Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lenovo > Is the better screen worth the € - Using CAD. Is it essential?

  • 10-07-2019 6:23pm
    #1
    worded
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭


    Its being used for CAD but will be hooked up to an ext high end monitor some of the time anyway ...


    Standard Screen
    15.6" FHD (1920 x 1080) IPS, 300nits, 72% NTSC color gamut

    or

    Better Screen

    + € 218.94

    15.6" 4K UHD Touch (3840 x 2160) IPS, 400nits, 100% Adobe color gamut, 10-bit color depth
    This display is only available with IR camera.


    If you had to choose between a better processor (below) and a better screen (above) what would you choose?

    Intel Core i7-8850H Processor (9MB Cache, up to 4.30GHz)

    or

    Intel Xeon E-2176M Processor (12MB Cache, up to 4.40GHz)
    + € 180.81


    My thinking is that more memory can be added at a later date to compensate for a the slower i7 processor but the screen can never be changed, economically anyway.

    Your thoughts?


Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,962 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ask yourself

    1. do you need 4k and better colour acccuracy?
    (at the expense of battery life)

    2. do you need ~5% better perf (again at the expense of battery life)?


  • #3
    Polar101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭Polar101


    1) If you are going to plug it to an external screen anyway, maybe the 4K screen isn't worth the money. Screen quality will be a bit better, but it will also use more battery. But there is a difference between 300 and 400 nits, as well as a colour accuracy - so if you find that important then it is worth the extra money. For example, I have a laptop with a 15.6" FHD, "300 nits" screen, and it certainly isn't amazingly bright and I wouldn't do any graphics work with it.

    2) I7-8850H is better value, unless you really need the extra (small) boost from the Xeon CPU and think it is worth €180.81.

    I would possibly just get the FHD screen and i7, but if I had to choose one option, then I'd go with 4K and i7.


  • #4
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,170 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    4K at 15" is really overkill to me, only really makes sense from 22" up. A 1440p panel would be perfect at that size.


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,962 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ED E wrote: »
    4K at 15" is really overkill to me, only really makes sense from 22" up. A 1440p panel would be perfect at that size.

    1440p is pretty much non-existent in laptops.

    it's 1080p or 4k usually.

    very rarely is a 1440p /2k screen offered.

    I'm not sure why.


    the whole rez naming is very confusing also really :-

    Full HD / 1k - (1920 x 1080)

    1440p / 2k (over 2,000 lines on the horizontal hence 2k) - (2560 x 1440)

    4k which confusingly does not have more than 4,000 lines on either horizontal or vertical. ( 3840 x 2160). real 4k is 4096x2160. ( 3840 x 2160) is technically UHD resolution.


Advertisement