Potential future display preferences:

I think the scales here are a little unrealistic.
Personally, 4k48/60, 2k75/90, and 1080p120/144 would be more realistic goals, keeping in mind this is a mobile device.


Personally I’d prefer a lower resolution. 1080p, preferably 90 or 120Hz.

Removes the headaches with scaling and potentially brings better battery life. Both of those sound good to me.

It would have to be 1920x1280 to conform with the 3:2 aspect.

That wouldn’t be a bad thing, if such a panel does exist.

EDIT: Panels do exist … CPU Medics Your replacement parts source for all your IT hardware needs, including parts for Servers, Laptops, Desktops, Networking and Tablets.

1 Like

to be fair a 13 inch with this is pretty good. I never complained about my thinkpads 14 inch 2K screen (1920x1080) except maybe it being physically a bit too small.
I complained about my 1.25K (1366x768) 15 inch Hp (having ridculously large pixels, which is not a issue, but inability to fit more on the screen hurts), and very barely the 1.5K (1600x900) “low res” I used to Dell XPS 13 (laptop was fried) to I would consider “inadequate”, because 3K*2K on a 13 inch is massive complete overkill.

I don’t scale interfaces. It adds more computing need and doesn’t make sense in general.

1920x1280 would indeed be nice : no more blury and useless scaling !
And it does exist :
Hp Elite Dragonfly G3 announced for march

Please framework team, offer us this choice !

1 Like

To be fair. The current Resolution of 2256 x 1504 isn’t too different from something like 1920x1280. you have about 400 more pixels horizontally and 200 vertically. Which is quite an acceptable jack-of-all-trades panel.
What I will prefer would be a touch input enabled option. Especially when the current work-from-home tide still roams around. You can free hand sign documents and gain more productivity.

1 Like

It’s ~40% more pixels. That’s significant, IMO.

Personally I’d take the lower res one any day. On a 13" laptop it still looks great, and you get the benefit of better battery life and no weird scaling issues.


I am not at all looking for a 4k panel. At 13" it would be WAY too difficult to use. When I first loaded Cinnamon on the Framework the text was even too small to read for me, and I’m used to smaller displays. I had to raise most of the fonts and scale just to see what I was doing, some pages are still a bit broken from it.

The DPI on the Framework would be pushing the limits on a 13" panel imo. I would be grateful for some 15" modification chassis and panel, perhaps being able to buy an “upgrade” part that comes with USB-C extension cables, mounting brackets for the 13" mainboard, and the repective keyboard and panel would be nice, allowing me to after-the-fact purchase the larger chassis and have a 15" or 17" system, just reusing the mainboard, hoping to keep costs down for Framework not having to provide 3 or 9 different models of a system (every mainboard config * 13" - 17". There would have to be some user modifcation, sure, but I would be up for it if I could purchase a similar build-quality chassis for $300 or so.

I don’t see how to edit the original message, but this thread is assuming dedicated graphics at a screen size that’s large enough to warrant any of these options - somewhere between 15" and 17", which allows for better cooling of the dedicated graphics involved.

No, it really isn’t. It’s how you get a reasonable amount of screen real estate at 2x (i.e. integral) scaling. And “high DPI” really does look better.

My current laptop is 3200×1800 at 13", and I’m far from convinced that 4k is unusable (it’s strictly better than 2k in all ways except maybe peak brightness). But I’d also strongly prefer 2k (1920×1280) over anything in between that and 3200×2000, because those resolutions more or less require fractional scaling or other awkward fiddling.

Integer, probably… doing integrals per pixel would slightly murder performance. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, it all depends on what you’re doing. For a thin-and-light at 13 inches, I’d prefer something closer to normal 1080p. Mainly because I do game, and with a machine with these graphical chops I want to give it all the help I can get without relying on scaling. My experience in quite a few games is that scaling just… doesn’t work well. For example, 2x scaling in Paradox titles (which I would play on the Framwork) is just horrible. I know, because I use it on my gaming desktop with its 4k monitor.

I have issues reading text at 4k resolutions on smaller panels. I agree with having more screen real estate definitely helping, but it might be personal preference how useful that space might be if you can barely read anything from the size of the font for the “sharpness” and by time I raise the scale of text and GUI, it defeats the purpose of having such a high res screen.

Text at 2x scale at 4k resolutions should look like it does at 1080p, but smoother - if you can tell the difference at all at that screen size, otherwise you’re just wasting battery power on the GPU and display.

Yeah, because you would scale things.
Try not to scale things.
The only difference is “text look better” but for someone that deliberately went and turns off cleartype and don’t bother with any type of anti aliasing, I can’t understand.
Perhaps because they had never tried to use any pixel manipulation software.

Apparently you missed all the complaints that 2256×1504 isn’t usable without scaling.

What pixel manipulation software is usable without zoom? If you just mean stuff designed to a pixel grid… that should (yes, some badly behaved software may gratuitously apply smoothing) look blocky at worst with 2x scaling. With non-integer scaling, however, it’s much more likely to look like trash. These days, though, it’s not hard to produce stuff that looks good at 2x.

Personally, I think it’s easier to read text at a given physical size when it’s at higher DPI, which is why I’d rather have higher resolution… but 3000×2000 @ 2x is also going to give you larger text compared to 1920×1280, albeit with less “real estate” (although whether you can use 2k 13" effectively already seems to be questionable). In my experience, 3000×2000 13" seems like a good compromise. I’d still prefer 1920×1280 over 2256×1504; IMO, Framework made the worst possible choice there.

p.s. You get a :grinning: out of me re: your previous comment, but in my defense, “integral” can mean “of, pertaining to, or being an integer”.

That said, what I’d really like is a 14" 3300×2200 (Asus has these) with an extra column on the keyboard. (Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible to somehow Frankenstein a Framework mainboard with an Asus screen and keyboard… although Asus still has those awful half-height arrow keys…)

1 Like

From my understanding, the mainboard in intended to be “modifiable” and “reusable”. I figure so long as you can find a way to mount it into a chassis, and the panel ribbon pinout is the same as the framework (I’m pretty sure these are somewhat universal (?)) then in theory it should all work. You might have some issues with IO, especially considering the Framework mainboard would only have 4 USB-C outs while most laptops have an HDMI, maybe an ethernet jack, normal USB, etc. Perhaps you could remove them and find a way to mount some custom USB-C headers in their place?

I’ve definitely thought about something similar to this, wondering if I could put my framework mainboard into an older 15" chassis I have lying around with an old Pentium 3 that’s basically useless to me and I can’t manage to sell. Everything else in it works, I would just need to find a way to mount it (but I wouldn’t be opposed to literally hot gluing it in) my main issue was again the IO issue. Everything else should be mostly universal as far as I know.

There is a thread (i’m too lazy to find it this moment, will link it later) where nrp or someone from Framework names the exact pinout being used by the display

I can use 2K 13 at 1x quite well. It’s the “goldilock” for me.
I think that is around 170 ppi if not wrong. Im boarderline comfy with that.
I set my 3K touch to 1600x900 which is a 141 ppi.
It also depend on the quality of the backlight. If the panel is very constant and not flashing I can keep it more dim and closer to me than a bad panel.
The 15 inch I currently had a measly 1366x768 and thus an “atrocious” 107mm ppi. Things appear gargantuan, thus I can keep the screen much much further away.

That’s the problem with using this 15 inch – everything else feels small. You can’t get a comfy posture with an external keyboard. Although I would be then complaining about my chair.
But I used to run 2K 13 inch and is perfectly fine.
2256x1504 have a whoppin 208 ppi, which make sense. You basically need magnifying glasses.

I would say around 150 ppi would be considered a good balance between real estate and eye strain.

Yup, agreed… except I still prefer High DPI. My current machine is ~280, which is to say twice 140, which is right around the “sweet spot” we agree on. I still think those extra pixels make a difference, but maybe we should agree to disagree. Anything in the 180-250 DPI range is just terrible though, at least for a laptop. (It’s okay on a mobile device, but only because that’s far less DPI sensitive.)

Anyway, here are some example DPIs for real world panels:

  • 13" 1920×1080: 170 (a bit high)
  • 13.5" 1920×1280: 170 (a bit high)
  • 13.5" 2256×1504: 200 (just plain bad)
  • 13" 3200×1800: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)
  • 13.5" 3000×2000: 267 a.k.a. 134@2 (a bit low)
  • 13.9" 3300×2200: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)

A 15", 3:2 4k screen would be 154@2, also right around the “sweet spot”. Unfortunately, I don’t believe any such panels exist at present. (4k 16:9 panels with similar DPI exist, of course, but those extra vertical pixels are really nice!)

1 Like

Also, a display with an EMR digitizer will be awesome.
It’s the only reason why I am still using my 6th gen i5 Fujitsu laptop alongside my i7 Framework.

1 Like

The current resolution and format fits perfectly for me.
A QD-LED/OLED display would be awesome, as well as an E-ink alternative.
The OLED would be amazing for daily work-use, and the E-ink for outdoor use.
Actually I would buy both, to explore the uses, if available (in Europe :wink: )