4K vs 1080p: Side-By-Side AW17r3

Left FHD.

FHD: LGD0459 UHD: AUO

Boy, am I glad I got rid of this 4K crap. Hello back 1080p, hello sanity.

Picture taken by 10MP (~ 4.2K) phone cam. No chargers, full brightness both screens. It is done to illustrate color brightness, not clarity (it is focused in the middle) and it is not a camera for this purpose anyway.


1. It is not possible to tell which one is brighter at 100% or at minimum. I had someone else look as well and they could not tell. So I do not know what people are talking about 220 nits versus 400 nits. They are both VERY bright, I rarely used 4K more than 50% even in daylight.

2. Color is whiter on FHD (not as white as my Acer Nitro though). UHD is yellow (although not visible on pic)

3. UHD has some graininess... or something like a film of grease on the screen. This is very visible on white background. FHD is clear.

4. FHD added 1 hour more to my battery life.

I have no experience with gaming. From work perspective, there is absolutely ZERO necessity for a 4K screen from optimal viewing distances on a 17" laptop. You will spend days and days trying to find solutions to problems it presents, half of which you will not be able to solve anyway. If you are a perfectionist, 4K is not for you.

I'd be glad to run any tests you need.

 

I knew the FHD display on the 15 was rated at ~220 nits, but are you certain that the FHD on the 17 is that low also?

What is the history of the two machines being compared? Production dates?

I ask because I recently took delivery of a warranty exchange for my yellow, highly-flared UHD 17. The warranty replacement was much dimmer and very beige. My early-prod 17 UHD is an honest 400nits (in a side-by-side), while the replacement looked to be around 250 nits (my guess).

 

I'm surprised there isn't more of a difference in terms of brightness.

Can you do a colored image (showing RGB) across both displays?

 

Guys, the FHD on the 17 R3 is 300 nits, not 220...... so it make sense that you wouldn't see much of a difference between the 4k and 17 R3 1080p.

There IS an appreciable difference between the 220 nit 15 R2 screen and 17 R3 4k screen. Frankly, someone should be reprimanded at Dell for putting such a garbage screen in the 15R2. Honestly the color reproduction on the 15 R2 is garbage. I was glad I wasnt using it.

The graininess is part of the anti glare matte screen coating, and usually its up to personal preference whether or not you like it.

Yes, the 4K has a warm/yellow tinge, again, this makes more sense when you realize that the screen is best utilized for movies. I mean, the 980m/970m cant really push good frames at 4K in new AAA games so it make sense form Dells standpoint to optimize it for movies.

Again, thats up to personal preference.

I would pick the 1080p of course, but I wont refuse a free 4K screen which is what happened in my case. I am able to play my MMORPG at 4k and it is CRAZY awesome!

 

I'm in the process of going back from 4k to 1080p as well.

I can't deal with the 100's of bugs and tradeoffs for essentially no benefit (4k content isn't there, even the web is being upscaled in browsers, pics, etc)

 

Dont get on here and whine if you dont know the facts.....

17R3 FHD = 300 nits.....
15R2 FHD = 220 nits.....

 

You do know what DPI scaling in windows is right? I think the laptop comes configured so it looks like a 1600x900 screen. You want it to look like a 1080p screen. I have had no issues other than some blurry dialog boxes but I guess YMMV.

 

This has not been an easy choice, and i take delivery of the 15R2 outlet 1080p tomorrow, i'll have it side by side wtih my UHD and could easily regret the decision. I am ok with the way windows 10 is dealing with the 4k stuff, but the real issue for me is to do with 1080p gaming. I knew i was taking a chance with the 1080p->UHD upscaling, but having tried to do a long session dealing with this at a friends, I really am not enjoying the blurry effect of the upscaling on the 4k screen. Most new games will be upscaled from 1080p->UHD on this machine.. leading to me questioning what the main purpose of this machine actually is! Even going 2k still leads to blurry gaming..

4k Gaming looks pretty but most games cannot handle it. The primary purpose of this machine is, for me, gaming.

That being said, when i get the 1080p having 1:1 scaling may lose out to poor brightness and colors. Dell really gave us 2 bad choices for screens on the R2 (wtf)

fingers crossed i get a LG screen on the new dell outlet machine - i may request next business day service for a new screen, if it is a samsung.

 

The 4K screen makes no sense unless you really need to work with large photos...in which case you should be working on a professional monitor to begin with unless you are a hobbyist. 4K mobile gaming will not be ready until at least 2 more GPU iterations. All 4K will do is slow you down and make things blurry, as there is pretty much no 4K content out there aside from a few netflix and youtube streams, and you cannot upgrade the integrated GPU down the line to properly handle 4K unless you want to be tethered to a graphics amp.

1080P will be king the the next 2-3 years, in my opinion, until GPU technology catches up.

 

I hope your screen is good. The ones I saw on the 15 R2 were LG and I considered them pretty bad(not worthy of being called IPS). They were visibly dim, I would post a comparison shot if I could.

 

I'm not holding my breath, I'm hoping its usable. Dell are still screwing everyone but the low price I got should mitigate the situation.

 

I was on the fence also between 4k and 1080, and I agree that the rez does not make a world of difference. I find there is a benefit in reading small menu text, and there is a drawback in the occasional scaling issues with certain programs. I decided on the 4k because the 1080 on the 15's were looking pretty dismal. I was perfectly happy with the 1080 on the r2, rated at 300nits.

As far as a performance hit, I don't see it. And the battery life difference is likely due to the higher brightness level (at least electrically).

And anyone working with large photos ought to have a separate viewing monitor. IMO, the higher rez is mainly useful for menus and browsers--where 4k support has been implemented.

 

Both September. I will repeat once again. Both screens are VERY bright.

I can do that later. But I don't think it will show any difference at all from a phone cam. As I said, those 2 pics look identical here, but they looked very different to my eyes.

Initially 17r3 FHD was said to be 220 nits as well. Regardless, I am not buying displays based on their nits ratings, so that bears no importance.

The output same brightness levels for me. 4K consumes about 4wH more on a laptop doing 14wH average, so that is a huge difference. If you are freaking outputting 200 watts with your maxed out gpu cards and burning CPU, of course 4wH is negligible. But that does not fit the profile of a regular battery usage.

That is not accurate. They are both IPS (AHVA in fact for 4K, not IPS). In fact, AR coating is 12% with IGZO whereas it is more 21% with FHD. FHD is supposed to show graininess, not UHD. There is no one who will like that graininess after using an unobstructed output as in glossy screens.

 

4K problems are not about scaling. There are just too many issues in essential Microsoft products. At 200% scaling (effect res 1920x1080), here is WMP12. It is a hit-and-miss to click the seek bar, and almost impossible to accurately target volume:

 

Half of worlds emails look screwed-up vertical columns, again in an essential MS software. Unless you go on about changing the world, this is not going to be different, because MS says it is HTML mail formatting problem. Why would I need to deal with this, each day, every day?




And here is your PS, and your Samsung Magician... I had to use magnifier to be able to find the option I need!

 

Bottom line is, I spent incredible amounts of time for a month with this 4K crap and I could not do no more. Horizontal spacing issues coming up everywhere with text irritating the heck out of me. I went to 1920x1080, and non-native resolution did not look good despite everyone (who never owned 4K screens) chiming in how it is perfect 1-4 pixel ratio and there will not be blurriness.... I could not do no more, I got FHD. Problem solved for me. Your needs might be different.

 

I dont care what you say, graininess is normal on matte screens. Ive seen it countless times on laptops. Some call it the screen door effect.

That said, its not that bad. Ive seen worse examples. Sure id rather they stop pushing matte garbage. Glossy is better in literally every way (for my needs).

I dont use Photoshop and have noticed no ill effects with my email.

 

That is not Screen Door Affect. I had that on my DLP projector. You can get rid of by slightly blurring the image. You would not get that on laptop screens.

If you are not reading the original post, I will repeat again. I had awful grainess (silk screen) on 4K. I have NONE in FHD. Not all the matte screens are the same, they are separated by the level of coating applied.

 

Slightly OT (15 rather than 17): no graininess in the AW15 R2 FHD of mine. Neat screen, bright enough, very ergonomic, up to 12h battery life with 6820 OC2. It's good they offer the FHD option instead of just pushing the 4k screens most people don't really benefit from. Scaling issues suck.

 

I rather have the 4K over 1080p everyday. Some interface issues are just becoming a thing of the past and put scaling on 200% gives everything a nice crisp look. The scaling issues I see in this thread is all in ol dsoftware. You know there is a new windows medi aplayer right? The later photoshops work fine too. For gaming just use scaling with 1080p.

 

Yes, like I said not all of them are created equal. some show the effect more than others. This brings it back to personal preference and how much you notice it.

 

I'm glad you are ok with scaling 1080 but some of us are not.

I can't deal with gaming at 1080p on the 4k screen. it's too blurry and I don't enjoy it.

 

Just wanted to say i've recieved a refurb unit that i'm keeping (from dell) has the 980M, and they gave me a great deal at the outlet. Machine is brand new, FHD screen.

I am SO MUCH HAPPIER with 1080, from 4k. Yes, it is not as bright, but it is far more usable.

For those who have seen LG vs samsung, looks like i got an FHD samsung. Its not bad, but wondering if i should get them to replace the screen here before i head out to the UK!

Can anyone comment on the colors of the samsung vs the LG FHD matte panel?

 

I thought you got the AMD card?

Anyway, I certainly wouldnt nitpick about the screens, dont fix what aint broke!

Dell 3rd party techs are borderline idiots they'd probably just break something or make it less reliable.

 

Can confirm this, half the time the "dell tech" just makes **** worst. Got so bad on my old m17xr2 that after 4 different visits because they kept sending the wrong screen for replacement (not his fault I know, but the original screen was teh RGB LED and I wasn't settling for anything else) he finally got the right screen and then broke half the clips holding down the trim panel below the screen.... Just ended up living with it.

 

that one went back today. I have played the 980m fishing game with two models from the outlet.