HP's Omen 15 is the First Gaming Laptop With a 240Hz Display (engadget.com) 103
HP has just upped the refresh rate ante with its latest Omen 15. From a report: The company says it's the world's first gaming laptop with a 15.6-inch 1080p 240Hz IPS display, meaning it should stay ahead of even the quickest-shooting gamer. The laptop itself should also be able to keep up with the screen, as it's equipped with NVIDIA's latest mobile graphics, an 8th-generation Intel Core i7-8750H processor, 16GB of RAM and the latest 802.11ax wireless, aka "WiFi 6." The Omen 15 arrives in February at a starting price of $1,370.
Re: (Score:2)
The Omen 15 with a regular display arrives in February at a starting price of $1,370, while the 240 Hz version comes in July at a yet-to-be-disclosed price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good comment. Likely only using the actual laptop screen for gaming a limited number of times, so for the few times you're at a hotel or something and are forced to play on a tiny screen it'll be nifty, but likely not really used all that often.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course hard core gamers will probably want to see all the requisite benchmarks.
Of course. They can't even see 240 Hz. So how will they know whether to complain about the refresh rate or not.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to see 240 Hz to benefit from it. Suppose you have a fast moving object that travels across the screen in 0.2 seconds. At 60 Hz, the object will go across the screen in 12 jumps. At 240 Hz, it will make 48 jumps, allowing for a much smoother motion.
And, no, motion blur isn't going to help you. When your eyes track the moving object, blur is unnatural.
Re: (Score:2)
allowing for a much smoother motion
Undetectable by humans due to the physiology of vision [wikipedia.org]. Yeah, some autist is going to step through the video frames one at a time and sperg out about the quality. But for the rest of us, not really.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a test where fighter pilots could describe a photograph displayed for a single frame at 255 frames per second.
Against what background? This is actually a good demonstration of persistence of vision. The longer the afterimage lasts, the longer the brain has to study it. And the slower a frame rate needs to be to eliminate flicker.
1080p is not very good these days (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure why all the laptop manufacturers insist on 1080p even (especially) for their high-end models. Surely Apple doesn't have a corner on the market for HiDPI displays. The only ones I've found that consistently has HiDPI is of course Apple, and AlienWare.
By the way, is there anybody here that runs Linux straight on AlienWare and does it work well? Asking for a friend...
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Lenovo Yoga 920 which I run Archlinux on which has a 4k touchscreen display. 8th gen Intel i7, 16Gb of RAM. Used to have to blacklist the wifi driver, but a recent kernel fixed that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is a few reasons.
1. 4k needs a more powerful GPU. Most laptops like having the low powered integrated GPU. I have a 1070 on my laptop when I kick that guy off, my battery drops like a rock, I need to switch to internal GPU for the advertised usage amounts.
2. Not all Apps work well in 4k. Windows and Linux. Incompatible apps, are SMALL, Really Small. to put it in context. The old CGA-VGA Resolution of 320x200 can be handled in Text mode on a 4k display where each character is about the size of
Re: (Score:2)
All I want is a 24" 4K display with a 4:3 or 3:2 ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
HDPI displays are only really necessary on Macs (Score:2)
One of the primary markets for Macs is page layout artists. When they design a page, they need the letters of a font to show up exactly where they will in the final printout so they can get the kerning right. Image clarity is secondary, since the final printout will be much higher resolution than the screen. Consequently, OS X does not do subpixel rendering of fonts. It anti-aliases
Re: (Score:2)
for a gaming laptop 1080p is good enough. Unlike text, resolution doesn't matter that much for games (or movies).
Also, laptop video cards are much slower, therefore to get acceptable frame rate, a reduced resolution is a good compromise. Unless you want to buy a new gaming laptop in 6 months of course.
Uselessly fast (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the only useless spec (Score:2)
Some forget how slow STN displays were (Score:2)
Displays now update the charges on the liquid crystals many times faster than the crystals themselves can update.
That's been true ever since the beginning of dot matrix LCDs in consumer devices. The original Game Boy compact video game system updated its 2.6", 160x144 pixel, 4-level passive matrix super-twisted nematic (STN) LCD panel at 60 Hz, but the display had so much "ghosting" (motion blur) that a lot of games ran at 30, 20, or even 15 fps just to let the LCD catch up. Game Boy pocket didn't improve response time but was nonetheless a bit easier to see because of better overall contrast. Pixel response times as
Re: (Score:2)
many times faster than the crystals themselves can update.
Justify that statement given that 480Hz LCD panels are a thing. Where's your citation that this display's crystals are slower than cycle of changing charge given to it.
Whether or not 240Hz is a true benefit or not is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, joke not gotten. Can you explain it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To start with, HP doesn't actually make any PC products (laptop or desktop). They ODM the products to third party vendors and slap their name on them.
It's been decades since HP actually made a PC.
In the past, the desktops were manufactured by Asus. Wistron and others have manufactured their laptops.
Their consumer level quality is well..... just read the reviews.
What is even the point of this Slashvertisement? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
\In any case, RTX 2070 or not, it's not pushing enough frames for a display like this to matter.
This is objectively incorrect. People who play competitive shooters (such as myself) such as Counter-Strike Global Offensive target 200 fps minimum and like to have close to 400 fps. An RTX 2070 is more than capable of that at the low settings competitive games are typically played at. I personally play at 1024 x 768 stretched to 16:9 in Global Offensive, which is a common resolution amongst professionals
And before someone replies to me here claiming that "humans can't see more than 30 fps" -- yes, they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider a camera pointed at the screen. You set the shutter time to 1/100 of a second. Under 500hz, even though the camera is sort of emulating 100hz (not completely, but close enough for
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just want to make this clear: it's your assertion that the Slashdot community makes purchasing decisions on HP laptops based on CSGO, which "professionals" commonly are using these laptops at 1024x768 running in 16:9 instead of 4:3. Even more, you believe you are representative of people who might purchase this laptop.
No, it's not my assertion. I never said anything about speaking for the Slashdot community or consumers as whole. I'm not sure how you got that impression.
And yes, I am representative of the people who might purchase this laptop. I actually drew on my own personal experience as a long-time competitive gamer who now has a career that requires travel, but still like to take competitive gaming seriously. I try to only play league games on my desktop (it's more performant, obviously), but having a 144 Hz la
Re: (Score:2)
Then post a story on Slashdot, of upcoming technology that you think would fit you niche.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, RTX 2070 or not, it's not pushing enough frames for a display like this to matter.
What makes you say that? There's plenty of games where you exceed 120fps at 1080p even on a GTX 1070.
Ludicrous (Score:1)
More pixels, more power used.
Faster updating, more power used....
This is just ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For home use, sure! But there are those of us who travel frequently and would like to knock out an hour or two gaming after work or in-flight. I would rather not fly with a pelican case for my desktop and monitor.
Me neither. I would want to pack a pelican in a pelican case. A desktop computer is the wrong shape for that.
Re: (Score:2)
For home use, sure! But there are those of us who travel frequently and would like to knock out an hour or two gaming after work or in-flight. I would rather not fly with a pelican case for my desktop and monitor.
Working on the ramp of a major airport in college those Pelican cases were a godsend. Made for a perfect chair if you were in the bin of a 320/757 stacking bags. Some guys would sit on regular bags too, but I never did that. So just fyi, if you fly with a pelican case, some random guy has most likely used your case as a chair.
Re: (Score:1)
Because some of us leave our mother's basements...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone play games on laptop with poor cooling on 15,6" display?
For the same price you can have 24" display, more HDD, more RAM, better GPU and open architecture for upgrades and extensions. Not mentioning much better experience.
I did in college so that I could have a semi-decent gaming rig and still have a computer I could lug around to class/back and forth from school to home. This was before tablets w/keyboard case were a legitimate option, otherwise I probably would have had a tower plus tablet. Of course, my laptop was a 17" one with a full keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like different people have different needs and the market adapting to this by providing different alternatives. Crazy!
For instance I move between at least two places _daily_ with my computer and so a heavy but transportable machine is much more cost effective than the alternative. Sure if you give me enough money I'll try to make do with two powerful desktop machines plus one not as powerful notebook computer...
A huge health hazard (Score:3)
Say no more! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WHY?! (Score:2)
$33 too expensive (Score:2)
Apparently the marketing team wasn't told they'd sell more if they sold them for $33 cheaper... not a very leet move for such leet hardware!