Asus Full HD and 4K laptops

[delgarcon]

Anybody bought one? The 4K model (VM590UB) looks too cheap at 23400 thb even with DOS, but review are few and far between.

[WhizBang]

Ok, my 2 cents worth. I have a 28" Samsung 4K Monitor (not a laptop) and I think 28" is a tad small. I think 32" would be better.

That model laptop lists as 15.6". If you run it at full 4K resolution you will find text far too small to read (unless you have absolutely outstanding eyes), and if you run it at less than 4K resolution, then why bother buying 4K.

My 2 cents is that I would buy the Full HD resolution version, rather than the 4K version.

On another note, there is a new USB standard that is going to become available shortly. It's called USB 3.0a (I think) and has new symbols etc., to denote it. Unless you are in dire need, I would think about holding out for the newer hardware.

Edited April 29, 2016 by WhizBang

[Myran]

I'd say 4K is pretty much useless on a screen that small; you simply won't see that much of a difference compared to a 1080p screen unless you sit 20 cm from it. You'll also get worse battery life, and there really isn't that much 4K content to justify it unless you're a gamer, in which case 99% of all laptops won't have the necessary power to drive games at 4K and decently high settings and 60+ FPS anyway.

[sniffdog]

I think that buying a 4K monitor makes only sense if you edit 4K videos/photos or play games at 4K. But then you need a beefy computer.

[KhunBENQ]

I'd say 4K is pretty much useless on a screen that small; you simply won't see that much of a difference compared to a 1080p screen unless you sit 20 cm from it. You'll also get worse battery life, and there really isn't that much 4K content to justify it unless you're a gamer, in which case 99% of all laptops won't have the necessary power to drive games at 4K and decently high settings and 60+ FPS anyway.

Absolutely correct.

I am too lazy to do elaborate maths.

4k does not make any sense with such small displays.

They build those displays because they can not because anyone needs them.

Soon (or already) we will have 4k on smartphone displays smaller than 6 inch.

A complete laughter.

The display if this ASUS is 15.6 inch diagonal.

There are many sites about optimal viewing distance for different resolutions.

Look e.g, here:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship

As this site they do not even show such small screen sizes like 15 inch.

So I extended the line in this graphics:

Depending on your eyesight you end up with a viewing distance of a little more than 1 foot which you probably not even be able to focus.

Another rule of thumb: a person with average eyesight needs about 50 degrees viewing angle to enjoy 4k.

Do your own math.

Edited April 29, 2016 by KhunBENQ

[impulse]

Gotta say, I'm loving my full HD (1080P) ASUS G551JW, after being stuck for years with 720P laptop screens. Had to adjust the display settings so the icons, texts, etc are big enough to see. But the extra real estate is a treat when I'm not plugged into an external monitor.

At laptop screen size, full HD is about ideal. In fact, I got along great for years with 1400x1050. But 720P sucks.

Paid about 30K baht (Win10) at a recent QSNCC ComMart show. It's got an I7-4750HQ CPU and GTX950M GPU, because I need the speed and wanted to plug in a 4K external monitor. It's sold as a gaming laptop, but I use it for big spreadsheets and humongous graphs, mostly. I'm happy with the ASUS build quality and mildly obnoxious bloatware which has been easy to delete.

I'd go 4K ONLY if it didn't cost any more, but...I'd look at the rest of the specs and make sure the CPU, GPU, etc are up to speed.

23.4K baht seems a little suspicious, unless it skimps on something. 30K baht seems to be about the minimum for a full HD laptop, but that's been changing recently.

[Lampang2]

Ok, my 2 cents worth. I have a 28" Samsung 4K Monitor (not a laptop) and I think 28" is a tad small. I think 32" would be better.

That model laptop lists as 15.6". If you run it at full 4K resolution you will find text far too small to read (unless you have absolutely outstanding eyes), and if you run it at less than 4K resolution, then why bother buying 4K.

My 2 cents is that I would buy the Full HD resolution version, rather than the 4K version.

On another note, there is a new USB standard that is going to become available shortly. It's called USB 3.0a (I think) and has new symbols etc., to denote it. Unless you are in dire need, I would think about holding out for the newer hardware.

And after that I hear there is a new........

perpetual wait entered, until evolution halts.

[delgarcon]

Thanks for your very helpful advice guys, I'll definitely swerve the 4k version.

[JaseTheBass]

There's the theory and then there's the real world. People say that QHD screens on a phone are pointless and that you won't be able to see the difference over FHD screens but the reality is that you can see the improvement quality.

The only way to be sure is to take a look and compare the screen with a standard one.

[KhunBENQ]

What people see are differences in contrast, luminosity, viewing angle,color resolution, black level etc. by new display technologies.

These improve steadily and seem to be coupled (fixed to?) ever increasing resolutions.

Manufacturers don't care to produce lower resolutions anymore?

But the resolution as such does nothing on such a tiny display.

4k: if it's "free" and the graphics adapter can handle it?

But the only real 4k experience is: connect to a UHDTV not smaller than 60 inch.

The IPS panel of this ASUS seems an advanced technology:

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/lcd-panel-types-explored/

An HP with OLED display:

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/laptops/hp-s-best-hybrid-laptop-gets-an-oled-display-upgrade-1312011

.

Edited April 30, 2016 by KhunBENQ

[12DrinkMore]

But the only real 4k experience is: connect to a UHDTV not smaller than 60 inch.

I disagree.

That only applies if you are sitting a few meters away and watching TV/films, and there is not that much content available. A 60" monitor is useless as a computer monitor.

I am running a 28" 4k monitor and the clarity of the text is way way better than the previous similar sized monitor running 1080. I could never, even carefully trying to calibrate it and using "Clear Text" completely get rid of the poor text display.

Now I have much less eye strain, no discernible pixellation, photographs look awesome.

[impulse]

But the only real 4k experience is: connect to a UHDTV not smaller than 60 inch.

I disagree.

That only applies if you are sitting a few meters away and watching TV/films, and there is not that much content available. A 60" monitor is useless as a computer monitor.

I am running a 28" 4k monitor and the clarity of the text is way way better than the previous similar sized monitor running 1080. I could never, even carefully trying to calibrate it and using "Clear Text" completely get rid of the poor text display.

Now I have much less eye strain, no discernible pixellation, photographs look awesome.

Through work and home, I have 4 laptops and 2 desktops and 3 FHD (24", 32" x 40") and 1 4K UHD TV (50").

There are combinations where I can never get the monitor adjusted right and the same monitor on a different computer (same resolution x Hz) will be beautiful. Strangely, I haven't been able to get the 4K screen dialed in great on any of the laptops I've tried but it works great in FHD on the HDMI or VGA inputs. It works okay on the ASUS, but I wouldn't say it's superior in UHD.

Some of the combinations give me a better looking screen using VGA (limited to FHD), and others do better using the HDMI. I've got computers with VGA, HDMI, DVI and Display Port, and they're a toss of the dice, too- especially with adapter cables since none of my TV's have DP or DVI in.

Then, each time I change from one computer to another, the adjustment process may and may not have to be repeated all over again.

So I'd be hesitant to declare that HDMI is better than VGA (it usually is, but not always), or that UHD is better than FHD. It depends.

Edited April 30, 2016 by impulse

[KhunBENQ]

But the only real 4k experience is: connect to a UHDTV not smaller than 60 inch.

I disagree.

That only applies if you are sitting a few meters away and watching TV/films, and there is not that much content available. A 60" monitor is useless as a computer monitor.

I am running a 28" 4k monitor and the clarity of the text is way way better than the previous similar sized monitor running 1080. I could never, even carefully trying to calibrate it and using "Clear Text" completely get rid of the poor text display.

Now I have much less eye strain, no discernible pixellation, photographs look awesome.

I do not recommend a 60" computer monitor but as a "home theater" for couch potatoes/family.

4k is for highest quality movies and please refer to the diagram in post #5.

And a 28" monitor is a different league than the 15.6" thingy that the OP was asking about (more than 3 times the area).

I agree that a 28" computer monitor with 4k resolution makes sense viewing from 0.5m to 1m distance.

But you won't want to watch a 4k movie with friends/family on that?

Let's say: a 28" is 4k for singles sitting on the desk.

Edited April 30, 2016 by KhunBENQ

[12DrinkMore]

But the only real 4k experience is: connect to a UHDTV not smaller than 60 inch.

I disagree.

That only applies if you are sitting a few meters away and watching TV/films, and there is not that much content available. A 60" monitor is useless as a computer monitor.

I am running a 28" 4k monitor and the clarity of the text is way way better than the previous similar sized monitor running 1080. I could never, even carefully trying to calibrate it and using "Clear Text" completely get rid of the poor text display.

Now I have much less eye strain, no discernible pixellation, photographs look awesome.

I do not recommend a 60" computer monitor but as a "home theater" for couch potatoes/family.

4k is for highest quality movies and please refer to the diagram in post #5.

And a 28" monitor is a different league than the 15.6" thingy that the OP was asking about (more than 3 times the area).

I agree that a 28" computer monitor with 4k resolution makes sense viewing from 0.5m to 1m distance.

But you won't want to watch a 4k movie with friends/family on that?

Let's say: a 28" is 4k for singles sitting on the desk.

I was arguing about the "real 4K" experience statement, which is clearly dependent on the use. For me the huge advantage of 4K is the readability of the screen. No way I would go back to 1080.

28" is plenty for two people to watch a film.

If I have friends around the focus is on talking and not watching movies.