Acer bringing ultra-high-res displays to notebooks, desktops

Although it looks like 1080p will become the prevailing resolution for new notebook displays, Acer has a solution with considerably more pixels. At the Consumer Electronics Show last week, Acer demoed a 15.6″ display with a 2880×1620 resolution. The 4.7-megapixel resolution offers more than double the pixels of 1920×1080 displays and is just shy of the 2880×1800 panel offered by the Retina-equipped 15″ MacBook Pro. The Apple screen has a 16:10 aspect ratio, while the Acer is 16:9.

According to AnandTech, the Acer display looks great in person, with wide viewing angles and much better colors than the TN-backed screens in Acer’s showcase. There seems to be some confusion over whether the display uses an IPS panel or some other 8-bit technology, but the results appear to be very good.

A picture of the display can be seen at The Guru of 3D, which claims the screen will be available as a high-end option on several notebooks. Interestingly, Acer reportedly plans to sell ultra-high-resolution desktop monitors, as well. Those screens will apparently lack touch functionality and be available this year. There’s no word on specific resolutions or screen sizes, though.

Desktop users have been waiting for high-PPI displays for what seems like an eternity, and this may be the year we finally get some love. Of course, there’s more to delivering a good experience than just cramming more pixels onto the screen. As Cyril noted, Windows 8 has issues on high-PPI displays. Microsoft really needs to get its act together on that front.

Comments closed
    • Antias
    • 7 years ago

    Now if they’ll just make those ultra high resolutions in a 21:9 format i’ll be happy..
    i actually would like to get away from surround gaming… the 3 screens is nice but a 30″ 21:9 ultra high resolution I would consider dropping down to for practical reasons.. (electricity, desktop space, FoV stretching less, etc…)

    • Wirko
    • 7 years ago

    In terms of ergonomy, a poor notebook TN screen with washed out and barely discernible colours should be immensely better than a good IPS screen when displaying the Win 8 start screen and its burning colour scheme.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Now if only they could combine these with the tech from Asus for 1ms response times, 144hz refresh rates, and hopefully no input lag.

    • mika8311o
    • 7 years ago
      • Voldenuit
      • 7 years ago

      I prefer the nookHD over the Kindle FireHD. For one thing, it doesn’t have the power button on the bottom of the device (silly placement), plus it has microSD expandability. Oh, and you can borrow books from your library in epub if your library has ebooks.

      Kindle Fire HD does have a better store selection than the nookHD, but once you root the device and install stock Android, the point is moot.

    • moog
    • 7 years ago

    IE10 has issues with scaling with some minor visual artifacts. You will need to inspect for these artifacts using a magnifier. Realistically, it’s not a showstopper.

    If you wrote/write Metro apps you should favor vector based XAML assets over png etc. for lossless scaling.

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Interestingly, Acer reportedly plans to sell ultra-high-resolution desktop monitors, as well. Those screens will apparently lack touch functionality...[/quote<] WHAT?! Newly marketed desktop monitors without touch input? How could a computer OEM, in this glorious modern age of tactile interface enlightenment, possibly back such a worthless, destined-to-fail product? Surely Geoff must have got his facts mixed up here...

    • Voldenuit
    • 7 years ago

    I’d rather have a 16:10 display of any (reasonable) resolution than an ultra-uber-exa-high resolution 16:9 display.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      I’d rather have both.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        I vote for 16:10 + black gaffer’s tape that we give to NeelyCam so he can make his 16:9 since he loves that format so much.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Why the hell would I have that instead of this:

          [quote<]a 15.6" display with a 2880x1620 resolution. [/quote<] ???

      • Helmore
      • 7 years ago

      I agree. We need more 16:10.

        • bcronce
        • 7 years ago

        Actual question, why is 16:10 better? Too much noise on the web to effectively search. Couldn’t any lack of vertical resolution be fixed by having a higher resolution?

        Just looking for a nutshell reason, but I personally have no preference as they seem so close.

        I do appreciate that there are technically more pixels for a given vertical or horizontal resolution, but you would get the most pixels with a 1:1 ratio.

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Couldn't any lack of vertical resolution be fixed by having a higher resolution?[/quote<] Given the same horizontal resolution, no. Generally speaking, no. 16:10 means that your display is more "square" than 16:9 (which is a wider layout). I personally prefer 16:10 because documents and web pages are made to be tall. Having 16:9 means you are limiting your vertical real estate at any given resolution, not just 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200.

            • bcronce
            • 7 years ago

            I think I’ll aim for a 16:10 for my next monitor.

            I don’t understand why you feel the horizontal resolution needs to be limited. A ratio independent of the resolution. Placing a restriction on a given resolution to favor a given ratio doesn’t seem like the best argument, but the fact is that we tend to have certain horizontal resolutions, so increasing the vertical is one way to keep the one dimension standard.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          A couple of big reasons for me is that I do a lot of remote desktop sessions. Being able to connect to a machine with a 16×9 desktop from a 16:10 desktop means I can still see the full remote desktop without annoying scroll bars and still view it in its native resolution without scaling. Another reason is that it allows you view more area of course and have an additional tool bar available without losing even more of the viewable window (this is one thing nice with OS X as the top menu bar changes to the application in focus.).

            • jensend
            • 7 years ago

            But if everybody switches to 16:10 your “I want extra pixels at top and bottom around remote desktop sessions” is just as screwed as it is with everybody doing 16:9. And saying 16:10 gives you more area is only true if horizontal resolution is held constant.

          • Voldenuit
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Couldn't any lack of vertical resolution be fixed by having a higher resolution?[/quote<] A higher resolution will only give you more information if you are working with pixel-based data (eg photographs). When dealing with vector, text or scaled graphics, increasing your resolution will not replace vertical display space lost by moving to a wider aspect ratio. Plus, 16:10 is a lot closer to the golden ratio, which many people find to be more aesthetically pleasing.

            • Wirko
            • 7 years ago

            In general, wider screens look better at larger sizes as the human vision can adapt more easily to increased width than to increased height.

            I’m writing this on a 1600×1200 21-incher. It’s great as it is, and full screen browsing makes sense on it, but I wouldn’t want it to grow proportionally in both directions. Given a choice between 16:10 and 16:9 at 27 inches and at equal price, I would probably pick 16:9.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            At an average of 135 degrees of horizontal visibility that a human has, a 16:10 @ 27″ at normal viewing distance makes virtually no difference. Take a look at a 30″ monitor and they are all 16:10 and they are all very easily viewed.

            • Voldenuit
            • 7 years ago

            I wouldn’t mind a 21:9 TV for watching movies. But for my computer monitor, where I work with a lot of text, spreadsheets, non-widescreen photographs and browse websites, I prefer 16:10 as a good compromise between 16:9 and 4:3.

            [quote<]Given a choice between 16:10 and 16:9 at 27 inches and at equal price, I would probably pick 16:9.[/quote<] The 16:9 27-incher is 311in^2 vs 16:10 27-incher which is 327in^2, so you'd be paying the same price for a smaller screen.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Now you’re just being a fringe extremist. You’re probably gonna say that all movies should be 24fps (or so) and the new Hobbit’s refresh rate is too high

            You probably think that vinyl also sounds better

            [quote<]The 16:9 27-incher is 311in^2 vs 16:10 27-incher which is 327in^2, so you'd be paying the same price for a smaller screen.[/quote<] Actually, you get a larger useful screen area for movies.

            • Voldenuit
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Now you're just being a fringe extremist. You're probably gonna say that all movies should be 24fps (or so) and the new Hobbit's refresh rate is too high[/quote<] The 48 fps Hobbit was pretty awful. The problem isn't the refresh rate, it's the shutter speed which had to be halved to get the same shutter angle on HFR. Looked like a handycam recording instead of a "film". [quote<]You probably think that vinyl also sounds better[/quote<] Yes, yes it does. [quote<]Actually, you get a larger useful screen area for movies.[/quote<] And I did say I would like a 21:9 screen just for watching movies. I like the 2.35:1 ratio movies for the cinematic look and the character of anamorphic lenses. I just don't want it on a screen where I'm also working on documents, websites and RAWs.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] Actually, you get a larger useful screen area for movies.[/quote<] Not really. If you really read the viewable area size specs on two monitors that are advertised as 16:9 and 16:10 24" monitors for example you will see that the 16:9 monitors are usually undersized and the horizontal widths are identical. The physical size of the displayed movie is identical on both.

            • Wirko
            • 7 years ago

            Vinyl indeed sounds better, and it does sound better even through a closed door. It’s probably so just because of technical deficiencies but still.

            • Wirko
            • 7 years ago

            2560×1440 is still a step forward from 1920×1200.

            Spreadsheets are brought up so many times as an argument for a certain aspect ratio and I don’t quite get that. I know several use cases where 21:9 would be best, and sure there are lots of users who could take advantage of 9:21.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Plus, 16:10 is a lot closer to the golden ratio, which many people find to be more aesthetically pleasing.[/quote<] It's all in your head.

            • Echelon
            • 7 years ago

            Had to create an account for a reply to this comment.

            I have literally been rolf for the last 10 mins.

            cheers

          • moose17145
          • 7 years ago

          Why is 16:10 better? It’s not. It’s mainly a personal preference thing. One that I, as well as many others share.

          As a few others have states, 1920 x 1080 (16:9) fits nicely inside 1920×1200 (16:10), so it works well for watching movies. But 16:10 also has a little bit of extra vertical height that most people generally find more pleasing to look at. So it works well enough for reading text / code / etc. My monitor also supports 1:1 pixel mapping, as well as a “zoom within aspect ratio” setting. I use these for my library of older games that do not support wide screen formats. But with 1:1 pixel mapping its not a big deal because 1600 x 1200 will also fit inside 16:10’s 1920×1200 resolution. So…

          -Can natively fit 16:9 (1920×1080) inside 16:10 (1920×1200)
          -Can natively fit 4:3 (1600 x 1200) inside 16:10 (1920×1200)
          -And most people generally find it more pleasing to look at for reading / general productivity tasks

          Personally I tend to hang onto computer monitors / keyboards / mice for a very long time. As a result I WILL spend the extra money for something that I am happy with over something I merely compromised on. For me 16:10 is the aspect ratio of choice. Currently writing this on my 24″ 16:10 monitor.

          My laptop has a 16:9 (1600×900) screen. And it works well enough for movies and newer games. But for older games its a complete PITA, and when I am writing code on it I really miss the extra vertical height.

          • kfleszar
          • 7 years ago

          Here are two good reasons for 16:10:

          1. When you want the smallest (lightest) notebook with good vertical resolution, extra width is just more weight. This fact seems to be ignored by virtually all notebook/ultrabook manufacturers except for Apple.

          2. I just hate how pictures taken in portrait mode look on 16:9 screens in full-screen view. No resolution can fix it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This