Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Dell Precision Laptop Will Have 3200x1800 display

Last response: in News comments
Share
July 20, 2013 3:04:09 PM

What i don't understand is, what's the point? Honestly, I doubt there would be any noticeable difference between that and 1920 x 1080, especially on a 15 inch screen.
Score
-13
July 20, 2013 3:20:19 PM

There's a huge point. The iPhone 4's pixel density is 326 px/in. The pixel density of that monitor would be 235 px/in. So it would be *awesome*.
Score
1
Related resources
July 20, 2013 3:44:56 PM

drewhoo said:
There's a huge point. The iPhone 4's pixel density is 326 px/in. The pixel density of that monitor would be 235 px/in. So it would be *awesome*.

15.4" is the diagonal. This is a 16:9 screen so the display itself would be 11.7" wide and that translates into 324ppi.

Unless you work all day with your laptop display stuck to your face though, there isn't much point going above 200ppi at a healthy seating distance.

What people forget when fawning over "retina" displays is that whether or not any given display meets "retina" criteria is determined in pixels per arcsecond which is as much a function of density as it is a function of viewing distance. 200ppi @ 2' (a fairly typical desktop/laptop viewing distance) is equivalent to 400ppi at 1' for a phone or tablet. (and not particularly healthy for your eyes.)
Score
7
July 20, 2013 4:01:06 PM

Do the higher resolutioned screens hurt anything? Sure, theoretically battery life could suffer but they may compensate for any difference with a bigger battery. That said, I'm all for the higher resolutioned screens, but, on a 15" its wouldn't be appreciated as much as on a 17".
Score
0
July 20, 2013 4:15:09 PM

"Do the higher resolutioned screens hurt anything?"

No....and yes.

It depends, for office software, probably not, the extra resolution will probably make fonts look better. 200dpi over 100dpi should be noticeable in this regard. But 320 vs 200, you probably wouldn't notice.

However, for anything graphics related, you will need almost 3x the power to draw the 1 frame. Unless you have your face in the screen you wont see all the pixels, but extra pixels still need to be drawn. 3200x1800 vs 1920x1080 is 2.78x as many pixels, which means it needs a 2.78x larger GPU to draw them at the same fps. Or in other words your framerate will tank by 60% with the same GPU on the larger display.

The other option is for the GPU to not draw the extra pixels, but just render at a lower resolution then upscale the image, but this will make everything blurry. This still takes some extra hardware but not as much.
Score
3
July 20, 2013 4:16:34 PM

And when will there be a GPU to support these resolutions for gaming?
Score
1
July 20, 2013 4:22:55 PM

AT LAST!!! It has been so frustrating not even being able to get even a measly 1200 pixels vertically for about 5 years now. Heck - even my 10 year old Compaq NW8000 was 1600x1200, which in some ways is better than 1920x180. My current Dell Latitude E6500 is 1920x1200, which is nice, and I have been holding off upgrading simply because they don't make laptops with 1200+ lines any more. This is LONG overdue.
Score
0
July 20, 2013 5:01:30 PM

none12345 said:
"Do the higher resolutioned screens hurt anything?"

No....and yes.

It depends, for office software, probably not, the extra resolution will probably make fonts look better. 200dpi over 100dpi should be noticeable in this regard. But 320 vs 200, you probably wouldn't notice.

However, for anything graphics related, you will need almost 3x the power to draw the 1 frame. Unless you have your face in the screen you wont see all the pixels, but extra pixels still need to be drawn. 3200x1800 vs 1920x1080 is 2.78x as many pixels, which means it needs a 2.78x larger GPU to draw them at the same fps. Or in other words your framerate will tank by 60% with the same GPU on the larger display.

The other option is for the GPU to not draw the extra pixels, but just render at a lower resolution then upscale the image, but this will make everything blurry. This still takes some extra hardware but not as much.


I'm hoping that since this is a Precision Workstation that the employed GPU can handle the display they're marrying it to well enough. Have the Retina'd MacBook Pros been shown to be struggling supporting their displays with typical workloads? Hopefully, Dell makes wise choices here in the GPU dept.

Score
0
July 20, 2013 5:21:33 PM

3200x1800 is exactly double 1600x900. So it may run like the retinas do and give you a 1600x900 actual workspace like physical room to work with is identical to 1600x900 but everything is super crisp since there is 4 pixels to every 1 in normal 1600x900
Score
0
July 20, 2013 5:22:04 PM

you could probably run it like a full 3200x1800 as well
Score
0
July 20, 2013 5:43:09 PM

InvalidError said:
drewhoo said:
There's a huge point. The iPhone 4's pixel density is 326 px/in. The pixel density of that monitor would be 235 px/in. So it would be *awesome*.

15.4" is the diagonal. This is a 16:9 screen so the display itself would be 11.7" wide and that translates into 324ppi.

Unless you work all day with your laptop display stuck to your face though, there isn't much point going above 200ppi at a healthy seating distance.

What people forget when fawning over "retina" displays is that whether or not any given display meets "retina" criteria is determined in pixels per arcsecond which is as much a function of density as it is a function of viewing distance. 200ppi @ 2' (a fairly typical desktop/laptop viewing distance) is equivalent to 400ppi at 1' for a phone or tablet. (and not particularly healthy for your eyes.)



I don't follow your math about 324ppi. I'm still getting 235 ppi. I get that figure by dividing the diagonal resolution by the diagonal size. Perhaps you're talking about PPI in some different sense.

It's very easy for me to see pixels on my laptop's 1440x900 display, which is just over 100ppi. Maybe folks who use laptops as their primary computer and/or don't use laptops for multimedia wouldn't see a point to it. But if I'm editing photos or cutting together a video, that extra resolution is extremely helpful to me.
Score
1
July 20, 2013 6:12:46 PM

drewhoo said:
I don't follow your math about 324ppi. I'm still getting 235 ppi. I get that figure by dividing the diagonal resolution by the diagonal size.

Seems I hallucinated a 3800.
Score
0
July 20, 2013 6:48:38 PM

My Dell 30" is only 2560x1600. I would like them to explain that to me.
Score
2
a b D Laptop
July 20, 2013 7:57:37 PM

expl0itfinder said:
What i don't understand is, what's the point? Honestly, I doubt there would be any noticeable difference between that and 1920 x 1080, especially on a 15 inch screen.


for simply watching a movie? Probably not. For playing games? probably better to have low res for the sake of frame rate.

But for professional work? I honestly think they have the opposite issue. If we are going to go with a beautifully insane resolution then why not go the extra bit for a 4K display? Yes, it will be expensive now, but as it will become a standard before long the price will drop much more quickly than an odd 3200x1800 display.
For photo editing, video editing, CAD, and other work that does not demand a high frame rate this should be amazing. But I cannot imagine running this resolution on a mobile GPU... that has to be terribly painful for anything with a lot of moving graphics. Even a desktop would have a hard time pushing that many pixels around... and mobile is years behind desktop in raw power.
Score
0
July 20, 2013 8:12:11 PM

CaedenV said:
But I cannot imagine running this resolution on a mobile GPU... that has to be terribly painful for anything with a lot of moving graphics. Even a desktop would have a hard time pushing that many pixels around.

It isn't any worse than 1080p with 4x over-sampling FSAA like some people have already been doing on higher-end GPUs. You simply skip the downsampling/filtering and output the native 4k frame buffer.
Score
-1
July 20, 2013 8:14:53 PM

The screen width of 11.7" given by InvalidError is an Invalid Error. (Funny how that worked.)

On a 16:9 screen the width is given by: diag measure / sqrt(16^2+9^2)*16
So substituting: w = 15.4 / sqrt(256+81) * 16
= 15.4 / sqrt(337) * 16
= 13.4"
Dividing the horizontal resolution of 3200 / 13.4 gives a pixel density of about 238 ppi.
Score
2
July 20, 2013 9:14:01 PM

Plowing through pages upon pages of machine created Excel worksheets makes high res a thing sent from heaven. All you gamers please kindly stfu. Thanks to your whining about unnecessariness, these high res laptops have been long overdue.
Score
-1
July 20, 2013 9:20:47 PM

Damn that pick some serious pixel density.
Score
1
July 20, 2013 11:44:30 PM

All I'm saying is good luck finding a wallpaper for that resolution. Haha. Then again, the target audience would probable just make one.
Score
0
July 21, 2013 12:20:15 AM

For many people this is more resolution then needed. But there is also plenty of others that might need more resolution for some reason or another so it is good to have the option.

Hopefully cheap desktop monitors come out with standard resolutions nearing this soon.
Score
1
July 21, 2013 3:18:18 AM

Great, now I'm just going to replace the lcd on my notebook with this one and save thousands. it's very easy to do. all you need it's the correct converters lvds if that much. the lcd itself will cost around $250.
Score
0
July 21, 2013 4:20:29 AM

windows 8 - yuck.

big turn off.
Score
0
July 21, 2013 4:34:57 AM

I'm reading this news on a 19" 1280x1024 screen...
Score
1
July 21, 2013 5:00:27 AM

When I use my laptop at home I use an external monitor and keyboard, don't you?
I turn off the laptop screen to save it. I use an external keyboard with pad to save the internal one.
Score
0
July 21, 2013 6:59:31 AM

JPNpower said:
Plowing through pages upon pages of machine created Excel worksheets makes high res a thing sent from heaven. All you gamers please kindly stfu. Thanks to your whining about unnecessariness, these high res laptops have been long overdue.


Word. I could pee my pants thinking about pulling up Illustrator or Premiere Pro on a laptop with that resolution. I'm on an aging MacBook Pro right now and I'm looking out for a replacement. This is the first windows machine I've heard of that I'd consider getting.

If Dell really offers UHDish resolution, an i7, 512GB of flash storage, and Quadro for <$2000, they can have my money now.

Quote:
Seems I hallucinated a 3800.
I feel like I'm always hallucinating numbers. Also I haven't seen anything defined in arcseconds since my astronomy classes in college.
Score
0
July 21, 2013 7:53:52 AM

Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here
Score
0
July 21, 2013 6:03:53 PM

Even funnier is how people still manage to find a way to trash Apple, no matter what it does.
Score
1
July 21, 2013 8:43:25 PM

I was willing to buy an apple just for retina display becuase I need it so much for my work. Now if there will a PC competitor why not I think about it? I am looking for more competent brands in future.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 3:06:30 AM

back_by_demand said:
Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here

Overkill resolution is overkill regardless of who makes it.

I just wish 1080p was a standard resolution at 15-17" but most mid-range laptops still ship with 900p or lower.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 6:46:52 AM

I Hope they still offer a 17" version (or higher). Pixels are fine and all, but the human eye still needs a physically bigger screen to do serious work. Size is FAR more important to video editors, designers, developers than pixel density. My 27" screen feels a little small and my 17" laptop is about right. Just a reminder Dell, it's not a one-size-fits-all-world.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 7:57:11 AM

as soon as I read INTEL, i hit the back button.
Score
-1
July 22, 2013 8:20:26 AM

InvalidError said:
back_by_demand said:
Funny, but when Apple cranks up the resolution it's magical, when someone else does it people find a way to bitch and moan - sniff sniff, smells like fanboi in here

Overkill resolution is overkill regardless of who makes it.

I just wish 1080p was a standard resolution at 15-17" but most mid-range laptops still ship with 900p or lower.


I don't get how you are saying it is overkill. Maybe you don't need it but some others do. The hassle of working where multiple data is needed to be opened at once is annoying if you have a small resolution screen.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 2:49:50 PM

I was willing to buy an apple just for retina display becuase I need it so much for my work. Now if there will a PC competitor why not I think about it? I am looking for more competent brands in future.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 4:03:24 PM

Awesome! I miss my 1920x1200 Dell 17" E1705 which screen gave up the ghost after 6 years. That was a $1700 laptop. I'd gladly pay $2k for the next level up. My replacement 17" currently, a $400 HP G7 series, only has 1600x900 resolution. I'm ready to move up.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 9:48:35 PM

vinhn said:
I don't get how you are saying it is overkill. Maybe you don't need it but some others do. The hassle of working where multiple data is needed to be opened at once is annoying if you have a small resolution screen.

Having more pixels on-screen is nice but you do need to be able to read it without straining your eyes if you are going to be looking at it on a regular basis. 2.5X as much text and numbers on a 60% smaller screen means ~1/6th the font and icon area sizes. For most people, this would likely feel unusable without setting Windows in high-DPI mode or using individual applications' zoom feature(s) to make things large enough to be readable. Once that is done, most of the extra resolution ends up going towards making fonts and graphics look (slightly) better rather than displaying extra information.

I have seen IBM's 10" ThinkPad with 1440x900 display in stores many years ago and reading standard dialogs on it felt like the screen was gouging my eyes out with everything being about 1/3rd the area size of a normal laptop/desktop display. I wouldn't work on that on an on-going basis without re-scaling the UI to a more comfortable size.

While that sort of resolution may be useful for some applications like CAD/CAM (that laptop has a Quadro) where thinner and cleaner lines are always very useful, for the vast majority of people it is completely overkill on such a small screen.
Score
1
July 23, 2013 5:40:04 AM

You are looking more at the "tree" than the "forest". For many of us who need a good view of the big picture, this high res is awesomeness squared. And why are you talking about "most people" when this is a friggin $2k laptop? Also, there is a reason why this is a Pricision, and not a XPS or Inspiron. For "most people" who use serious laptops though, high res is not overkill
Score
0
August 4, 2013 6:00:01 AM

See this article about what you "get" from what you "see" and where you "sit:"
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

The 3200 X 1800 resolution is important for scientific applications like precision manufacturing quality control (inspection) and, at the other end, astronomy.

Video making and viewing? No so important. Depends on where you sit (distance from screen and screen size) when viewing.

i.e. 4K video is great to watch - in a movie theater, but not on a 15 to 24 inch screen. And, the processing power needed for higher resolution video (shooting or viewing) is not worth the expense unless your screen is really big and you sit back at least 4 feet from the screen.
Score
0
!