Dell Precision Laptop Will Have 3200x1800 display

[exfileme]

Here's a notebook to rival Apple's Retina display in the MacBook Pro.

Dell Precision Laptop Will Have 3200x1800 display : Read more

 

[expl0itfinder]

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.

 

[drewhoo]

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*.

 

[InvalidError]

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.)

 

[halcyon]

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".

 

[none12345]

"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.

 

[slomo4sho]

And when will there be a GPU to support these resolutions for gaming?

 

[sullivang]

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.

 

[halcyon]

"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.

 

[laststop311]

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

 

[laststop311]

you could probably run it like a full 3200x1800 as well

 

[drewhoo]

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.

 

[InvalidError]

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.

 

[chicofehr]

My Dell 30" is only 2560x1600. I would like them to explain that to me.

 

[CaedenV]

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.

 

[InvalidError]

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.

 

[typicalGeek]

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.

 

[JPNpower]

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.

 

[vinhn]

Damn that pick some serious pixel density.

 

[brisa117]

All I'm saying is good luck finding a wallpaper for that resolution. Haha. Then again, the target audience would probable just make one.

 

[smeezekitty]

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.

 

[__-_-_-__]

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.

 

[bebangs]

windows 8 - yuck.

big turn off.

 

[jezzjc]

I'm reading this news on a 19" 1280x1024 screen...

 

[rwinches]

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.