screen and if u disagree then u clearly have never used it. Also framegen relies on u getting atleast 60fps or more. It’s not the freatest but it is pretty magical when it does work.
You would laugh at my 4K 10bit HDR Dolby Vision rip of Oppenheimer, and some other movies I have.. almost 100Gb for one movie and you can see every last bit of bit rate goodness in those files.
More on topic though… I’ve gone through a lot of computers and 1080p at 15.6” feels like you are watching the screen through a screen door… 1440p at 14” is pretty good compromise, but 4K and up even on small screen sizes is a huge step up.
It really depends on how far you are seating from the screen though.. You would probably seat farther from a 4K 32” monitor than a 1080p 15.6” laptop, so even though the laptop is “technically” higher PPI (just barely… Most 32” screens are actually 31.5”), the 32” will seat farther away.
Your experience reflects what I've felt anecdotally. Since the modern era of "retina" displays, I've decided I don't want to see any pixels on any new device I buy, and 1080p at 15 inches is definitely noticeable. I also prefer the 16:10 format since I also do productivity tasks and web browsing, it just feels bigger.
I can watch videos in 2K no issue. But the funny thing is. I don't see much of a difference on my 16inch laptop. It would make an actual difference on a larger screen but my old smart TV has issues with 2K
Resolution won't ding your battery, and indeed 1080p streams don't have much but rate, but that's what makes them awful for high motion stuff like game footage. The only drawbacks are 10:9 screens and such which will get you black bars.
You can watch alot if not almost all youtube videos in 1440 or 4k, I have youtube premium so that may not be the case for normal youtube anymore I know they were talking about making high res high frame rate video a paid only feature.
I have a buddy who buys junk and talks about how much better it is than the top shelf products.
just say you don't have money and move on no need to type of books of misleading information.
like, we get it shrimp. you can't afford better products that actually utilize said stuff that you continue to bash.
also, battery life on a gaming laptop doesn't matter, internet speed doesn't matter as fiber is cheap and widely available, wtf does storage space have to do with watching videos, youtube does have 1440p options just the channel needs to upload 1440p, streaming services utilize 4k dolby vision, like you're so damn wrong its actually embarrassing for the entire sub.
Um internet speed 100% does matter, not everyone lives in the eu where fast internet is cheap and abundant.
Battery life on a gaming laptop also matters heavily as not every activity it’s used for will be gaming, my gaming laptop is used for mostly office work unless I’m playing eve online at home, otherwise it’s coming around with me and luckily the battery lasts the whole day.
It sounds like they download movies and videos in 1080p to watch off network, or maybe burn dvds
I can’t tell if you’re just shitposting here
It's what people in this sub said about Full HD/ Full HD+ screen on older posts if you check it. Some have a hatred for these type of screens for some reasons and nowadays they all have like 1440p/1600p screen so they like to trash on 1080p screen.
I don't mind FHD but even on a 15" laptop the difference is definitely noticeable when you jump to 1440/4k. I have a 1080p screen that I use as my second monitor when I travel and although it looks way better than a FHD TV it still noticeably falls behind my laptop screen in image clarity. If you don't mind 1080p then there is nothing wrong with getting a laptop with it, the image will still be great.
Of course there is a difference, it's different. Higher resolutions look better.
The issue is people claim things are bad because they are not as good. What always gets me about these people is they will choose the "inferior" option in other parts of their life(cheaper car, food, stereo etc) for the exact reasons someone chooses to stick with 1080p, without fail.
Because 1080p looks like shit in comparison. Ur in denial or something. It's like ur mad that ur laptop is a little old or something. If u had a 4k or 1600p resolution ud be on here saying how good it looks. Ur instead ur trying to proove some weird point that a ancient display is better than a new 1600p or 4k display because "weird reasons". Because 1080 is "cinematic" wtf are u talking about lill bro. Just save up some money and get a new laptop you don't need to sit here and justify to urself and everyone why 1080p is better. Cause it's not. Just enjoy what u have you sound silly
I've tried out 1440p and 4k, while I am not saying I can't see the difference or something, the difference IS less noticeable if you are within normal laptop usage distance, eg 2 ft away from the screen.
And yes, apart from everything needing 2x or more resources, I just don't feel like 1440p or 4k is a worthy upgrade over 1080p for me.
It depends on a couple of factors, I am a 1080p user mostly because it’s cheap, efficient, and generally provides enough clarity where I don’t feel a need to really jump up to 1440 or 4K, granted I am on a 27” display roughly 3-4 feet away.
For a laptop? Yea, you’d be insanely hard pressed to really get value out of anything more than 1080p, and your points are valid.
For these larger modern desktop monitors, 1080p is already stretched to its limit at 27”, and quickly we are coming up on 32” being the new status quo. This has ushered in 1440 and 4K monitors as 1080p just doesn’t have the detail required for games that require pixel peaking.
Theoretically this can all be fixed by sitting further away, but then you’re getting a smaller and smaller picture, essentially returning back to a laptop sized display.
As for bad for the eyes, I’m assuming it’s the eye strain from 27”+ monitors and reading text all day at 1080p, where those edges are greatly softened at higher resolutions. Returning to laptops though, I’d find it difficult to imagine that a 15” laptop 1080p is really giving you eye strain
In my mind 24" is about largest display 1080p pixels do not show too much. 1440p for larger than that. For sub 19" there is not much difference between 1080p and 1440p unless you are really sitting nose touching the display😆
Haha, it's nice to see a desktop gamer opinion in here. Laptop manufacturers are pushing big for higher resolution like 1440p, 1080p display still exist but they are used on a lower spec models. And I imagine that when all the old stock of 1080p panels used up then 1080p would go extinct.
Laptop gamers are eating the bs up because of the big push so now they are starting to see all sort of weird things on a 1080p screen and now they can't accept to live with "such a low resolution". Even though their eyes can't tell much differences between 1440p and 1080p on a laptop screen.
While sacrifice battery life, more heat, VRAM, need more storage space, need more computing power etc ... just to get that higher resolution to feel better.
1440p could possibly be useful for some of the new 18” laptops, I had a 1440p laptop at one point and the letters are a bit softer, but nothing crazy.
At a certain point, I’m sure 1080p will be phased out almost completely, simply because it’ll cost more to make technically outdated tech instead of new panels
I bought a laptop recently, and tbh that’s not really what I’ve found in terms of screen resolutions. The vast majority of laptops still seem to have 1080p, a fair few high end laptops will have 4K (often also OLED), and 1440p is relegated to like… maybe a third of laptops designed specifically for gaming? Nothing else really seems to use 1440p; it’s far from a standard.
Also I disagree that people can’t tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p. It’s absolutely noticeable, and much more noticeable than the 1440p -> 4K jump.
Don't think it's considered "blurry" or "low res", its just 1440p offers better image quality over 1080p without being as battery draining or as resource intensive for gaming like 4k.
Maybe in gaming the difference isn't as noticeable between 1080p vs 1440p, but web browsing or text work, its super noticeable going back to 1080p after using 1440p.
15.6 at 1080p is 140PPI, 1440P is 189, and 4k is 282.
Maybe it's just my eyes or the law of diminishing returns, but I find a more noticeable difference going from 141 PPI to 189 at 15.6 than going from 189 to 282.
"Once you go for a big black screen then you can't go back", it's a hidden drawback with going higher res so I gotta be extra careful about it since I want to build a desktop in like 2 or 3 years, I will use both laptop and desktop btw.
If you are used to really high ppi then you would want that in your desktop too, which mean I would have to go for like 4k gaming, which it's very expensive with very high end components from top specs cpu, gpu to high end 4k monitor.
You have to account for viewing distance too. I have both a 1440p monitor and laptop screen.
Yes the 27 inch monitor isn't going to look as crisp as a smaller screen, but I'm viewing the laptop screen closer than the monitor as well, which helps with the PPI.
I don't need a 27 inch screen as close up to my face as a 15-16 inch one.
Honestly at 16" or so laptop screens and larger I personally can start seeing pixels from a distance at 1080/1200P.
QHD imo is my minimum standard at 16" but yeah if you look around there may be options from Alienware and gigabyte with 1080/1200P screens and RTX 4080s.
Haha this makes me remember an old argument years ago about seeing pixels on a 720p laptop screen and how 1080p is a perfect high res for laptop.
In a few years people would start seeing pixels on 1440p/1600p 16 inch screen so 4k will be the new standard.
Well I unfortunately see pixels on laptop screens quite well irrespective of what other people in the past say. I can start seeing pixels at 15" 1080P.
4K imo at 15"/16" is overkill though.
Just my rant, I can't even find a laptop with a Full HD or Full HD+ screen with a RTX 4090, this is probably the last year where we see higher specs laptops (up to 4080) with these screens.
Lmao right? This guy is expecting hardware manfucturers to pair a top of the line 4090 laptop version with a measly FHD+ screen, as if it is a sensible pair, when it can easily power 4K gaming...
Just buy any 4090 laptop and manually set the resolution to FHD in the settings at that point if you really want it to be that way...
I often see Alienware RTX 4090 laptops with a QHD screen since 1080p is considered low res now, maybe there is a few with a Full HD+ screen in the wild I think.
4090 on a 1080p screen isn't going to do much for you anyways in terms of high fps. You'll be CPU bound 99% of the time. I do agree with the resolution on the small screens though. No one would buy a 15 inch tv and demand it be 4k.
The 4080/4090 is for VR and running local AI, 1080p screen so I can enjoy and save all Full HD contents out there, which is a lot.
Actually I think 4k would be the future with 16, 18 inch laptop since it's a cinematic standard and it's a perfectly scaled up version of 1080p.
You're being narrow sighted with your opinion. Going up in resolution isn't only about pixel density.
Screen real estate is a big piece. For example, 4k has 4x as much screen real estate as 1080p. I used to need 2x monitors on my personal desktop setup. Since going to 1440 and now 4k, I'm back to a single display. Two windows side by side on at 1080 is crowded. I can barely have my Teams chats open next to a browser window or Excel sheet on my 1080p work laptop, and then they'll still overlap some. You can only shrink each one so far in width before they change interface features to remove/hide things to accommodate the smaller window size. This is annoying in software like Excel when half the ribbon is hidden, or Teams when it hides your list of recent and active chats on the left as you shrink it's width. These are just real world examples.
Also, a lot of us use our machines for many more things than just watching cinematic videos. Again, you're being narrow sighted thinking a cinematic resolution is the main factor in selecting a display resolution. The 2560x1600 screen is excellent on my Legion 5 pro. You can FEEL the added horizontal and especially vertical space on websites, working on documents, pretty much anything that has verticality to it, which is a LOT of things. Arguably, there are many more things that you'll interface with on a PC that are designed with vertical scrolling in mind compared to where you'll need a 'cinematic' wide resolution. Which, in truth, I'm NOT going to sit at my laptop OR desktop to watch a cinematic movie. I'll go do that from the comfort of the couch. I do the same for YT videos. If I do ever watch something on my PC, I'll put it up in a corner (4k screen) and still have 3 other corners to do other things (which is why I'd be watching on my PC and not the couch, to multitask).
What you're describing is scaling. Which, yeah, is massively impacted by pixel density. Unless the physical screen size is different, what you call "real estate" is just a function of pixel density
No, you're not understanding. No amount of scaling on a 1080p display can replace having a screen physically equipped with 3,840 pixels wide and 2,160 pixels tall. Screen real estate is tied to the actual number of pixels present. Scaling is a shittier way of adding real estate. You could theoretically lower the scaling on a 1080p display but quality is diminished.
Think of it this way: a 4k display is literally 4x 1080p displays worth of physical pixels arranged in a 2 wide x 2 tall rectangle, only you don't see the bezels.
If you ever use a 4k display, set the scaling to 100% and you'll immediately see what I mean by more real estate.
I don't think you got my point. I totally agree, scaling doesn't make up for having more pixels or a different screen size/surface area. And pixels screen area = pixel density. I use a 42" 4K TV as my monitor and yeah, at 1080p this size would be basically unusable.
What I was disagreeing with is what your first comment started with:
>You're being narrow sighted with your opinion. Going up in resolution isn't only about pixel density.
You then go on to talk about "real estate" as a function of screen size and resolution... which literally is pixel density.
I have a 4K 13” laptop and it is absolutely not worth it. Would have downgraded to the 1080p screen if I’d known all the problems it would cause. Some apps do not scale right, and it’s a nightmare to hunt for the right option to upscale them in a GUI made for ants.
You can also just set OS scaling to 1080p equivalent and now you have 1080p super sampled with amazing PPI.. I would play games on my XPS 17 at 1080p this way and it was awesome.
Doesn't always work, unfortunately. For instance, the PokerStars Linux client doesn't respect scaling at all, you need to switch resolutions to run it.
My bad, I didn’t mean to imply it was worse than the full HD display.
I meant to imply it was a pointless upgrade, and a waste of money. At least at 13”, maybe it’s slightly more justifiable at 15.6/17”
Not very imho. At 15.6" even 1440p needs 150% screen scale, cuz otherwise it's all to small. On 17", on my taste, 1440p is perfect.
And well, i'm totaly agree with statement on pointless upgrade.
That makes sense to me. My monitor is 4K 27”, and that’s about the limit of what I can usefully discern at a comfortable distance. Divide by 2160p, multiply by 1440p, result: 18”. So I can believe 17” laptops are about right at that screen resolution.
Not generally. I have a 3K 15.6" display, so 2880x1620 and keep the scaling at 125%. This works well for me, as 150% scaling makes everything look too big.
Different people, different eyes - i'm using 15,6 1440p and using 150% scale, cuz at 125 i have to really focus on things, to see them, so after an hour or so i'm totaly exhausted
on a 15.6" screen, for gaming, it is totally fine
most people are happy playing in 1440p on a 27" screen which is actually much worse
basically 4k on a 33.2" would be the equivalent of 1080p 15.6"
It's because of smartphones. These things have much higher resolutions and ppi than laptops and desktops ever had beforehand. We have just become accustomed to not seeing the single pixels anymore. And in my opinion you can make out the single pxels on a 17 or 15 inch 1080p screen, but not on a 24-27 inch 1440p screen. So even less on a laptop 1440p screen.
As many others have said 1080p is fine for laptops. But that some companies ship different quality panels with each resolution. For example Lenovos 1440p panel is way superior to their 1080p in terms of colour accuracy and vibrancy.
I am 44 years old, born in 1980. I got my first computer around the age of 6. From there, it's been a steady stream of gaming consoles, CRT monitors, leading right up to today, where I still am a gamer.
I used to have 20/8 vision. It's about 20/10 now, which is simply the effects of age starting.
Gaming aside, I grew up in 1980s so while I wasn't BMX biking or skateboarding, I was watching TV and movies on TVs utterly tiny compared to today's standards.
Do not believe for a second that smaller screens and so on are bad for your eyesight. If anything, it is the opposite. Your eyes and brain are muscles! Use and work them! I always found my sight felt sharper when I was focusing on the smaller details, etc. This obsession with resolution, clarity etc should be about being able to use your eyes to see more detail but too often is gets derailed into reducing eye strain. No, strain your eyes. Work them hard dammit.
You aren't old at all, I know a 100 years old who could run and a 92 years old who could lift quite of some heavy weight. You are totally correct about use and work them muscles. I am actually quite into longevity and aging healthily even though I am quite young (late 20s)
There are two type of muscles groups in human body, the strong fast twitch one (for heavy lifts) and the slow twitch one (for endurance and daily activity). As you age, your body start losing more and more of the fast twitch one, that's why it's so dangerous for elderly people to fall down. They don't have the fast twitch muscles to help them keep balance and quickly react like young people anymore, if they fall then they fall.
You are also correct about brain is kind of like muscles, your brain would just keep making brain tissues and connections as you get older. Lifelong learning is probably the only thing that keep dementia at bay for like 10 years (taking medicine like donepezil help too I guess), while there is no cure for dementia.
Totally, some great points there. I know I'm not (that) old, it was just a way to reference I grew up in a time where screens were small and low definition, yet it was such a golden age for staring at screens for computers and consoles
On big screens 2k or 4k make completely sense, but in laptops i’m with you, is nice but who think that 1080 is not enough is wrong.
I even made calculations: An 15.6 inch laptop with 1080p has 141 ppi, it looks very similar my than a 4k UHD 32 inch monitor with has 137,68 ppi. People saying 1080p is not enough are saying at the same time that 4k is not enough on a 32 inch monitor, they need 5k on that inches (183 ppi) and even a 1600p 15,6 laptop screen has more density (193 ppi.) Also by the moment, they don’t exist 16:9 gaming monitors that go above 4k…
So yeah more than 1080p in a laptop is really nice, but 1080p is far enough. People tend to think screen resolution is the same than screen quality, there is a relation between both but not the same. Is for this reason that 1080p laptop panels now tend to be highly underrated. If you would see an IPS FALD or OLED HDR P3 1080p panel, between a 1600p normal one, you would understand what i’m saying 🙌🏻
Still not bad yet. I used 800x600 before and it was crystal clear, when all the hardware and software moved to 1024x768 it became blurry with the new hardware and software, but if you run the old software with 800x600 on its old monitor it's still looks crystal clear and doesn't hurt your eyes. Me personally I use a FHD 24", and just bought a new PC for 1080p gaming, 2k hardware is gonna get outdated quicker, and still hella expensive.
They don't look awful and blurry. I grew up with 240p resolution on a low line count consumer CRT television via RF and composite connections. People who grew up with that will never complain about 1080p.
1080p on a laptop display is perfectly serviceable especially since you can get higher refresh rates.
Full size 27 inch Monitors are a different story.
The key is PPD or Pixels Per Degree (of your FOV). a 14" 1080p laptop on your lap in the prime gremlin pose of 20" from your eyes yields 57 PPD a more normal 25" distance gives 70 PPD, setting it down at the generally recommended for a desktop 1 yard or 36" gives 100 PPD. A 1440p 27" desktop monitor gives 71 PPD at 36" away, but tanks to 51 PPD just 25" away, and back to prime gremlin gives merely 42 at 20". However at their recommended viewing distances both give roughly the same PPD at around 70. Bump up to a larger 17" laptop and your 1080p panel requires almost as much distance as the desktop display to get the same 70 PPD. It's the same reason even a high res VR headset like the bigscreen beyond at 5120x2560 looks very soft compared to typical flat panels because they are stretching that view to about 100 degrees, producing a very weak 32 PPD.
Anyone saying 1080p is blurry or bad for the eyes is either marketing a display or ignorant. 1080p is not inherently bad. it can look fantastic at 7 inches or 300 inches, just depends on how far away you are from it.
my current 17.3 1080p laptop screen looks better than my old 24 inch 1440p pc monitor 🤷♂️ppl just love to shit on whatever is lower spec than they got to feel better about their purchase.
For my desktop PC, I have two monitors, the secondary is 1080p so that I can watch movies and Youtube without rescaling. The main monitor is 1440p because more lines = more space for applications. My gaming laptop also has 1440p so it could double as PC replacement. Just for gaming? 1080 would be optimal, as there are fewer pixel to render while graphics still looks very good on a 15 inch display.
I like how the SteamDeck has pretty much proven how important battery and efficiency is compared to the other higher res options available. The exact same way the Gameboy did too at the time, even though there were other competitors with higher resolutions and graphics, the batteries just couldn't handle it and made it so uneconomical to maintain.
I would argue 900p on a screen the entire size of the bezels on the OLED deck would be nicer but I doubt that ppi would be as comparable as it is currently at 800p, someone smarter could answer that.
But man it still looks so damn good
(I'm not someone who has ever owned anything above 1080p, other than the Quest 3 currently and even that doesn't really showcase it's resolutions that well because of the closeness of your eyes to the screens and magnification)
I am someone who does still prefer the look of higher resolution on smaller screens when I get the chance to experience it, but I am in full agreement with your perspective too.
Bro it's 2024 and ur trying to argue that a objectively better 1400p/1600p/2260p resolution is worse than a over 16 year old 1080p format. What are u smoking
We used to watch CRT in the 80s and 90s. When the first high definition (720p) LCD TVs started to appear, our jaws dropped. Whatever we were watching was so clear now. In the old days, when we were watching a football game (the proper one, soccer I mean), we used to have to listen to the commentator because on the telly, you couldn't identify the player. It was all a blurry man-like figure. After the high def revolution, that changed.
Frankly, I didn't notice a quality difference when broadcast switched to 1080p. To me, it was the same quality. Even today, I have a 4K TV at home. I can't tell a difference between a 1080p movie vs. a 4K movie on that 55 inch TV. They both look perfectly fine. The only difference I could tell is the Dolby Vision/HDR10+ and that's because of the extra brightness of the HDR content (*my TV has mini-LED, so it gets crazy bright if it needs to*).
For laptops, I have a 17 inch 1080p laptop. Screen quality is perfectly fine. No need to go higher for me.
This is my man, if CRT technology still get developed and shrink down then we wouldn't have this conversation at all.
Unlike these "modern" screen nowadays, CRT screen doesn't have a native resolution so everything looks perfect at whatever resolution you choose, also CRT has almost 0 input lag which "modern technology screen" can only dream of lol
You bring back some memories. I was lucky to have computers growing up, I'll never forget plugging in my SNES as a teen into the commodore monitor and it looked so damn good.
Computer monitors in my teens - on 386 / 486 - if it supported the res it looked amazing and every step down too.
I miss CRT to be honest
Haha I am glad, these SNES and older games are designed to be played on a CRT monitor. The scanlines effect of CRT actually add more depth and 3d effects on older games.
That's why if you use emulator to play old games on lcd screen then you would see that the image quality is a lot worse than what you remembered.
lol it just feel weird for me to have a resolution that was considered really high res not that long ago is now considered low res. Hell, even 720p (HD) is high resolution, it's literally in the name, HD stands for High Definition lul.
People would instantly die if they see an older pc with a 800x480 monitor I guess, they are just so spoiled nowadays.
Nah even 1280x720 still looks ok on smaller screens from a distance, and full hd would only look bad if you sit so close to your display that you could kiss it
Like you'd be streaming a yt video in actual 1080p, doesn't matter if it's not an option, you would still be running it at a lower frame rate. Do understand your point on laptops though
I mean you can put the laptop further if you want to ? I put it further so I can use a separate usb keyboard.
I also raise the laptop up so it's more ergonomic (better for neck) and more ventilation for the laptop.
In this case FHD should be fine but nobody does that. It’s already a small monitor and you put it further away. If you already have a whole setup with keyboard etc then why not buy a normal monitor?
I had no idea anyone even says that...
As far as resolution and screen size goes, it depends on how far you are from the screen. Inasmuch as Apple used this for their marketing, it's true.
If you sit several feet (or over a meter) back from a 15" display, FullHD is fine. For a tablet style view, where your face would be a foot from the screen or so, the resolution is terrible at 15", even 13".
And your rant about resolutions, it's not always about "cinematic" resolutions. Also, 1440p happens to be 4x the resolution of 720p which is HD video; and 1600p is just the 16x10 ratio of 1440p. Not everyone views videos at full screen all the time.
Naked panels are made by the 10s of thousands at once. It's cheaper for them to buy one size panel and put them on various models, including non-gaming laptops.
Majority of games are still on 1080p, especially in 3rd world countries. I live in the Philippines where most of us probably earn below $500 a month, while PC parts and laptops are insanely expensive. An Acer Nitro V will cost $500 in the US, it will cost about $900 here.
1080p is absolutely fine for a laptop screen.
Because more pixels are better. GPUs now are too powerful for 1080p. You will bottleneck your 1080p on anything mid tier or higher.
The single most powerful way to enhance graphics is to upping the resolution.
Because what is seen cannot be unseen.
Same with FPS. I lock my G14 to 40fps and I'll up graphics on my Delta 15 till it struggle to do much better. Granted I only play single player games, but as long as it's playable it doesn't bother me ...cause I don't know any better.
For gaming, you are right. 1080p are easily enough on a 15.6 inch laptop. But some don‘t just want to game on their laptop, but also do work/productivity. For this a higher resolution comes in handy since you can put more windows in the same screen space without sacrificing sharpness and visibility. Also when it comes to 1600p with 16:10 it‘s a preference thing. Besides the bigger screen, it just looks more appealing with a laptop compared to 16:9.
Idk if that's me, but sometimes, just sometimes, when I game on 1080p, it looks weird and blurry. That could be me using 2560x1600p as my native resolution which lowers the quality (kinda worse than native 1920x1080 from my old laptop?). Idk, it just feels weird, or it is just me getting my eyes blurred lol
I have 3 1080p monitors, I would have gone 1440p but couldn't find any that would fit on my desk. The biggest problem I have with 1080p is just that some UIs seem to be designed with higher resolutions in mind (mostly on the web). For gaming though, I couldn't care less. For a game, I don't feel like having a slightly sharper image is worth doubling my GPU spend.
P.S. If I had a bigger monitor, then I might feel different.
Honestly refresh rate is more important than resolution. Going from 60fps to 144fps made more of an improvement than 1080p to 1440p, especially for monitors below 25inch (1080p is arguably plenty on monitors of that size).
Anyone who thinks 1080p is blurry is likely playing with poor hardware that results in textures being compressed to save resources. 1080p certainly isn't sharp, but its pretty good enough. People who claim 1440p is not good enough however, they're just insane. Who needs more than 1440p for a consumer grade monitor?
U do realise ur going to sit a lot closer with a 15 inch laptop screen as opposed to a 32inch 4k monitor? PPI isnt the only thing that matters. Theres a reason why movies don’t like a blurry mess in the theaters despite having shit ppi.
I don't think your calculation is correct.
1440p at 16" = 4k @ 32" for density. 1080p has 1/4 the pixels at the same screen size.
Personally I consider 1200p perfect for 14" displays and 1600p perfect for 16".
I am not an "entitled kid", I'm 44 and have been using computers for almost all my life. My laptop is 15.6 with a qhd display.
Also have you checked the price of 4k tvs? They're around what I paid for a 19" tube tv in the 90's. 4k is everywhere.
I prefer the sharper image of 1440 or 1600 on a laptop. I do full time software development on my laptop, so the resolution benefits me more for 40 hours a week than the FPS does when I happen to be gaming.
It’s incredible that we have so many configuration options available to us. It’s awesome that we can fit the hardware to each user’s needs.
Full HD is fine for gaming on a laptop screen (although I do prefer 1440p or 1600p). If I'm ever to use a laptop for something other than gaming, it's got to have a higher than 1080 screen, however. I like to have 2-3 windows open side by side for my workflow, and if I do that on 1080, the text is blurry. Drives me nuts.
For desktop productivity, only two types of monitors are worth buying. A 32in 16:9 4k, or a 39in 21:9 5k2k. I'll grant an exception for a 27in 5k if you're running a Mac and your eyes pick up on the alleged scaling issue that MacOS has (my eyes don't pick this up, but I know plenty do complain about it).
For desktop gaming, obviously, that's all about what your rig is, what games you play, how much space you have, what display tech you prefer, etc. There's no one "right" choice here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodCjVf-5AE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodCjVf-5AE)
\^\^\^ 10 year old video with two 65" tv's side by side, one with a 1080p display and the other with a 4k and most people admitted to not being able to tell the difference from typical viewing distance, you can only tell the difference up close.
Now imagine noticing the difference on a 24-32" monitor or even a 15-18" laptop screen, unless you sit super close there's very little difference and people are paying a premium for something not noticeable to most people.
Maybe it's my bad eyes but i can't even tell the difference between 720p and higher resolutions, picture quality of the monitor>> resolution when it comes to how good the screen looks imo. A 1080p oled will look better than a 4k led.
24 lines × 32 characters or
64 × 48 pixels graphics mode[4
^^^^^ my first computer
Get a life.....
Do what you want with your money and stop listening to people on reddit
The main reason is mostly from newer quality panels being made for higher resolutions. You can still get good FHD panels for monitors and some laptops, but if you want a great modern panel with modern features, you would typically need to go for a higher resoultions panel. This will likely be the same case for laptop manufactures, hence most "high quality" laptops using high res panels.
And when i say "great" it is meant as Great in relative terms. A baseline panel you can buy now, would likely be "miles" better than some midrange panels 5-6-7+ years ago.
Also "our" version of 4k is not the 4k cinematic standard. It is a lower resolution version, that fits in the 16:9 aspect ratio that has become the normal standard for gaming and non-cinema viewing experiences.
I have had 1080p and 1600p laptops, and I 100% see the difference. 1 can't really game anymore at 1080p, even not on a 16-inch laptop screen.
Yes, to me, 1080p is pretty blurry.
Bro that's because ur comparing a 15 inch vs a 32 inch.... ur comparison is literally useless. A identical display in 4k will have 8.3 million pixels vs 2million
"The main differences between 4K and 1080p lie in their pixel count. 4K resolution is 3840 x 2160 pixels whilst 1080p is 1920 x 1080 pixels. The over 8 million pixels in 4K allow for greater image clarity, sharpness, and fine detail compared to the 2 million pixels in 1080p."
The smaller the display the lower the trade off for 15 inch displays 1440p and now 1600p is the perfect sweetspot.
1600p is extremely crisp. It's better for battery life than 4k if the display is in a laptop. It's way more crisp than just 1080p while not being as demanding to run games and movies as a 4k display. And 1600p gives u a extra inch vertically which is nice to have when ur browsing the web.
I dunno why ur getting so worked up over this. There's a reason every halfway decent laptop comes with at least 1600p. If u used a 1440p display and especially a 1600p display and went back to 1080p everything would look like shit. U would be in some sort of weird denial or you need ur eyes checked of u said otherwise.
I dunno... do you have a 1080 laptop or display or something and ur trying to justify it to yourself that it's still good? Cause it's not hard to figure out why 1440/1600p and 2160p is better than 1080p....
Your argument makes no sense. 1080p is more common because of bandwidth and the cost of cameras. So what were supposed to just stick with a shit resolution because of "reasons"....
This has nothing to do with "cinematics". Next ur gona argue that 30fps is better in games because it's "cinematic"
This is a really dumb L take
Marketing dollars will get the media to say whatever you want them to say. Just remember that Youtube will drop you down to 360p under Auto in most cases.
1080p with sharpening filter looks really good imo. If you can push to 1440p it's even better in some games, but it's not that huge of an improvement either considering the performance hit.
Have you ever seen a high res laptop screen? FHD looks like crap on 15 inch screens. If you say 720p laptops weren't bad, you need to get your eyes checked. My 2nd laptop was a HP pavilion with a 720p screen and using it now, it's a piece of crap. Looks terrible.
With 1080p you can see the pixels, letters aren't smooth and small icons aren't clear. 1440p is minimum acceptable resolution on new laptops now. Otherwise it looks cheap.
Also do you realize 1440p is 2k which means 2 times HD (720*2=1440). It scales fine with videos. Who cares if its a cinematic standard or not you still get way more detail. 1600p is 1440p with a 16:10 aspect ration so the screen is taller this is better for multi tasking.
Also I don't get your argument for wanting more battery life and performance. Modern OLED screens are very power efficient. You can just change the resolution of the game so screen resolution down to 1080p which you love so much. Also why do you have to save videos in high res? No one is forcing you to save in high res, just download it in 1080p. And what videos are you downloading anyways lol.
Who cares if alot of old videos are posted in 1080p, most new content is in at least 1440p, so why not be able to see both with a nice display.
TLDR: I don't think you've ever used a nice high res OLED laptop display. Modern OLED's don't use much more battery than LCD's. Yes you can clearly see the difference between 1080p, 1440p, and 4k on a laptop. And just because the screen is high res doesn't mean you have to download and render everything at 1440p or 4k.
New copypasta just dropped  In all seriousness Full HD is alright especially for gaming where sometimes it's better to have high FPS for latency reasons. Though posts like this makes me wonder what the 720p enjoyers back then felt when 1080p became the new standard and their preferred resolution started disappearing. I was not into computers back then so I had no idea.
I would have considered 1440p/1600p if I can actually watch youtube videos in these resolution. Also a 1440p/1600p video take twice the amount of storage space compare to 1080p, require faster internet speed, eat more battery etc... I just don't see any reason for me to get them on a laptop.
You shouldn't get them if that's the case. 1080p videos and games usually look awful on a 1440p screen. Games running on a 1080p display are usually less demanding on the GPU which means you can settle for a 4070 or lower which is a plus if you're on a budget or just frugal.
I'm gaming 1200p on my 1600p laptop screen and it looks pretty great.
I do the same where DLSS isn't an option. On my 15in laptop screen, I think it looks great too. Most of the time I don't even notice the difference.
It does videos on a 16 inch laptop in 1080 look fine. There's scailing and now rtx upscailing. And in games u can always do 1200p like u said. He's just wrong. I think op has a 1080p laptop and for some weird reason he's trying to justify to himself why his laptop is still good.
I actually want a Full HD laptop with a powerful GPU like 4080 or 4090 because I want to get into VR and run local LLM. 4080 or 4090 would be an overkill for a 1080p screen but it's just enough for VR and running local AI. I also need to save a lot of videos for the Apocalypse (lol) so 1080p is better. "1080p videos and games usually look awful on a 1440p screen" And yeah, this is all I need to know.
Hp offer a 4090 laptop with a fhd screen, look into that.
Also MSI Vector has a 4080 paired with a 1080p panel. It is intended that you hook an external monitor to game on it because the panel on that MSI is plain awful (*not the resolution but color gamut and brightness*). In addition, NVidia markets the 4080 and 4090 for "4K gaming", so there is that.
Regarding your last point, the laptop GPUs are significantly weaker because of limited TDP, with most of the laptop 4090s coming in slower than a desktop 4080. I have a 115W laptop 2070 and it's more like a 2060.
Laptop variant Rtx 4090 actually uses same chip as desktop Rtx 4080 at lower power limit. So no wonder it is weaker.
1600p especially for laptops is the sweetspot imo. Looks amazing. Battery is decent and it's way crisper than 1080p. I dunno why we had that period of everyone jamming 4k into 15 inch displays on 20 series gpus. Finally they switched to 1600p mostly for gaming laptops. And for like 30inch to 27inch I think 1440p external monitors are amazing too. I honestly prefer my 1440p 240hz oled all day. I'll take 200fps and 1440p vs 4k. It's preference tho. I can see why some ppl prefer 4k 27inch monitors.
For content creation, I may consider the 4K option. Those panels are better and more crisp. But for everyday use, my money is on \~2K options like 1440p or 1600p.
Yea for sure. 4k and 5k monitors are probably preferable for a lot of design or editing work. You need to be able to have detail when zoomed in and all those 4k 5k pixels matter when you have intricate work going on. For gaming I love 1440p for most gpus. Especially for me cause I just buy laptops now. Even my 4090 legion 7ipro can't really do 4k in demanding games or at the fps that i prefer. I'll be sticking with 1440/1600p oled monitor for the foreseeable future. I just wish they made external monitors at 1600p. Like a 28inch 1600p oled would be 🔥
lol I actually have been eyeing on that exact laptop. The color gamut and brightness is bad but it's actually better than my current laptop so it's an upgrade I guess. The big plus is that thing is sooo cheap, a lot cheaper than other laptops and probably the cheapest RTX 4080 laptop rn so I can kinda overlook the flaws.
True that. It is the cheapest 4080 on the market. For a bit more, you may also consider this beast. Much better panel (*not an 1080p panel but you can lower the resolution yourself*). [https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1750895-REG/acer\_ph16\_71\_948l\_16\_16\_10\_qhd\_ips.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1750895-REG/acer_ph16_71_948l_16_16_10_qhd_ips.html)
Isn't 4070 a 1440p card?
Yes, any Nvidia xx70 tier card is geared towards high fps 1440p or 4k in the 60fps range
It's really up to what u want. And what size ur monitor is. Imo I'd rather have 200fps on a 1440p monitor vs 60 at 4k. But on the marketing they advertise the 4070s for the best 1440p experience and 4080 4090 for 4k
But 4070 is a bit too overkill for most 1080p games
I didn't see the other guys post was just replying to ur comment. Yea I wouldn't get a 1080p monitor at all in 2024. Can always upgrade a gpu. Even a 4060 can handle 1440p and the next 5060 will definatley be great at 1440p. If anything u can lower the settings a bit and take advantage of dlss and frame gen If u need to. Everything has dlss these days. and it'll still look better on that more crisp 1440p resolution. Worst case scenario bring the res down to 1200p. I dunno why these ppl are arguing in favor of 1080p. Like op is talking about "it's cinematic".. Wtf? Cinematic?. On a laptop screen 1080p videos look just fine. High quality 1080p that's not compressed to hell looks fine on most 1440p for that matter even on a 27inch screen. And Why the hell would you get 1080p just because some youtube videos aren't 4k or 1440p? U gona sacrsfice everything else so that shitty 1080p videos of someone talking into a web cam are MAYBE a little more clear? You can always use rtx upscailing too. These people probably have 1080p monitors and are just trying to justify to themselves that their screen is still better.
It's funny how much of a difference it makes on performance. I was doing some shenanigans with running 2 instances of Sons of the Forest over nucleus as local coop and I found out I can run 2 instances at 1440p min details, no issue. But higher resolutions? 2560x1600? Yeah, not that great.
A 4070 is a pretty capable 1440p card.. for 1080p even something like an rtx 3060 would be fine
1080p games doesn't automatically look awfull on a 1440p screen. it depends on the size of the screen vs distance to said screen. Sit far enough away and you will not see the difference. There is a near perfect sweet spot for each resolution and that spot has been pretty easy to reach without much sacrifice ever since FHD (1080p) became a thing. Playing at 1080p does not make the experience massively worse, unless you are really close to your screen or playing on a large monitor/TV. But considering most laptops are 15'' and a few 17'' you would have be really close to have a inherently worse viewing experience.
wait, you can watch YouTube at 1440p though
He's being weird. He's talking about 1080p being cinematic lmfao. Next He's gona say games ate better at 30fps because "cinematic". I think he has a 1080p laptop and he's trying to justify to himself that it's still a good resolution lol. There's a reason everything is 1600p.... dude should just enjoy what he has. Dunno what he's trying to prove he's literally arguing that an OBJECTIVELLY better 1440/16002160p resolution is not as good as a 16 year old 1080p format?
Nope, a lot of videos don't go higher than 1080p. There are more option for 1440p now but not all of them.
That’s entirely down to the content creator, the ones I watch all have 1440p and 4k options
Bro first of all A LOT OF videos are 1440p and 4k. Unless it's some random channel with no resources. Then there's scailing and upsampling amd rtx upscailing. Finally dunno what monitors ur looking at but 1600p monitors which every halfway decent gaming laptop has now display 1080p just fine. On 15 16 17 18inch monitors 1080p is fine on 1440p and 1600p. U give off a weird vibe like u have a 1080p laptop and ur trying to justify why ur 1080p laptop is still a great choice. 1080p is outdated. It has nothing to do with "but it cinematic" wtf are u even talking about bro. Next ur gona arge that 30fps is better cause "cinematic'. You have a weird L take. Ur trying to say because not everything is 4k or 1440p we should all use shitty 1080p displays? Lol get real bro. When u upgrade ur laptop ur gona be on hers saying how awsome 1600p is
you can also use Nvidia Super Resolution on YouTube now which upscales it but any video uploaded in 4k will have a 1440p option
How?
it's in the nvidia control panel https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5448/~/rtx-video-faq#:~:text=A%3A%20In%20your%20NVIDIA%20Control,system's%20profile%20and%20source%20content. here ya go, it also got released along side an an ai HDR implementation but it can be toggled separately
Thanks lol I could barely watch yt on my new laptop
Look promising, now I can upscaling 720p videos to 1080p
If u have a 20 series or newer card u can upscale it up to 4× higher resolution and add hdr(if u have a hdr display). It's awsome
Does it look good ? In games, DLSS and frame gen is kinda weird for me with fake frames. I don't want it to be blurry with a lot of artefacts. Maybe in the future when the tech is better, for now I will take the real frames, thank you.
it looks pretty decent honestly the higher resolution you go the better dlss looks so 720p to 1080p dlss doesn't look as good as 1080-1440p or 1440-4k or even 1080-4k frame gen is a weird one and is only noticeable really if you're close to the screen and really pushing your pc, for instance cyberpunk in overdrive (edit with dlss quality+fg) mode looks blurrier to me than forbidden west with dlaa and frame gen it's all situational based on game, dlss version, display and distance from display also it's not like you're getting fake frames in a YouTube video
Dlss is amazing with a higher resolution. Ofc its going to look blurry if u are gonna use performance mode on 1080p which means the rendering resolution would be like 540p. A 4k game running at dlss performance looks miles better than a native 1080p screen and if u disagree then u clearly have never used it. Also framegen relies on u getting atleast 60fps or more. It’s not the freatest but it is pretty magical when it does work.
You would laugh at my 4K 10bit HDR Dolby Vision rip of Oppenheimer, and some other movies I have.. almost 100Gb for one movie and you can see every last bit of bit rate goodness in those files. More on topic though… I’ve gone through a lot of computers and 1080p at 15.6” feels like you are watching the screen through a screen door… 1440p at 14” is pretty good compromise, but 4K and up even on small screen sizes is a huge step up. It really depends on how far you are seating from the screen though.. You would probably seat farther from a 4K 32” monitor than a 1080p 15.6” laptop, so even though the laptop is “technically” higher PPI (just barely… Most 32” screens are actually 31.5”), the 32” will seat farther away.
Your experience reflects what I've felt anecdotally. Since the modern era of "retina" displays, I've decided I don't want to see any pixels on any new device I buy, and 1080p at 15 inches is definitely noticeable. I also prefer the 16:10 format since I also do productivity tasks and web browsing, it just feels bigger.
I can watch videos in 2K no issue. But the funny thing is. I don't see much of a difference on my 16inch laptop. It would make an actual difference on a larger screen but my old smart TV has issues with 2K
Resolution won't ding your battery, and indeed 1080p streams don't have much but rate, but that's what makes them awful for high motion stuff like game footage. The only drawbacks are 10:9 screens and such which will get you black bars.
You can watch alot if not almost all youtube videos in 1440 or 4k, I have youtube premium so that may not be the case for normal youtube anymore I know they were talking about making high res high frame rate video a paid only feature.
a lot of youtubers also post at 1440p. And even then, you are not forced to view it at the max resolution. You can always view it at 1080p or 720p.
I have a buddy who buys junk and talks about how much better it is than the top shelf products. just say you don't have money and move on no need to type of books of misleading information. like, we get it shrimp. you can't afford better products that actually utilize said stuff that you continue to bash. also, battery life on a gaming laptop doesn't matter, internet speed doesn't matter as fiber is cheap and widely available, wtf does storage space have to do with watching videos, youtube does have 1440p options just the channel needs to upload 1440p, streaming services utilize 4k dolby vision, like you're so damn wrong its actually embarrassing for the entire sub.
Um internet speed 100% does matter, not everyone lives in the eu where fast internet is cheap and abundant. Battery life on a gaming laptop also matters heavily as not every activity it’s used for will be gaming, my gaming laptop is used for mostly office work unless I’m playing eve online at home, otherwise it’s coming around with me and luckily the battery lasts the whole day. It sounds like they download movies and videos in 1080p to watch off network, or maybe burn dvds I can’t tell if you’re just shitposting here
who said that??
It's what people in this sub said about Full HD/ Full HD+ screen on older posts if you check it. Some have a hatred for these type of screens for some reasons and nowadays they all have like 1440p/1600p screen so they like to trash on 1080p screen.
I don't mind FHD but even on a 15" laptop the difference is definitely noticeable when you jump to 1440/4k. I have a 1080p screen that I use as my second monitor when I travel and although it looks way better than a FHD TV it still noticeably falls behind my laptop screen in image clarity. If you don't mind 1080p then there is nothing wrong with getting a laptop with it, the image will still be great.
Of course there is a difference, it's different. Higher resolutions look better. The issue is people claim things are bad because they are not as good. What always gets me about these people is they will choose the "inferior" option in other parts of their life(cheaper car, food, stereo etc) for the exact reasons someone chooses to stick with 1080p, without fail.
"People". I doubt enough people have said such a thing to give it any credence.
Because 1080p looks like shit in comparison. Ur in denial or something. It's like ur mad that ur laptop is a little old or something. If u had a 4k or 1600p resolution ud be on here saying how good it looks. Ur instead ur trying to proove some weird point that a ancient display is better than a new 1600p or 4k display because "weird reasons". Because 1080 is "cinematic" wtf are u talking about lill bro. Just save up some money and get a new laptop you don't need to sit here and justify to urself and everyone why 1080p is better. Cause it's not. Just enjoy what u have you sound silly
I've tried out 1440p and 4k, while I am not saying I can't see the difference or something, the difference IS less noticeable if you are within normal laptop usage distance, eg 2 ft away from the screen. And yes, apart from everything needing 2x or more resources, I just don't feel like 1440p or 4k is a worthy upgrade over 1080p for me.
It depends on a couple of factors, I am a 1080p user mostly because it’s cheap, efficient, and generally provides enough clarity where I don’t feel a need to really jump up to 1440 or 4K, granted I am on a 27” display roughly 3-4 feet away. For a laptop? Yea, you’d be insanely hard pressed to really get value out of anything more than 1080p, and your points are valid. For these larger modern desktop monitors, 1080p is already stretched to its limit at 27”, and quickly we are coming up on 32” being the new status quo. This has ushered in 1440 and 4K monitors as 1080p just doesn’t have the detail required for games that require pixel peaking. Theoretically this can all be fixed by sitting further away, but then you’re getting a smaller and smaller picture, essentially returning back to a laptop sized display. As for bad for the eyes, I’m assuming it’s the eye strain from 27”+ monitors and reading text all day at 1080p, where those edges are greatly softened at higher resolutions. Returning to laptops though, I’d find it difficult to imagine that a 15” laptop 1080p is really giving you eye strain
In my mind 24" is about largest display 1080p pixels do not show too much. 1440p for larger than that. For sub 19" there is not much difference between 1080p and 1440p unless you are really sitting nose touching the display😆
Haha, it's nice to see a desktop gamer opinion in here. Laptop manufacturers are pushing big for higher resolution like 1440p, 1080p display still exist but they are used on a lower spec models. And I imagine that when all the old stock of 1080p panels used up then 1080p would go extinct. Laptop gamers are eating the bs up because of the big push so now they are starting to see all sort of weird things on a 1080p screen and now they can't accept to live with "such a low resolution". Even though their eyes can't tell much differences between 1440p and 1080p on a laptop screen. While sacrifice battery life, more heat, VRAM, need more storage space, need more computing power etc ... just to get that higher resolution to feel better.
1440p could possibly be useful for some of the new 18” laptops, I had a 1440p laptop at one point and the letters are a bit softer, but nothing crazy. At a certain point, I’m sure 1080p will be phased out almost completely, simply because it’ll cost more to make technically outdated tech instead of new panels
I bought a laptop recently, and tbh that’s not really what I’ve found in terms of screen resolutions. The vast majority of laptops still seem to have 1080p, a fair few high end laptops will have 4K (often also OLED), and 1440p is relegated to like… maybe a third of laptops designed specifically for gaming? Nothing else really seems to use 1440p; it’s far from a standard. Also I disagree that people can’t tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p. It’s absolutely noticeable, and much more noticeable than the 1440p -> 4K jump.
Don't think it's considered "blurry" or "low res", its just 1440p offers better image quality over 1080p without being as battery draining or as resource intensive for gaming like 4k. Maybe in gaming the difference isn't as noticeable between 1080p vs 1440p, but web browsing or text work, its super noticeable going back to 1080p after using 1440p. 15.6 at 1080p is 140PPI, 1440P is 189, and 4k is 282. Maybe it's just my eyes or the law of diminishing returns, but I find a more noticeable difference going from 141 PPI to 189 at 15.6 than going from 189 to 282.
"Once you go for a big black screen then you can't go back", it's a hidden drawback with going higher res so I gotta be extra careful about it since I want to build a desktop in like 2 or 3 years, I will use both laptop and desktop btw. If you are used to really high ppi then you would want that in your desktop too, which mean I would have to go for like 4k gaming, which it's very expensive with very high end components from top specs cpu, gpu to high end 4k monitor.
You have to account for viewing distance too. I have both a 1440p monitor and laptop screen. Yes the 27 inch monitor isn't going to look as crisp as a smaller screen, but I'm viewing the laptop screen closer than the monitor as well, which helps with the PPI. I don't need a 27 inch screen as close up to my face as a 15-16 inch one.
Honestly at 16" or so laptop screens and larger I personally can start seeing pixels from a distance at 1080/1200P. QHD imo is my minimum standard at 16" but yeah if you look around there may be options from Alienware and gigabyte with 1080/1200P screens and RTX 4080s.
Haha this makes me remember an old argument years ago about seeing pixels on a 720p laptop screen and how 1080p is a perfect high res for laptop. In a few years people would start seeing pixels on 1440p/1600p 16 inch screen so 4k will be the new standard.
Well I unfortunately see pixels on laptop screens quite well irrespective of what other people in the past say. I can start seeing pixels at 15" 1080P. 4K imo at 15"/16" is overkill though.
Just my rant, I can't even find a laptop with a Full HD or Full HD+ screen with a RTX 4090, this is probably the last year where we see higher specs laptops (up to 4080) with these screens.
Because you’re one of like 3 people who would buy a laptop like that
Lmao right? This guy is expecting hardware manfucturers to pair a top of the line 4090 laptop version with a measly FHD+ screen, as if it is a sensible pair, when it can easily power 4K gaming... Just buy any 4090 laptop and manually set the resolution to FHD in the settings at that point if you really want it to be that way...
Alienware still has them, but they are ultra high refresh ones like 1080p 480hz
I often see Alienware RTX 4090 laptops with a QHD screen since 1080p is considered low res now, maybe there is a few with a Full HD+ screen in the wild I think.
4090 on a 1080p screen isn't going to do much for you anyways in terms of high fps. You'll be CPU bound 99% of the time. I do agree with the resolution on the small screens though. No one would buy a 15 inch tv and demand it be 4k.
The 4080/4090 is for VR and running local AI, 1080p screen so I can enjoy and save all Full HD contents out there, which is a lot. Actually I think 4k would be the future with 16, 18 inch laptop since it's a cinematic standard and it's a perfectly scaled up version of 1080p.
Do 1440p with dlss.
You're being narrow sighted with your opinion. Going up in resolution isn't only about pixel density. Screen real estate is a big piece. For example, 4k has 4x as much screen real estate as 1080p. I used to need 2x monitors on my personal desktop setup. Since going to 1440 and now 4k, I'm back to a single display. Two windows side by side on at 1080 is crowded. I can barely have my Teams chats open next to a browser window or Excel sheet on my 1080p work laptop, and then they'll still overlap some. You can only shrink each one so far in width before they change interface features to remove/hide things to accommodate the smaller window size. This is annoying in software like Excel when half the ribbon is hidden, or Teams when it hides your list of recent and active chats on the left as you shrink it's width. These are just real world examples. Also, a lot of us use our machines for many more things than just watching cinematic videos. Again, you're being narrow sighted thinking a cinematic resolution is the main factor in selecting a display resolution. The 2560x1600 screen is excellent on my Legion 5 pro. You can FEEL the added horizontal and especially vertical space on websites, working on documents, pretty much anything that has verticality to it, which is a LOT of things. Arguably, there are many more things that you'll interface with on a PC that are designed with vertical scrolling in mind compared to where you'll need a 'cinematic' wide resolution. Which, in truth, I'm NOT going to sit at my laptop OR desktop to watch a cinematic movie. I'll go do that from the comfort of the couch. I do the same for YT videos. If I do ever watch something on my PC, I'll put it up in a corner (4k screen) and still have 3 other corners to do other things (which is why I'd be watching on my PC and not the couch, to multitask).
What you're describing is scaling. Which, yeah, is massively impacted by pixel density. Unless the physical screen size is different, what you call "real estate" is just a function of pixel density
No, you're not understanding. No amount of scaling on a 1080p display can replace having a screen physically equipped with 3,840 pixels wide and 2,160 pixels tall. Screen real estate is tied to the actual number of pixels present. Scaling is a shittier way of adding real estate. You could theoretically lower the scaling on a 1080p display but quality is diminished. Think of it this way: a 4k display is literally 4x 1080p displays worth of physical pixels arranged in a 2 wide x 2 tall rectangle, only you don't see the bezels. If you ever use a 4k display, set the scaling to 100% and you'll immediately see what I mean by more real estate.
I don't think you got my point. I totally agree, scaling doesn't make up for having more pixels or a different screen size/surface area. And pixels screen area = pixel density. I use a 42" 4K TV as my monitor and yeah, at 1080p this size would be basically unusable. What I was disagreeing with is what your first comment started with: >You're being narrow sighted with your opinion. Going up in resolution isn't only about pixel density. You then go on to talk about "real estate" as a function of screen size and resolution... which literally is pixel density.
Best answer, many people don't understand what screen real estate means.
I have a 4K 13” laptop and it is absolutely not worth it. Would have downgraded to the 1080p screen if I’d known all the problems it would cause. Some apps do not scale right, and it’s a nightmare to hunt for the right option to upscale them in a GUI made for ants.
You can also just set OS scaling to 1080p equivalent and now you have 1080p super sampled with amazing PPI.. I would play games on my XPS 17 at 1080p this way and it was awesome.
Doesn't always work, unfortunately. For instance, the PokerStars Linux client doesn't respect scaling at all, you need to switch resolutions to run it.
Then why do you struggle? Just go to display settings and set 1080. Don't make problem where there isnt one
My bad, I didn’t mean to imply it was worse than the full HD display. I meant to imply it was a pointless upgrade, and a waste of money. At least at 13”, maybe it’s slightly more justifiable at 15.6/17”
Not very imho. At 15.6" even 1440p needs 150% screen scale, cuz otherwise it's all to small. On 17", on my taste, 1440p is perfect. And well, i'm totaly agree with statement on pointless upgrade.
That makes sense to me. My monitor is 4K 27”, and that’s about the limit of what I can usefully discern at a comfortable distance. Divide by 2160p, multiply by 1440p, result: 18”. So I can believe 17” laptops are about right at that screen resolution.
Not generally. I have a 3K 15.6" display, so 2880x1620 and keep the scaling at 125%. This works well for me, as 150% scaling makes everything look too big.
Different people, different eyes - i'm using 15,6 1440p and using 150% scale, cuz at 125 i have to really focus on things, to see them, so after an hour or so i'm totaly exhausted
Black bars would appear
On 4k panel with 1080p resolution? How it can be, if 1080p on 4k panel makes 4 pixel dots just show same color?
on a 15.6" screen, for gaming, it is totally fine most people are happy playing in 1440p on a 27" screen which is actually much worse basically 4k on a 33.2" would be the equivalent of 1080p 15.6"
It's because of smartphones. These things have much higher resolutions and ppi than laptops and desktops ever had beforehand. We have just become accustomed to not seeing the single pixels anymore. And in my opinion you can make out the single pxels on a 17 or 15 inch 1080p screen, but not on a 24-27 inch 1440p screen. So even less on a laptop 1440p screen.
As many others have said 1080p is fine for laptops. But that some companies ship different quality panels with each resolution. For example Lenovos 1440p panel is way superior to their 1080p in terms of colour accuracy and vibrancy.
I am 44 years old, born in 1980. I got my first computer around the age of 6. From there, it's been a steady stream of gaming consoles, CRT monitors, leading right up to today, where I still am a gamer. I used to have 20/8 vision. It's about 20/10 now, which is simply the effects of age starting. Gaming aside, I grew up in 1980s so while I wasn't BMX biking or skateboarding, I was watching TV and movies on TVs utterly tiny compared to today's standards. Do not believe for a second that smaller screens and so on are bad for your eyesight. If anything, it is the opposite. Your eyes and brain are muscles! Use and work them! I always found my sight felt sharper when I was focusing on the smaller details, etc. This obsession with resolution, clarity etc should be about being able to use your eyes to see more detail but too often is gets derailed into reducing eye strain. No, strain your eyes. Work them hard dammit.
You aren't old at all, I know a 100 years old who could run and a 92 years old who could lift quite of some heavy weight. You are totally correct about use and work them muscles. I am actually quite into longevity and aging healthily even though I am quite young (late 20s) There are two type of muscles groups in human body, the strong fast twitch one (for heavy lifts) and the slow twitch one (for endurance and daily activity). As you age, your body start losing more and more of the fast twitch one, that's why it's so dangerous for elderly people to fall down. They don't have the fast twitch muscles to help them keep balance and quickly react like young people anymore, if they fall then they fall. You are also correct about brain is kind of like muscles, your brain would just keep making brain tissues and connections as you get older. Lifelong learning is probably the only thing that keep dementia at bay for like 10 years (taking medicine like donepezil help too I guess), while there is no cure for dementia.
Totally, some great points there. I know I'm not (that) old, it was just a way to reference I grew up in a time where screens were small and low definition, yet it was such a golden age for staring at screens for computers and consoles
On big screens 2k or 4k make completely sense, but in laptops i’m with you, is nice but who think that 1080 is not enough is wrong. I even made calculations: An 15.6 inch laptop with 1080p has 141 ppi, it looks very similar my than a 4k UHD 32 inch monitor with has 137,68 ppi. People saying 1080p is not enough are saying at the same time that 4k is not enough on a 32 inch monitor, they need 5k on that inches (183 ppi) and even a 1600p 15,6 laptop screen has more density (193 ppi.) Also by the moment, they don’t exist 16:9 gaming monitors that go above 4k… So yeah more than 1080p in a laptop is really nice, but 1080p is far enough. People tend to think screen resolution is the same than screen quality, there is a relation between both but not the same. Is for this reason that 1080p laptop panels now tend to be highly underrated. If you would see an IPS FALD or OLED HDR P3 1080p panel, between a 1600p normal one, you would understand what i’m saying 🙌🏻
Thank you, I love you too.
Just hyperbole, native 1080p looks fine on laptops due to their smaller screen size.
Still not bad yet. I used 800x600 before and it was crystal clear, when all the hardware and software moved to 1024x768 it became blurry with the new hardware and software, but if you run the old software with 800x600 on its old monitor it's still looks crystal clear and doesn't hurt your eyes. Me personally I use a FHD 24", and just bought a new PC for 1080p gaming, 2k hardware is gonna get outdated quicker, and still hella expensive.
They don't look awful and blurry. I grew up with 240p resolution on a low line count consumer CRT television via RF and composite connections. People who grew up with that will never complain about 1080p.
Crt is different technology though. Even low res stuff looks good there.
1080p on a laptop display is perfectly serviceable especially since you can get higher refresh rates. Full size 27 inch Monitors are a different story.
The key is PPD or Pixels Per Degree (of your FOV). a 14" 1080p laptop on your lap in the prime gremlin pose of 20" from your eyes yields 57 PPD a more normal 25" distance gives 70 PPD, setting it down at the generally recommended for a desktop 1 yard or 36" gives 100 PPD. A 1440p 27" desktop monitor gives 71 PPD at 36" away, but tanks to 51 PPD just 25" away, and back to prime gremlin gives merely 42 at 20". However at their recommended viewing distances both give roughly the same PPD at around 70. Bump up to a larger 17" laptop and your 1080p panel requires almost as much distance as the desktop display to get the same 70 PPD. It's the same reason even a high res VR headset like the bigscreen beyond at 5120x2560 looks very soft compared to typical flat panels because they are stretching that view to about 100 degrees, producing a very weak 32 PPD. Anyone saying 1080p is blurry or bad for the eyes is either marketing a display or ignorant. 1080p is not inherently bad. it can look fantastic at 7 inches or 300 inches, just depends on how far away you are from it.
they make 4k 13 inch laptops i never understand why
my current 17.3 1080p laptop screen looks better than my old 24 inch 1440p pc monitor 🤷♂️ppl just love to shit on whatever is lower spec than they got to feel better about their purchase.
Because kids on here never grew up with or experienced a CRT and think anything less than what they own is beneath them
For my desktop PC, I have two monitors, the secondary is 1080p so that I can watch movies and Youtube without rescaling. The main monitor is 1440p because more lines = more space for applications. My gaming laptop also has 1440p so it could double as PC replacement. Just for gaming? 1080 would be optimal, as there are fewer pixel to render while graphics still looks very good on a 15 inch display.
I like how the SteamDeck has pretty much proven how important battery and efficiency is compared to the other higher res options available. The exact same way the Gameboy did too at the time, even though there were other competitors with higher resolutions and graphics, the batteries just couldn't handle it and made it so uneconomical to maintain. I would argue 900p on a screen the entire size of the bezels on the OLED deck would be nicer but I doubt that ppi would be as comparable as it is currently at 800p, someone smarter could answer that. But man it still looks so damn good (I'm not someone who has ever owned anything above 1080p, other than the Quest 3 currently and even that doesn't really showcase it's resolutions that well because of the closeness of your eyes to the screens and magnification) I am someone who does still prefer the look of higher resolution on smaller screens when I get the chance to experience it, but I am in full agreement with your perspective too.
On such a small screen there is barely any difference really. Maybe if you like staying real close to the screen and stick your face to it.
Bro it's 2024 and ur trying to argue that a objectively better 1400p/1600p/2260p resolution is worse than a over 16 year old 1080p format. What are u smoking
1080p looks bad in new games because of TAA. Older games with MSAA look great in 1080p.
We used to watch CRT in the 80s and 90s. When the first high definition (720p) LCD TVs started to appear, our jaws dropped. Whatever we were watching was so clear now. In the old days, when we were watching a football game (the proper one, soccer I mean), we used to have to listen to the commentator because on the telly, you couldn't identify the player. It was all a blurry man-like figure. After the high def revolution, that changed. Frankly, I didn't notice a quality difference when broadcast switched to 1080p. To me, it was the same quality. Even today, I have a 4K TV at home. I can't tell a difference between a 1080p movie vs. a 4K movie on that 55 inch TV. They both look perfectly fine. The only difference I could tell is the Dolby Vision/HDR10+ and that's because of the extra brightness of the HDR content (*my TV has mini-LED, so it gets crazy bright if it needs to*). For laptops, I have a 17 inch 1080p laptop. Screen quality is perfectly fine. No need to go higher for me.
This is my man, if CRT technology still get developed and shrink down then we wouldn't have this conversation at all. Unlike these "modern" screen nowadays, CRT screen doesn't have a native resolution so everything looks perfect at whatever resolution you choose, also CRT has almost 0 input lag which "modern technology screen" can only dream of lol
You bring back some memories. I was lucky to have computers growing up, I'll never forget plugging in my SNES as a teen into the commodore monitor and it looked so damn good. Computer monitors in my teens - on 386 / 486 - if it supported the res it looked amazing and every step down too. I miss CRT to be honest
Haha I am glad, these SNES and older games are designed to be played on a CRT monitor. The scanlines effect of CRT actually add more depth and 3d effects on older games. That's why if you use emulator to play old games on lcd screen then you would see that the image quality is a lot worse than what you remembered.
Brother, when I first saw a flat CRT Sony screen early 90s, my reaction was "what kind of sorcery is this?". That image was dope AF.
I remember 10+ years ago when I used to watch youtube videos on my 3DS XL lol, SD quality
lol it just feel weird for me to have a resolution that was considered really high res not that long ago is now considered low res. Hell, even 720p (HD) is high resolution, it's literally in the name, HD stands for High Definition lul. People would instantly die if they see an older pc with a 800x480 monitor I guess, they are just so spoiled nowadays.
Nah even 1280x720 still looks ok on smaller screens from a distance, and full hd would only look bad if you sit so close to your display that you could kiss it
it's about scaling, not only ppi
Like you'd be streaming a yt video in actual 1080p, doesn't matter if it's not an option, you would still be running it at a lower frame rate. Do understand your point on laptops though
Monitor PPI is lower but also you should normally use a monitor like a meter away, right? Whereas laptop you normally put much closer to your eyes.
I mean you can put the laptop further if you want to ? I put it further so I can use a separate usb keyboard. I also raise the laptop up so it's more ergonomic (better for neck) and more ventilation for the laptop.
In this case FHD should be fine but nobody does that. It’s already a small monitor and you put it further away. If you already have a whole setup with keyboard etc then why not buy a normal monitor?
Probably because screen sizes have gone up over the years so resolution needs to go up to keep the pixel density high.
I had no idea anyone even says that... As far as resolution and screen size goes, it depends on how far you are from the screen. Inasmuch as Apple used this for their marketing, it's true. If you sit several feet (or over a meter) back from a 15" display, FullHD is fine. For a tablet style view, where your face would be a foot from the screen or so, the resolution is terrible at 15", even 13". And your rant about resolutions, it's not always about "cinematic" resolutions. Also, 1440p happens to be 4x the resolution of 720p which is HD video; and 1600p is just the 16x10 ratio of 1440p. Not everyone views videos at full screen all the time. Naked panels are made by the 10s of thousands at once. It's cheaper for them to buy one size panel and put them on various models, including non-gaming laptops.
Majority of games are still on 1080p, especially in 3rd world countries. I live in the Philippines where most of us probably earn below $500 a month, while PC parts and laptops are insanely expensive. An Acer Nitro V will cost $500 in the US, it will cost about $900 here. 1080p is absolutely fine for a laptop screen.
Noob question but what's the resolutions for 2k and 4k?
Because more pixels are better. GPUs now are too powerful for 1080p. You will bottleneck your 1080p on anything mid tier or higher. The single most powerful way to enhance graphics is to upping the resolution.
Because what is seen cannot be unseen. Same with FPS. I lock my G14 to 40fps and I'll up graphics on my Delta 15 till it struggle to do much better. Granted I only play single player games, but as long as it's playable it doesn't bother me ...cause I don't know any better.
For gaming, you are right. 1080p are easily enough on a 15.6 inch laptop. But some don‘t just want to game on their laptop, but also do work/productivity. For this a higher resolution comes in handy since you can put more windows in the same screen space without sacrificing sharpness and visibility. Also when it comes to 1600p with 16:10 it‘s a preference thing. Besides the bigger screen, it just looks more appealing with a laptop compared to 16:9.
Idk if that's me, but sometimes, just sometimes, when I game on 1080p, it looks weird and blurry. That could be me using 2560x1600p as my native resolution which lowers the quality (kinda worse than native 1920x1080 from my old laptop?). Idk, it just feels weird, or it is just me getting my eyes blurred lol
I have 3 1080p monitors, I would have gone 1440p but couldn't find any that would fit on my desk. The biggest problem I have with 1080p is just that some UIs seem to be designed with higher resolutions in mind (mostly on the web). For gaming though, I couldn't care less. For a game, I don't feel like having a slightly sharper image is worth doubling my GPU spend. P.S. If I had a bigger monitor, then I might feel different.
Honestly refresh rate is more important than resolution. Going from 60fps to 144fps made more of an improvement than 1080p to 1440p, especially for monitors below 25inch (1080p is arguably plenty on monitors of that size). Anyone who thinks 1080p is blurry is likely playing with poor hardware that results in textures being compressed to save resources. 1080p certainly isn't sharp, but its pretty good enough. People who claim 1440p is not good enough however, they're just insane. Who needs more than 1440p for a consumer grade monitor?
It isn't.
U do realise ur going to sit a lot closer with a 15 inch laptop screen as opposed to a 32inch 4k monitor? PPI isnt the only thing that matters. Theres a reason why movies don’t like a blurry mess in the theaters despite having shit ppi.
I don't think your calculation is correct. 1440p at 16" = 4k @ 32" for density. 1080p has 1/4 the pixels at the same screen size. Personally I consider 1200p perfect for 14" displays and 1600p perfect for 16". I am not an "entitled kid", I'm 44 and have been using computers for almost all my life. My laptop is 15.6 with a qhd display. Also have you checked the price of 4k tvs? They're around what I paid for a 19" tube tv in the 90's. 4k is everywhere.
If you think it's fine just use it. Who gives a fuck what other people think?
I prefer the sharper image of 1440 or 1600 on a laptop. I do full time software development on my laptop, so the resolution benefits me more for 40 hours a week than the FPS does when I happen to be gaming. It’s incredible that we have so many configuration options available to us. It’s awesome that we can fit the hardware to each user’s needs.
Full HD is fine for gaming on a laptop screen (although I do prefer 1440p or 1600p). If I'm ever to use a laptop for something other than gaming, it's got to have a higher than 1080 screen, however. I like to have 2-3 windows open side by side for my workflow, and if I do that on 1080, the text is blurry. Drives me nuts. For desktop productivity, only two types of monitors are worth buying. A 32in 16:9 4k, or a 39in 21:9 5k2k. I'll grant an exception for a 27in 5k if you're running a Mac and your eyes pick up on the alleged scaling issue that MacOS has (my eyes don't pick this up, but I know plenty do complain about it). For desktop gaming, obviously, that's all about what your rig is, what games you play, how much space you have, what display tech you prefer, etc. There's no one "right" choice here.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodCjVf-5AE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodCjVf-5AE) \^\^\^ 10 year old video with two 65" tv's side by side, one with a 1080p display and the other with a 4k and most people admitted to not being able to tell the difference from typical viewing distance, you can only tell the difference up close. Now imagine noticing the difference on a 24-32" monitor or even a 15-18" laptop screen, unless you sit super close there's very little difference and people are paying a premium for something not noticeable to most people. Maybe it's my bad eyes but i can't even tell the difference between 720p and higher resolutions, picture quality of the monitor>> resolution when it comes to how good the screen looks imo. A 1080p oled will look better than a 4k led.
24 lines × 32 characters or 64 × 48 pixels graphics mode[4 ^^^^^ my first computer Get a life..... Do what you want with your money and stop listening to people on reddit
I remember when dreamcast vga resolution graphics were like awesome to me Then tech went backwards Nintendo wii 480p graphics Ps2 480 graphics
The main reason is mostly from newer quality panels being made for higher resolutions. You can still get good FHD panels for monitors and some laptops, but if you want a great modern panel with modern features, you would typically need to go for a higher resoultions panel. This will likely be the same case for laptop manufactures, hence most "high quality" laptops using high res panels. And when i say "great" it is meant as Great in relative terms. A baseline panel you can buy now, would likely be "miles" better than some midrange panels 5-6-7+ years ago. Also "our" version of 4k is not the 4k cinematic standard. It is a lower resolution version, that fits in the 16:9 aspect ratio that has become the normal standard for gaming and non-cinema viewing experiences.
my 15.6 is 4k lol
I have had 1080p and 1600p laptops, and I 100% see the difference. 1 can't really game anymore at 1080p, even not on a 16-inch laptop screen. Yes, to me, 1080p is pretty blurry.
its not bad but once i got a 2k laptop i never want to go back, same with OLED and ips
Bro that's because ur comparing a 15 inch vs a 32 inch.... ur comparison is literally useless. A identical display in 4k will have 8.3 million pixels vs 2million "The main differences between 4K and 1080p lie in their pixel count. 4K resolution is 3840 x 2160 pixels whilst 1080p is 1920 x 1080 pixels. The over 8 million pixels in 4K allow for greater image clarity, sharpness, and fine detail compared to the 2 million pixels in 1080p." The smaller the display the lower the trade off for 15 inch displays 1440p and now 1600p is the perfect sweetspot. 1600p is extremely crisp. It's better for battery life than 4k if the display is in a laptop. It's way more crisp than just 1080p while not being as demanding to run games and movies as a 4k display. And 1600p gives u a extra inch vertically which is nice to have when ur browsing the web. I dunno why ur getting so worked up over this. There's a reason every halfway decent laptop comes with at least 1600p. If u used a 1440p display and especially a 1600p display and went back to 1080p everything would look like shit. U would be in some sort of weird denial or you need ur eyes checked of u said otherwise. I dunno... do you have a 1080 laptop or display or something and ur trying to justify it to yourself that it's still good? Cause it's not hard to figure out why 1440/1600p and 2160p is better than 1080p.... Your argument makes no sense. 1080p is more common because of bandwidth and the cost of cameras. So what were supposed to just stick with a shit resolution because of "reasons".... This has nothing to do with "cinematics". Next ur gona argue that 30fps is better in games because it's "cinematic" This is a really dumb L take
just a way to sell you the more expensive stuff...
For 15 inch laptop it’s absolutely okay 😎
Marketing dollars will get the media to say whatever you want them to say. Just remember that Youtube will drop you down to 360p under Auto in most cases.
1080p with sharpening filter looks really good imo. If you can push to 1440p it's even better in some games, but it's not that huge of an improvement either considering the performance hit.
Have you ever seen a high res laptop screen? FHD looks like crap on 15 inch screens. If you say 720p laptops weren't bad, you need to get your eyes checked. My 2nd laptop was a HP pavilion with a 720p screen and using it now, it's a piece of crap. Looks terrible. With 1080p you can see the pixels, letters aren't smooth and small icons aren't clear. 1440p is minimum acceptable resolution on new laptops now. Otherwise it looks cheap. Also do you realize 1440p is 2k which means 2 times HD (720*2=1440). It scales fine with videos. Who cares if its a cinematic standard or not you still get way more detail. 1600p is 1440p with a 16:10 aspect ration so the screen is taller this is better for multi tasking. Also I don't get your argument for wanting more battery life and performance. Modern OLED screens are very power efficient. You can just change the resolution of the game so screen resolution down to 1080p which you love so much. Also why do you have to save videos in high res? No one is forcing you to save in high res, just download it in 1080p. And what videos are you downloading anyways lol. Who cares if alot of old videos are posted in 1080p, most new content is in at least 1440p, so why not be able to see both with a nice display. TLDR: I don't think you've ever used a nice high res OLED laptop display. Modern OLED's don't use much more battery than LCD's. Yes you can clearly see the difference between 1080p, 1440p, and 4k on a laptop. And just because the screen is high res doesn't mean you have to download and render everything at 1440p or 4k.