Razer Blade 14 (2014) and 4k display (results and review)

I've had my first 4k display for a week now and wanted to give my impressions of it. After a bit of research and price shopping I decided on the Samsung U28D590D. Amazon.com: Samsung 28-Inch Ultra High Definition LED Monitor (U28D590D): Computers & Accessories

My biggest concern was the bandwidth limitation of HDMI 1.4 and if I would be able to use native resolution (3840x2160@30hz) on at least windows desktop. I was unsure about games because my desktop PC is 120hz and I've really gotten used to it. The display itself is a 28" LED backlit TN panel, which runs native 3840x2160 and can do 60hz over Displayport and 30hz over HDMI.

Here are my findings using the best HDMI cable I could. I tried both a 17GBPS and 27GBPS cable both had the same results, so I assume the connector or drivers are causing the limitation, not the cable bandwidth. Amazon.com: Monster MC 1000HD P-1M Ultra-High Speed HDTV HDMI Cable (1 meter) - 17.8Gbps: Electronics

This is the best I could get out of each resolution below. One more hz and I got flickering or black screen.

3840x2160 33 hz
3200x1800 37 hz
2560x1440 60 hz
1920x1080 85 hz

OK, I know what you're thinking. "33hz? Are you crazy?" Hey I am a 120hz gamer, so I know and appreciate the higher refresh rates. That being said I also appreciate better textures/graphics. So my quest was to find out if I could use 4k, or maybe settle for something between the "old" 1080p and my new 2160p. I have to say, yes I notice it not being quite as smooth, but after an hour of playing I didnt even notice that and was more in awe of how much better things looked. If you are sensitive to 30 hz or so, and absolutely require 40, 50 or 60 then you would have to move to 3200x1800 (same as built in display) or 2560x1440, both of which look beautiful on this display.

Using nvidia inspector I set my max FPS to 33 so that the Razer doesn't waste any heat on frames I will never see. I played mostly with vsync disabled whenever possible. Keep that in mind, when I say something was playable, I mean I'm getting 30+FPS, and many times locked at 33 for the game session. This helps cut down on the heat considerably I am sure, but weather it would be worth it to play super high resolutions but at lesser refresh and FPS is up to you.

I've gotten so used to it over this first week that when I go to work I'm pained by having ot look at my lower resolution 1920x1080 displays, and my desktop triple monitor setup at home is starting to look like 640x480, all pixelated and full of jaggies.

I've played a bunch of skyrim, dead island and GW2 all at 4k max settings minus AA. I also played a bunch of Watch Dogs leaked "demo". I played the first hour at 2560x1440 at high settings and then switched to 1920x1080 at ultra. 4k was completely playable on low(I had thought it was medium at first). Although in this case I would probably prefer 1080 on ultra, where I temporarily changed the FPS limit and screen refresh both to 60 just to see what the FPS would get to, 33-41 FPS, I would say average was about 38. The game looks gorgeous and this "demo" has convinced me to buy the game. I was worried I would have to play on low by all of the high requirements I had been seeing. I noticed on ultra that all 3GB of video memory was in use, which is kind of cool to see that much GPU memory in use on a mobile card.

I did not do any testing at 60hz in any games or resolutions, because I was trying to decide if 33hz was enough for me and then only go up if I had to. What that means is some of the games may very well get much higher FPS but since I had it limited to 33 I would not have known it. Although much lower than I'm used to, it did lead to a very consistent framerate that helped keep it looking nicer than a game running at 60 with occasional drops to 30.

If there is interest (or if I give up on 4k and drop down to 2560x1440 or lower for certain games) I may try out 60hz refresh and test games. I really didn't want to do that right away for fear it would just make the transition to 33hz harder.

**Side note: Does anyone know of a way to stop the constant "low memory" notifications that Win 8 seems to like to spit out for no reason? I usually have 3-4GB available and the game using 1-2GB, I cannot figure out why it does this. I see from google searches that it is a common problem. I have my pagefile on and windows is managing it's size so its not that. I think I did read you can sometimes get that error when running at non-native resolution (which in Watch Dogs that is true) but that just seems ridiculous to have to change your desktop res each time you want to play a game.

 

Thanks! This helps! I would definitely be interested in seeing the results of 2560x1440 @60Hz and how you like it compared to 3200x1800 @37Hz or 3840x2160 @33Hz. I think the locked-in FPS definitely helps. The 870m probably won't be able to push 60FPS most things at UHD, but it would be nice to see something around 45.

On the totally different note, would it be theoretically possible to swap the HDMI for the 2.0? Or would there be compatibility/soldering issues? It's such a shame that there is no display port. The other option is to try something over USB 3.0, but the only things I found so far were 1440p @60Hz (well 2560x1600 so the same thing just 16:10 vs yours 16.9 -> http://www.displaylink.com/pdf/DL-5500_Product_Brief.pdf) which is the same as what you have.

 

Sony has recently been issuing firmware updates for some of their HDMI 1.4 receivers to make them HDMI 2.0 compatible. But NVIDIA has not indicated that it plans to support HDMI 2.0 anytime soon.

But, more importantly, I don't understand your post. You agree that you won't be able to get high fps on UHD with the 870m, but then you want HDMI 2.0. But the only advantage of HDMI 2.0 is that it supports high refresh rates for UHD content (which you don't need for anything other than games that you agreed you can't run on the 870m).

 

I think what he is saying is he would like something better than 33 even if it can't be 60. He mentions 45 which is a sweet spot for many folks I think. I have connected the same display to my MSI GT70 with HDMI and it can do 37 hz over the same cable, same display, same input. The 37 hz does look smoother to me but that could just be me knowing its a little better. On the razer, 3k at 37hz vs 4k at 33hz I still chose the 4k just because it is native and I didn't feel the refresh was much of a difference to makeup for the lost resolution.

Here is the way I look at it, you can choose to continue to play at 1080p at 60-85hz, or if you want to try 4k even though you lose some FPS due to pushing the GPU harder (but it is also lessened by the fact it only has to do 33/37 FPS). It really depends on the game, and what you want. For competitive multiplayer it probably wouldn't be most folks first choice, but for any single player game it can work as long as it doesn't bother you.

Since then I have found a mini-DP to DP cable and plugged it into the GT70 since it has a mini-DP and the display works great at 4k @ 60 hz if anyone was wondering. It's funny a $15 DP cable can do 60hz but a super high bandwidth HDMI can't, but that's because its an older spec never designed for such higher bandwidth applications.

 

Thanks for this post. I've been waiting to hear about support for external monitors. Two questions:
1) Does it actually support 2560x1600 at 60hz? I would love to upgrade my current 1080p setup
2) When you game on these monitors, do you have the lid of the blade closed? Any issues with thermals?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Also. Nvidia's future drivers will add support for 4k/60hz using some software tricks but it only apparently works for video output.

AnandTech | NVIDIA Kepler Cards Get HDMI 4K@60Hz Support (Kind Of)