News on Haswell based mobile Precision M6800 ?

Count me as very interested in the M3800!

Ever since the Retina MBP was released I've been thinking about getting it (or a machine like it), but have hesitated because I'm not sure about OSX and I don't like the soldered RAM/SSD.

If Dell prices this under the 15" MBPR it'll be a nice deal. I do hope they put a nice GPU in it. The K1000 isn't that great, so it won't be much of a deal if the price is similar to the MBPR and the K1100 is similar (in relative terms to other cards) to where the K1000 ranks now.

 

Seems like hasewell business is much more interesting and exciting than consumer.

Ivy consumer was the bomb with 7970m and 680m.

If they are able stick a thunderbolt on it somehow than dock is moot for most.

 

No, DELL canceled the update and when I asked why the guy says he doesn't know...

 

No, it doesn't, since it's got that stupid 16:9 aspect ratio; for me that disincentive far outweighs the minimal benfit of the ultra-high resolution. Too bad, otherwise this might be worth looking at. Oh, and it would need docking support, of course, which apparently it will not have. A bit of a stillborn child this way, if you ask me.

 

Agreed. The only reason I would pick up a precision/latitude over a cheaper option is the dock for ease of setup with network, audio, USBs, and dual screens.

 

How does the 3200x1800 M3800 not beat out the 2880x1800 MBP?

 

Physical vertical screen size. Plus, Windows (any Windows) does not handle those high resolutions as well as the Mac in any case.

[RANT]Rather than diddling around with useless tiles and finger games, what Microsoft should have done is get serious about fixing the host of display scaling issues that are a legacy of Windows from decades ago. But, oh no, chasing the latest fad, alienating their core customer base and destroying what little good will they had left in the process apparently seemed like a lot more fun to some of those clowns in Seattle. Best of luck to them...[/RANT]

 

Don't get all caught up in the pixel wars without quality its as much a gimmick here as it is/was in the camera sector just a short time ago. If that's all the new laptops have to offer, then they don't have much to offer.

 

As the OP said: Because MBP is 16:10 ratio, and 3200x1800 is only 16:9.

IF you use the screen for watching a 16:9 video, the M3800 would display at 3200x1800, and the MBP at 2880x1620 WITH 2880x180 of free space below the picture. Likewise, if you're reading an A4 or US Letter document, the extra horizontal resolution on the M3800 doesn't offer you ANY extra resolution of the document, but instead just shows more empty space to each side.

At that resolution and screen size (ie. at that pixel density), and with upscaling of current formats, the clarity will appear much the same, EXCEPT that the MBP has a scaling factor of 1.5 for 1080p content and 0.75 for QuadHD* (3840x2160). The M3800 has a scaling factor of 1.6666 for 1080p content and 0.83333 for QuadHD* (3840x2160). Scaling artefacts will occur on both displays, but I suspect the MBP will suffer less, given the simpler fractions involved.

The mobile workstation segment is targeted at some people that would typically need to edit video at 16:9 WITHOUT scaling artefacts and WITH extra space on the screen for scubbing and editing controls. High DPI is nice, but so too is good scaling and a productive desktop layout... Particularly if you're restricted to the laptop screen only.

High pixel density AND 16:10 solves the problems that 16:10 users need addresses, without producing artefacts or losing the ability to display 16:9 content at maximum resolution. If I could wish for a perfect display for video editors on a mobile workstation, it would be True 4K, 16:10 and thereby 4096x2560, high PPI, 10-bit color (or better), IPS and multi-touch. Such a screen on a 15.6" notebook MIGHT be pushing the boundaries of PPI technology and usability, but it should be OK on a 17" display/M6800.

With such a screen, I could edit True 4K AND QuadHD content with a 16:9 aspect ratio as native resolutions WITH scrubbing/editing controls on-screen. I could view up-scaled 16:9 content with full left-to-right scaling at a somewhat ugly scaling factor of 2.13333, OR with just 128 pixels at each side of the picture, at a nice round scaling factor of exactly 2.

If I really push my expectations, with a screen that glorious, I'd like it to be detachable (and thereby easily replaceable) and with WiDi... If DELL made a wide range of their laptops with swappable screens, then they could offer a wider range of screen capabilities without being limited by high production costs.

* QuadHD (3840x2160) is NOT the same as 4K despite what TV marketers would have you believe. True 4K has a horizontal resolution of 4096 and a vertical resolution that depends upon the aspect ratio of the content. A video filmed in 4K at a 16:9 resolution would be 4096x2304, but on most TVs would be scaled or cropped to fit 3840x2160. Scaling works best with round numbers, less well with fractions like 0.75 and 1.5, and perhaps least well at an awkward 0.9375 (True 4K to QuadHD). 4K scales to 8K well because the factor is exactly double. 4096 is a power of 2 (2^12), so there are lots of aspect ratios that fit a width of 4096 with good scaling and exact vertical resolutions.

 

Pirx, you have posted more than most and you have my respect. Just remember that Windows 8.1 does a lot to make high dpi displays more usable.