[tlamponi]

> 2560x1600 on 16inch monitors.

Yeah, that's 188.68 PPI.

And while more can be nicer, anything above 150 PPI is IMO fine enough.

For a real big improvement one would need 3840x2400 (WQUXGA) here, that'd give one 283.02 PPI and thus a nice 2x scaling could be used, resulting in crisper text/lines. But IMO that would be overkill and quite likely not be able to provide 165 HZ, or the GPU couldn't actually drive it at full HZ.

[noahtallen]

> But IMO that would be overkill and quite likely not be able to provide 165 HZ, or the GPU couldn't actually drive it at full HZ.

While it might be overkill, I think GPUs would have a fine time with it. Low end laptops have been driving 4k@60hz for many years now! Powering desktop interfaces is much easier than gaming. Finding a 283ppi panel that also does 165hz might be hard though.

[tlamponi]

> I think GPUs would have a fine time with it.

Yes, sure and for office work 165 HZ would be overkill anyway, 60 Hz works already OK enough and much more than 90 Hz would be a waste.

But, the post describes that they choose 165 HZ with gaming in mind, and IIRC the 16" Framework will have a slot for a switchable GPUs, and so I think it will be used for gaming too.

[WesolyKubeczek]

I have an XPS13 with WQUXGA, and it’s absolutely gorgeous.

[barbariangrunge]

I prefer 4k normally, but on Linux I prefer this. It ends up like a slightly less crisp 4k with 1.5x scaling, and everything works nicely even if your fractional scaling isn’t behaving

[tjoff]

The problem is that 2x scaling is too much. Then you'd get the real-estate of a 1080p screen which isn't suitable for such a screen.

[tlamponi]

Yes, which is plenty on 16" – after all one still gets 141 PPI resolution, that's more than one would get from 4k on a 32", which has 137.68 PPI.

ps. check out https://www.sven.de/dpi/ for a simple but nice DPI calculation app.

[tjoff]

It really isn't, coming from a 13" laptop with 1080p...

And how it is relevant to compare to a 32" screen I don't know, because you hardly use that display on your lap.

[tlamponi]

> It really isn't, coming from a 13" laptop with 1080p...

For you maybe, but I know people that are happy with that and some even find 1080p on 13" too crammed, just different taste and applications... I actually had to help out on a 1366x768 15" laptop recently, that was borderline brutal even for me, I completely forgot how one could notice every pixel as such distinct unit back then.

So, if you're not one of them you simply don't scale 2x and get more screen estate, or naturally check if there's another model that provides 5k+.

> And how it is relevant to compare to a 32" screen I don't know, because you hardly use that display on your lap.

Yeah, I almost never use a laptop on my lap, literally that is, and I really didn't think we're constraint to discuss around that axiom ^^ But I think you're mostly looking after (virtual) pixels to be used, while I might favor a higher PPI even though scaling it would give me lower pixel amount to work with.

[tjoff]

Point was that there is a massive difference between 13" and 16".

You don't have to have it in your lap. But most people, in most cases, where the laptop screen is actually used for anything. Is much closer than you'd have a 32" screen. Especially if you are going to use the laptop keyboard.

Comparing preferred PPI between different types of devices is always pointless, because you don't use them in the same way or from the same distance.