Dell Precision M3800 - 2013!

It might and probably will be OK with software, but I wouldn't bet on it working fine with websites.

 

Scaling in 8 is no different than in 7 as far as I can tell. Scaling in windows 7 is supposed to be bad too you know.

 

So what is the point of paying more for a higher res screen

 

Ips and higher resolution?

 

I was under the impression that scaling in 8.1 is mostly the same. The differences are you can now select a 200% option (though you could do this previously by entering it in the "custom" settings), there's some auto-scaling option where it will select a scaling option appropriate for your display if possible, and you can now specify a different scaling parameter for each display if you have multiple displays. However, the actual scaling behaves just like it always has, no new magic there.

If using multiple displays, apps are rendered using the scaling option set for your primary display and the image is just scaled up or down when you are showing the app on a different display. So if your high-DPI display is not your primary one, your apps will be scaled up and look blurry.

Slight improvements are nice for sure but the problem is not solved IMO.

 

The M4800 can run 47 and 57 watt processors. You could have the 4702MQ as an option, but there is not much need for a 37 watt quad when the system supports faster processors with a higher max tdp.

The tray price of the 37 watt 4702MQ is $388 and it has a Clock Speed of 2.2 GHz and a Max Turbo Frequency of 3.2 GHz.
The tray price of the 47 watt 4700MQ is also $388, but it has a Clock Speed of 2.4 GHz and a Max Turbo Frequency of 3.4 GHz.

 

From what I understand,t he scaling in 8.1 fixes some of the quirks of scaling the UI in windows too, yeah there is a 200% option and yeah, it works mostly like in previous versions, but there was some weirdness when upscaling with the windows UI itself (nothing that broke the experience, but small differences), those are mostly gone in 8.1. That is what I meant.

Agreed, the scaling issues are not completely solved, but we're heading in the right direction for once.

Yup, the 4702 are basically chips that remain stable at lower voltages and similar clock speeds. give that the M4800 is meant to be a beefy, but powerful workstation, it makes no sense to include an option for a CPU that has lower TDP at the expense of clock speed. In the M3800, it makes more sense since the cooling capacity o the notebook is lower than that of the M4800. I completely agree with Bokeh on this.

 

It would make some sense to use the 4702MQ if cooling was inadequate. Many laptops can be equipped with higher end quads but when stressed 100% the clocks go down due to temps or power restrictions in the BIOS and you endup having a lower performing machine.

 

I can see the i7 4702MQ being the CPU in the M3800. Its 37W TDP will be easier on the cooling solution. On thinner laptops the CPU (if a full TDP quad) always runs either too hot 90C+ or throttles.

I would rather have a CPU that's a tiny bit slower but doesn't throttle due to heat.

 

Modern browsers (at least Firefox and Chrome) do their own scaling, and it almost always "just works."