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.
2 Likes
Personally Iâd 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 wouldnât 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) âlow resâ I used to Dell XPS 13 (laptop was fried) to I would consider âinadequateâ, because 3K*2K on a 13 inch is massive complete overkill.
I donât scale interfaces. It adds more computing need and doesnât 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 isnât 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
Itâs ~40% more pixels. Thatâs significant, IMO.
Personally Iâd 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.
2 Likes
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 Iâm 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 âupgradeâ 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 donât see how to edit the original message, but this thread is assuming dedicated graphics at a screen size thatâs 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 isnât. Itâs how you get a reasonable amount of screen real estate at 2x (i.e. integral) scaling. And âhigh DPIâ really does look better.
My current laptop is 3200Ă1800 at 13", and Iâm far from convinced that 4k is unusable (itâs strictly better than 2k in all ways except maybe peak brightness). But Iâd also strongly prefer 2k (1920Ă1280) over anything in between that and 3200Ă2000, because those resolutions more or less require fractional scaling or other awkward fiddling.
Integer, probably⌠doing integrals per pixel would slightly murder performance. 
Anyway, it all depends on what youâre doing. For a thin-and-light at 13 inches, Iâd 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⌠doesnât 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 âsharpnessâ 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 youâre just wasting battery power on the GPU and display.
Yeah, because you would scale things.
Try not to scale things.
The only difference is âtext look betterâ but for someone that deliberately went and turns off cleartype and donât bother with any type of anti aliasing, I canât understand.
Perhaps because they had never tried to use any pixel manipulation software.
Apparently you missed all the complaints that 2256Ă1504 isnât 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, itâs much more likely to look like trash. These days, though, itâs not hard to produce stuff that looks good at 2x.
Personally, I think itâs easier to read text at a given physical size when itâs at higher DPI, which is why Iâd rather have higher resolution⌠but 3000Ă2000 @ 2x is also going to give you larger text compared to 1920Ă1280, albeit with less âreal estateâ (although whether you can use 2k 13" effectively already seems to be questionable). In my experience, 3000Ă2000 13" seems like a good compromise. Iâd still prefer 1920Ă1280 over 2256Ă1504; IMO, Framework made the worst possible choice there.
p.s. You get a 
out of me re: your previous comment, but in my defense, âintegralâ can mean âof, pertaining to, or being an integerâ.
That said, what Iâd really like is a 14" 3300Ă2200 (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 keysâŚ)
1 Like
From my understanding, the mainboard in intended to be âmodifiableâ and âreusableâ. 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 (Iâm 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?
Iâve 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 thatâs basically useless to me and I canât manage to sell. Everything else in it works, I would just need to find a way to mount it (but I wouldnât 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 (iâm 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. Itâs the âgoldilockâ 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 âatrociousâ 107mm ppi. Things appear gargantuan, thus I can keep the screen much much further away.
Thatâs the problem with using this 15 inch â everything else feels small. You canât 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 âsweet spotâ 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. (Itâs okay on a mobile device, but only because thatâs far less DPI sensitive.)
Anyway, here are some example DPIs for real world panels:
- 13" 1920Ă1080: 170 (a bit high)
- 13.5" 1920Ă1280: 170 (a bit high)
- 13.5" 2256Ă1504: 200 (just plain bad)
- 13" 3200Ă1800: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)
- 13.5" 3000Ă2000: 267 a.k.a. 134@2 (a bit low)
- 13.9" 3300Ă2200: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)
A 15", 3:2 4k screen would be 154@2, also right around the âsweet spotâ. Unfortunately, I donât 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.
Itâs 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 
)