All of the ryzen laptops that exist have abysmal screens. I would have bought one if it weren't for this fact.
Tbh I would jump to any high res oled 13 inch laptop almost instantly. Screen is one of the most important parts for me.
And when it’s capitalised, High DPI, as it was in the parent comment, it’s definitely referring to this definition.
Back in the days when 1366×768 and 1280×800 were common sorts of resolutions and 1920×1080 was the highest available (that is, before Apple’s Retina displays), perhaps you could have said 1920×1080 was “high DPI”, but people didn’t use the term “high DPI” back then. And certainly not “High DPI”.
Any review will be helpful.
I've done some light Blender work on it and it handled things just fine. Haven't tried GPU acceleration for Cycles, though.
If I bump up thermal limits to 95 degrees then it compiles things at similar speeds to my old i7-6700k machine, if not slightly faster. At stock 60 degrees it's still pretty damn fast, but aggressively throttles if you try to use all cores at once for more than a few seconds. At stock thermal limits it also never gets too uncomfortable to handle.
The GPU is good but not great. Satisfactory via Proton struggled (but got to 50FPS on low settings), older games like Portal 2 run great on ultra settings. amdgpu works pretty well, or at least not worse than amdgpu on my desktop.
Overall, it's a good replacement for my old workstation, can handle some non-trivial video/GPU workloads, and I recommend it. There's some things that need to be ironed out (ACPI S3 sleep is currently somewhat broken, but Lenovo is currently working on certifying this machine with Ubuntu, so that should fix things), but that's mostly because it's such a new CPU/Laptop.
Do you like the display?
But I also really dislike some displays that some people love, like Macbook displays. So, you know, de gustibus.
My last laptop was a 15″ 1920×1080, and my current is a 13″ 3000×2000 (and I love the aspect ratio). I intend never to buy a laptop with a 1920×1080 screen again.
At some point I’m afraid I may end up with a ≥120fps screen and rarefy my tastes still further. (I hear good things about them, but have never seen an LCD with such a frame rate.) Fortunately screens with both a high frame rate and a high resolution are still vanishingly rare.
I just hope someone comes out with a good screen on one of these—I barely even care if it’s super expensive; because it’d be a real shame to have to decide between a good screen and a good CPU.
With which setup have you been able to achieve the lowest latency? I'm currently trying to get an overview of the situation.
The difference was vast.
It’s a shame because I much prefer Cinnamon, so much I considered just shoving a cheap RX AMD card in for work stuff/Linux.
They're huge power sinks. If you need to play games on the laptop for some reasons and can have it plugged in all the time, it works. But 4k often take 1-2h off the battery life and the high frame rate will likely have an impact too.
I don't mind 1080p, or 60hz, but I'd love proper HDR OLED for work, so I can have high contrast together with lower brightness.
Yeeks.
It’s not quite so strong these days with 1920×1080 or even with 4K panels, but the segmentation is still definitely real. The feature segmentation, things like pairing dedicated graphics with better screens (even when the screens could easily be driven by dedicated graphics), is particularly distressing, because they’re making you pay more for things that you either don’t care for or actively don’t want, just to get other things you do want.
Same here and WOW, it's frustrating. There are so many laptops that would be amazing if it wasn't for their screens. Paradoxically 17" models are almost all crap.
Agreed, but there are plenty of dim IPS panels with poor contrast and color.
A couple weeks later, I got notified that that due to supply issues for certain components, the date was pushed, without a specific date, and I could cancel if I wanted or take a discount when it finally shipped.
This week HP said they cancelled my order altogether, with a list of cancelled business laptop skus. All of them were because of lack of AMD CPUs.
Supposedly I can get a discount on something else, but there's just not much to pick from.
However, 200% scaling is crisp and I can appreciate it. I just don't like losing all that real estate. And the fractional options on MacBooks aren't bad, but I can see text fuzzing out when it's not on the real Retina resolution. So when I'm running without an external display I do bite the bullet and deal with the lower resolution because otherwise I can feel my eyes straining.
[0]
Model | Physical | Max | Default | Retina
16" | 3072x1920 | 2048x1280 | 1792x1120 | 1536x960
15" | 2880x1800 | 1920x1200 | 1680x1050 | 1440x900
13" | 2560x1600 | 1680x1050 | 1440x900 | 1280x800Almost nothing looks blurry. I can't imagine it being worse on macOS.
At home I use a 4k 15" XPS with Linux on 1,7x scaling and nothing looks bad either.
I assume app support is there for the former case and it's not for the latter, so I can pretty well recommend 4k screens at that size.
Just take a screenshot of your desktop and check it's resolution, then compare to physical display resolution. Apple uses output scaler of the final, composited image.
It's not stupid; it is a solution that you can implement without support at application side and is relatively simple. Going Android way means, that all apps have to support random scales, which means they have to ship with assets for that.
If this really is true, I remain utterly baffled, and I maintain my position that it is an obviously stupid idea. Doing it that way just makes no sense to me. The visual result is way worse, it’s more resource-demanding and thus slows things down a little, and it doesn’t really simplify anything for app developers anyway—the only difference is that you have an integer scaling factor rather than a float scaling factor; but all code is still having to perform scaling mappings, and using floats would change roughly nothing (though the changes required in your APIs may need to propagate through a few levels, and GUI libraries will have to decide how to handle subpixel alignment). Windows and Android have both done it properly, so that supporting fractional scaling is no burden whatsoever for developers. You talk of having to ship assets for arbitrary scales, but that’s not a reasonable argument: GUI libraries should always choose the most suitable version of a resource, and scale it to the desired size themselves if it doesn’t match exactly.
The result of taking the proper approach is that users of fractional scaling may get icons being rendered poorly, but images, text, vector graphics, &c. will be rendered precisely and crisply. Meanwhile, this other behaviour people are saying Apple is doing is just guaranteeing that everything is rendered poorly. Surely they’re not actually doing this? Is it perhaps a case of them having erred in making Retina support integral scaling only, but they’ve since made a better version that supports fractional scaling that each app can opt into, but they just haven’t insisted on everyone fixing their stuff yet? (And remember, Apple’s in an excellent position to do such insisting—they do it regularly.) —But as you say, screenshots are scaled at the next integer, which would suggest that yeah, they’re actually doing this mangling system-wide, and there’s no per-app recourse. Thanks for that explanation.
I just find it hard to believe that Apple would truly butcher things this badly. Even if they’ve been known to do weird things a bit like this before, like killing off their text subpixel rendering with no stated justification, to the clear detriment of low-DPI users (and it may still be worthwhile even for high-DPI users).
I can’t check any of this because I don’t use a Mac. There may even not be a macOS device within a kilometre or two of me.
Also, it is not more resource demanding; the only cost is the bigger framebuffer. The scaling itself is free: it is done by the output encoder (that means output hardware that does the encoding for eDP/DP/HDMI; it doesn't use GPU at all for that[1]). Apple has one more trick: it doesn't offer the user zoom percentages as Windows or Linux Gnome do. You cannot do 125% on Apple hardware (that's bad corner case; you need to display 8 framebuffer pixels using 5 physical pixels AND you pay the price for @2X framebuffer). The default mentioned above (1440x900@2X) means displaying 9 pixels from framebuffer using 8 physical pixels. It doesn't compound the error at all.
We may discuss whether Windows did it correctly and Mac not, but the fact on the ground is, that all Mac apps run correctly on fractionally scaled displays and Windows apps are mixed bag. Even those apps that do support HiDPI on Windows have weird bugs (I'm not going to name & shame).
By which we are getting to another one of your points: that apps can scale their assets. Sure, they can. And as we can see, every app will do it incorrectly in it's own unique way. So when every app does that, why wouldn't system library do it for them? Any bugs you will fix in one place, and you might find a way to hardware accelerate it in a way, that the respective apps couldn't do (see above about the scaler on the output encoder).
As I wrote, this solution is good enough quality wise, is simple to implement and brings results quickly. Actually, it so so good enough, that Apple is using it in iPhones too (on some models, the physical and logical resolution do not match. The logical resolution is an integer multiple one).
[1] For Intel hardware, you can find more info in the Programmer's Reference Manual, Volume 12: Display Engine.
Wait, what? It's somewhere in the middle between Windows (too pixel-fitted) and macOS (too blurry). FreeType, slight hinting, LCD filtering on is the best font rendering that I know.