WQHD (2880x1620) on a 15.6" actually Retina?

[hythos]

I've been wrecking my mind trying to find a 15.6" WQHD IPS panel (2880x1620) to replace the 1080p LCD on a new laptop so that I have increased space for CAD designing...

I've narrowed down a few options, though I've come by this - and I'm concerned that I should just focus on 1080p instead:
Retina resolution of 2880x1620 gives us just 1440x810 of effective pixels for all of the OS elements, which for a 15" laptop is unimpressive. Today's good 15" laptops offer 1600x900 resolution, and many offer 1920x1080. They need 4K to make it a nice and practical display.
( http://www.techspot.com/news/51363-acer-to-intro-laptops-with-high-ppi-2880x1620-displays.html)

 

[bystander]

Retina is just a buzz word, it is not a real metric. The idea is that at a certain distance, you need so much pixels per inch to not be able to distinguish pixels. The problem is, we all sit at different viewing distances and depending on eye site, the resolution and distance will change.

Based on the spec's, the Acer's laptop is only slightly lower resolution, and the screen is slight shorter, which would mean the PPI is likely the same. How far you have to view to not see pixels should also remain the same.

Working space won't change from your 1080p to the 2880x1620 display unless it is physically larger. But every square inch will have more pixels. So you can choose to let everything be super small, which may be difficult to work with, or you can scale the desktop and make everything the same size as 1080p was at default. You could even take the 1080p and shrink the icons.

 

[hythos]

Thank you very much, Bystander!
I'm OK if the image appears smaller, but it's the pixel-count that will give me more viewing space that I'm after.
However, after reading the 'effective pixel' message about it being a Retina resolution (because I'm not familiar if the referenced-comment is valid...) - I'd like to know that it *IS* 2880x1620, just as my 27" Auria is 2560x1440. I had read Wikipedia's description of Apple doing what apple does best and trade-marking Retina as a hipster buz-word, but IF the pixel-count is realistically lower than the advertised count, I'm not gonna bother.

 

[Squander]

A 17'' macbook pro displays an effective 1080 but a 15.6 will be an effective 1680 because the 15.6 isn't 2880 it's 2560.

There are more pixels on the macbook pro and if you download a plugin you can have the field of view be true 2880 but all the reviews say it's horrible. Everyone who tries it says it's so small that it's unreadable.

The pixels are there, but the software scales the field of view. While CAD probably gives you more screen realistate video games in higher than 1080 resolution rarely do. They will auto scale down to 1080 or lower in terms of field of view. So while you don't get more screen real estate from having the higher resolution, you get a crisper experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
I wish there were more viable 1900 displays. That'd be great for CAD but even then, games will often auto shrink it down to a smaller

Like you, I'd much prefer more screen real estate. I wish there were viable 1900 options on laptops but there aren't.