Are 15'6 displays ready for 4k?

[Stressed]

Recently PCS has added the Defiance laptop which looks absolutely great and it boasts 3k and 4k displays!
My question is: is 4k or 3k resolution on a laptop noticeable to the human eye in the case of a 15'6 display? I have never seen such resolutions with my own eyes so I'm hoping some of you have? Are they hugely different and are they much better than the 1080p?
And, does a mobile soldered-on GPU (has half the memory - 970m at 3gb and 980m at 4gb) support games to play at 4k?

Also, laptops with 4k displays seem to have issues due to windows not scaling games correctly. So basically renders the '4k' useless as you have to switch to 1080p to play something.

And finally.. how come clouds don't fall?

 

[SpyderTracks]

If you think that the newest 5.5 inch phones are 2k screens and the difference on them from a 1080p screen is definitely noticeable.

15" affords quite a bit of upscaling and 3 or 4k is definitely noticeable for general windows/browser use. The clarity and real estate are stunning.

Gaming, however is a different story. Unless you have a desktop setup with sli'd 780's, you're not going to be able to output a game in 3 or 4k. 1440p is about the highest you can go currently. This is changing quickly and I reckon the next few generations of mobile gpu's will have significant leaps in the right direction, but currently, 4k gaming just isn't ready.

 

[Retron]

Unless you have a desktop setup with sli'd 780's, you're not going to be able to output a game in 3 or 4k. 1440p is about the highest you can go currently.

This is oft-quoted, but experience shows it's not necessarily the case. I have a 4K Acer monitor and a single 980 on my desktop PC and it sustains 60 FPS playing WoW with everything maxed except AA (as there's not much need for it as the pixels are so small!). Diablo 3 runs at an effortless 60 FPS too, while Watch_Dogs runs at 32-40 FPS with a mixture of high and ultra (and again, AA dialed down). It isn't the case that 4K = 1/4 of the performance at 1080p. (Note that the 980 has 64 ROPs, as opposed to 48 in the 780 and Titan etc).

A 980M should, in theory, be capable of running at 3K with similar results - it too has 64 ROPs, and they seem to make a big difference at higher resolutions. At 4K it won't hold a candle to a desktop 980, but I bet you'd still end up with playable framerates in the likes of Diablo 3 and WoW. Watch_Dogs and similar games less so - you'd have to rein back the detail level.

I've gone for the 3K defiance with a 980M, so in December I'll be able to put this theory to the test!

(I originally had the 4K on order, but having seen reports of the RGBW nature of the screen, plus the 48Hz thing, I switched to the 3K instead.)

 

[SpyderTracks]

This is oft-quoted, but experience shows it's not necessarily the case. I have a 4K Acer monitor and a single 980 on my desktop PC and it sustains 60 FPS playing WoW with everything maxed except AA (as there's not much need for it as the pixels are so small!). Diablo 3 runs at an effortless 60 FPS too, while Watch_Dogs runs at 32-40 FPS with a mixture of high and ultra (and again, AA dialed down). It isn't the case that 4K = 1/4 of the performance at 1080p. (Note that the 980 has 64 ROPs, as opposed to 48 in the 780 and Titan etc).

A 980M should, in theory, be capable of running at 3K with similar results - it too has 64 ROPs, and they seem to make a big difference at higher resolutions. At 4K it won't hold a candle to a desktop 980, but I bet you'd still end up with playable framerates in the likes of Diablo 3 and WoW. Watch_Dogs and similar games less so - you'd have to rein back the detail level.

I've gone for the 3K defiance with a 980M, so in December I'll be able to put this theory to the test!

(I originally had the 4K on order, but having seen reports of the RGBW nature of the screen, plus the 48Hz thing, I switched to the 3K instead.)

I think the difference in mobile GPU's and desktop is still a noticeable one, despite the improvement in competitiveness of the 900m series cards being 3/4 as good as the desktop equivalent. Despite the same ROP count, there's no way it's going to produce anywhere like the same results with such a low wattage requirement.

I myself haven't tried 4k gaming yet as I don't have any cards powerful enough to even try it, and yes, all the reviews I've seen include at least 4xMSAA applied which perhaps isn't necessary, but all the framerates on stock 980's are in the mid twenties to high teens. I'm sure non-reference cards will be more capable.

I still don't think a 980m will be able to game at 3k, but the proof's in the pudding and I'd love to hear your findings on it when you get it!

Here's a couple of reviews of GTX980m at 1600p and then 1080p, it's managing at 1080p fine, but struggles a little at 1600p:

http://www.pcgamer.com/gtx-980m-benchmarked-testing-nvidias-mobile-performance-claims/

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980M.126692.0.html

 

[Retron]

Here's a couple of reviews of GTX980m at 1600p and then 1080p, it's managing at 1080p fine, but struggles a little at 1600p:

http://www.pcgamer.com/gtx-980m-benchmarked-testing-nvidias-mobile-performance-claims/

Indeed, it struggles - but it would, considering they're using 4x MSAA! It's utterly pointless on a tiny display (relatively speaking). Computationally cheaper antialiasing modes provide as good an experience IMO.

Here's a screenshot of WoW running at 4K (which even with CSAA turned on, still manages a steady 60 FPS on a single 980). On a 28" 4K monitor, it's 9 inches in size diagonally.



Running on a 15.6" Defiance, on a 221 PPI 3K display, the same image would have a 6.6 diagonal size. And on a 282 PPI 4K display, that'd be 5.2 inches diagonally - ie much smaller and hence even sharper. MSAA would be totally wasted with such a high DPI.

Anyway, I'll give the 980M a thorough testing once I receive it - and I'll post back with results!

 

[SpyderTracks]

Indeed, it struggles - but it would, considering they're using 4x MSAA! It's utterly pointless on a tiny display (relatively speaking). Computationally cheaper antialiasing modes provide as good an experience IMO.

That's not something I'd considered previously, but you're bang on, the need for it is reduced if not wiped out on 4k at 15". Disabling MSAA would massively improve framerates.

 

[Stressed]

Anyway, I'll give the 980M a thorough testing once I receive it - and I'll post back with results!

Do you think that the fact that Definace's 980m is only 4gb (instead of the 8gb one) will affect the fps? This is one of the things that turns me off from wanting to get the Defiance laptop.. this and the fact that gpu and cpu are soldered on.

 

[cosmofx]

I'm going to be ordering a Defiance in the next few weeks, i've been toying with a 3k screen but what are the real benefits to it over 1080p?

I'll be fitting it with a 970m but it seems that you can't game in 3k with a 970m so is it just a case of future proofing? I use my laptop in place of a TV so i'm guessing streaming and film downloads in 3k aren't far off?

 

[Stressed]

Films for this resolution are not that common (plus they occupy more space therefore they need much more time to download).
You may need 980m for games in 3k. My worry is that the half sized memory on the GPU would reduce the fps versus the normal sized GPU on a vortex for instance.

 

[cosmofx]

Films for this resolution are not that common (plus they occupy more space therefore they need much more time to download).
You may need 980m for games in 3k. My worry is that the half sized memory on the GPU would reduce the fps versus the normal sized GPU on a vortex for instance.

Ah I see, yeah that is a bit of a worry. Hmm, is it confirmed anywhere that the 3gb GPU will struggle with 3k?

 

[Stressed]

Not really. No reviews of this laptop yet.
From my understanding, the VRAM of the GPU has a direct effect on resolution and texture for games. So.. more is better in the case of high res (3k or 4k).
Not sure how well a 4gb CPU would deal with high resolutions for latest games.

 

[Retron]

Do you think that the fact that Definace's 980m is only 4gb (instead of the 8gb one) will affect the fps? This is one of the things that turns me off from wanting to get the Defiance laptop.. this and the fact that gpu and cpu are soldered on.

It shouldn't make any difference, unless the game you're using is trying to load more than 4GB of textures (and most won't at the moment). Remember, the desktop 980 only has 4GB!

 

[SpyderTracks]

It shouldn't make any difference, unless the game you're using is trying to load more than 4GB of textures (and most won't at the moment). Remember, the desktop 980 only has 4GB!

There are always the two versions for each card, 4gb and 8gb, the 8gb designed for multi-monitor support and high res. If you're processing 4k textures rather than 1080p textures, the size will be 4 times, so the extra vram does help, granted only with certain games at the moment such as AC4, Crysis3, etc...

 

[Retron]

There are always the two versions for each card, 4gb and 8gb, the 8gb designed for multi-monitor support and high res. If you're processing 4k textures rather than 1080p textures, the size will be 4 times, so the extra vram does help, granted only with certain games at the moment such as AC4, Crysis3, etc...

It doesn't work that way.

Say for example you play WoW on a 1080p system. You go into Orgrimmar and pootle around. The game loads its textures, generates the frames and outputs them to the screen. It uses x MB of VRAM for the textures and y MB for the frame buffer.

You then crank up the resolution to 4K. It loads exactly the same textures (as it only has one set of "ultra" assets, they're the same thing no matter what resolution you use.) It thus uses x MB of VRAM for the textures and 4y MB for the frame buffer.

y is around 8 MB at 1080p. 4y is thus around 32 MB at 4K.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about 4K!

 

[Stressed]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Say for example you play WoW on a 1080p system. You go into Orgrimmar and pootle around. The game loads its textures, generates the frames and outputs them to the screen. It uses x MB of VRAM for the textures and y MB for the frame buffer.

You then crank up the resolution to 4K. It loads exactly the same textures (as it only has one set of "ultra" assets, they're the same thing no matter what resolution you use.) It thus uses x MB of VRAM for the textures and 4y MB for the frame buffer.

y is around 8 MB at 1080p. 4y is thus around 32 MB at 4K.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about 4K!

I still don't get it (I'm slower than the average lol).

So.. will games like AC4, Shadow of Mordor..etc run slower on a 4k using gtx980m 4gb than 4k using a gtx980m 8gb? Or will it be approximately the same?

 

[Johnorama]

I have a related question - ive just ordered a vortex with 970m - obviously it only has a 1080p screen. I was looking at modding skyrim to look amazing and saw "skyrim HD" which has 4k textures - would this offer any visual benefit if running on a 1080p screen?

 

[Stressed]

Basically - no. True 4k resolution can only be viewed on a 4k screen.
The mod will basically have improved textures to fit some 4k monitors (I imagine specifically the really large ones, not laptops).

Take this with a pinch of salt, I may be wrong.

 

[SpyderTracks]

It doesn't work that way.

You then crank up the resolution to 4K. It loads exactly the same textures (as it only has one set of "ultra" assets, they're the same thing no matter what resolution you use.) It thus uses x MB of VRAM for the textures and 4y MB for the frame buffer.

That's where it's different for most games optimised for 4k, such as skyrim or Rage, Grid Autosport etc, they all have separately downloadable optimised textures for outputting to 4k and the packs are huge. It uses a lot more vRAM to process it all.

 

[Johnorama]

That's where it's different for most games optimised for 4k, such as skyrim or Rage, Grid Autosport etc, they all have separately downloadable optimised textures for outputting to 4k and the packs are huge. It uses a lot more vRAM to process it all.

Thanks. Ive set myself a challenge on my new laptop which is to get skyrim looking as amazing as possible with some decent mods - i was wondering if the 4k pack would actually increase any quality on a 1080p screen... i guess ill just get the default ultra texture download instead of the 4k pack

 

[Stressed]

I do not think the 4k texture pact will change anything for a 1080p Monitor.
But there are PLENTY of mods out there set to improve your Skyrim experience. Just keep track of your FPS and keep adding mods till you have an acceptable playable fps (40 ish).