I THOUGHT I wanted this... - Razer Blade Pro 17 Review

[RILEYISMYNAME]

Whoa! It's the FIRST gaming laptop with a 4K+ 120Hz display! ...But if you can't play games at 4K 120Hz... what's the point?

 

 

Buy Razer Blade Pro 17 (2019):
On Amazon: https://geni.us/2RjAtZ8
On Newegg: https://geni.us/A0xQwU
On Razer: https://geni.us/MZ2wmtv

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Quote

But if you can't play games at 4K 120Hz... what's the point?

Maybe doing non-gaming stuff at 4K and playing games at less-than-4K 120Hz?

Then again, 17'' 4K... actually, I take it back, nothing, be it non-gaming or 240Hz gaming would make a 4K display reasonable at 17''.

 

inb4 cellphone dpi argument: yes, that's pointless as well (although at least the UI is scaled accordingly in those).

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

4K on a laptop is pointless even at 17". 1440p is perfect resolution for most people and 4k only really makes sense for TVs IMO

[Evolution.]

$3k 6lbs, bad battery life , cramped keyboard no num pad, ill pass. 

[Flying Sausages]

Razer are and

[Princess Luna]

This has been my issue with laptop manufactures for ages now, they completely ignore 2560x1440p existence altogether when that would actually be the sweet spot for gaming devices and hells even content creation.

 

Laptop panels resumes to:

 

Low end: 1366x768p all da things

Reasonable / Mid End: 1920x1080p

"High End": Must be 4K!!!!1

[William Payne]

In the first few sentences of that video Linus pretty much described one of the main issues with modern consumerism. Wanting something because its new and they don't have it, even though they don't actually need it. 

[Kroon]

Seriosly 1440p?! 

 

As 720p are 1440p not scalable with 1080P and 2160p (4K).   1440p is a side track that is best left alone.  2160 are scalable to 1080 without any problem so just down scale if you have performance issues.

[Rune]

23 minutes ago, Kroon said:

Seriosly 1440p?! 

 

As 720p are 1440p not scalable with 1080P and 2160p (4K).   1440p is a side track that is best left alone.  2160 are scalable to 1080 without any problem so just down scale if you have performance issues.

I wanted a 1440p 144hz hdr1000 monitor. They didn't exist, so I had to buy a 4k one...at a cost that was stupid and is next to impossible to fully drive at decent settings.

Laptops should not have to have this same problem. I'm with @LinusTech

[Tristerin]

2 hours ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

4K on a laptop is pointless even at 17". 1440p is perfect resolution for most people and 4k only really makes sense for TVs IMO

I have to disagree, my workstation laptop is 17" 4k 60hz and its amazing for me.  I didn't think it would be anything special until I look at my other monitors in my office, or other laptops etc.  I cant even stand looking at this monitor I am right now because of it now that I am at home and its been my daily monitor for 8 or so years.  

[Guest]

I mean there were a few thinkpads with 1440p displays, right? I do agree that we need to see it more though

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

29 minutes ago, hiitswilliam said:

I mean there were a few thinkpads with 1440p displays, right? I do agree that we need to see it more though

Thinkpads being way ahead of everyone else as usual huh

[Kroon]

57 minutes ago, Rune said:

I wanted a 1440p 144hz hdr1000 monitor. They didn't exist, so I had to buy a 4k one...at a cost that was stupid and is next to impossible to fully drive at decent settings.

Laptops should not have to have this same problem. I'm with @LinusTech

 

To use resolutions that is out of proportion and therefore not scalable between each other will only hamper the development in monitor technology.   This is also true for game development, there is no extra work to switch between 1080p and 2160P.

[Rune]

15 minutes ago, Kroon said:

there is no extra work to switch between 1080p and 2160P.

Except for the billions required in r&d funding to make such a massive leap in technology to make a 4x in pixel count viable and not a slideshow. I'd rather at least have a fucking option

[Torg20]

120hz 4k in a laptop?  Great, so I can either scale down the resolution or see a fraction of those frames.  It's amazing what nonsense they'll try to sell us before giving us a high refresh 1440p option.  

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, Kroon said:

 

To use resolutions that is out of proportion and therefore not scalable between each other will only hamper the development in monitor technology.   This is also true for game development, there is no extra work to switch between 1080p and 2160P.

1440p is called quadHD for a reason, it's 720p times 4. Just like how "4K" is just 1080p times 4.

 

And 720p is still a common resolution for non interactive content creators to target, so upscaling to 1440p is rather easy if the scaling algorithm just treats those 4 pixels as one (something that would be equally true of the majority of 1080p content made before the past 2-4 years).

 

As for games, most engines have long since been built to scale across different resolutions and aspect ratios with minimal to no loss in quality. 1440p is exactly as easy to support as 720p, 1080p, 4K, and even odd balls like 900p, 1366x768, or 2736 x 1824.

 

 

And for the majority of people, 4K on a small screen isn't really beneficial. It's actually detrimental for gaming as higher resolutions are harder to drive without sacrificing visual quality.

[Kroon]

5 hours ago, Rune said:

Except for the billions required in r&d funding to make such a massive leap in technology to make a 4x in pixel count viable and not a slideshow. I'd rather at least have a fucking option

Fist off pleas don't quote half sentences.

 

What on earth do R&D to make massive leaps in technology of pixel count have to do with game development? 

[Kroon]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

And 720p is still a common resolution for non interactive content creators to target, so upscaling to 1440p is rather easy if the scaling algorithm just treats those 4 pixels as one (something that would be equally true of the majority of 1080p content made before the past 2-4 years).

 

You are somewhat right.

 

To get the best quality it's better to down scale therefore games now days are created for 2160p and down scaled to 1080p. While a lot of games actually are up scaling from 720p to 1440p, this takes away from the experience.  

 

Few weeks back I visited a game development studio that have started to make their back end at 4320p so they can down scale to 2160p.  Their view of 1440p gaming was clear: They will stick with 1080p multiplyer as main focus and make simple conversions from 720p, everything in the name of profit.

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, Kroon said:

To get the best quality it's better to down scale therefore games now days are created for 2160p and down scaled to 1080p.

A handful of poorly developed games, maybe.

 

But competent developers use high resolution textures and high poly count models and render the actual images at the target resolution.

[amdorintel]

8 hours ago, William Payne said:

In the first few sentences of that video Linus pretty much described one of the main issues with modern consumerism. Wanting something because its new and they don't have it, even though they don't actually need it. 

exactly, its like women - how many shoes do they really need?

 

Quote

what's the point?

profit

[GoldenLag]

13 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Low end: 1366x768p all da things

how did 768p ever excist while 1440p is mostly absent.......

 

there are no reason for there to be 768p. 

[Arika]

36 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

there are no reason for there to be 768p

not these days at least. I imagine it was common back in the day because they could get away with smaller resolutions on smaller screens. Hell I remember having a 800 x 600 14" desktop monitor. These days it's just bottom of the barrel to get the cheapest device out there for people who need nothing but something to read emails. But even still 1080p should be the absolute minimum in any kind of device with a screen 10" or larger.

 

 

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

not these days at least. I imagine it was common back in the day because they could get away with smaller resolutions on smaller screens. Hell I remember having a 800 x 600 14" desktop monitor. These days it's just bottom of the barrel to get the cheapest device out there for people who need nothing but something to read emails. But even still 1080p should be the absolute minimum in any kind of device with a screen 10" or larger.

but why wouldnt they just use 720p screens. like it makes a whole lot more sense to run 720p screens instead. 

[Results45]

Is it just me? Or are penel-makers only selling 17-inch 1440p high-refresh displays this year?

 

Cuz AFAIK only 4 laptops on the market have them:

• Alienware M17 (the A51M's little brother)
• Eurocom X9C
• Eurocom X7C
• Eurocom Nightsky RX17

.

[kokakolia]

On 11/19/2019 at 8:38 PM, Caroline said:

>getting something razer

>expecting it to be good

I don't understand all the hate for Razer, but I only ever owned 1 Razer product: the Deathadder 2013. And I can only say good things about this mouse.