PC Specialist Defiance 17

Quote:

---

Core i7 and GTX 980M in a 17.3in desktop replacement.

---

Read more.

Struggling to see the promotional link to the laptop Hexus. :Confused:

The only link on the last page just takes you to the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanoe

Struggling to see the promotional link to the laptop Hexus. :Confused:

The only link on the last page just takes you to the site.

---

If my memory serves me correctly PCSpecialist have to add the Hexus config to the reviews page (pcspecialist.co.uk/reviews), I guess they haven't got around to it yet.

Edit: Yup it is live now.

Wheres the AMD options? Yet again... Nvidia paid in.

I think until AMD release their more power-efficient 3XX GPUs, it makes more sense to stick with Nvidia Maxwell for now in a laptop.

HUUUUUUUGE waste of money. GTX980M powering a 1080p screen ? Madness.

If this had a QHD display, at the least..then maybe. But there are a ton of 1080p laptops around with the GPUs to power it for about half the price

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunnah

HUUUUUUUGE waste of money. GTX980M powering a 1080p screen ? Madness.

If this had a QHD display, at the least..then maybe. But there are a ton of 1080p laptops around with the GPUs to power it for about half the price

---

This is exactly where I strongly disagree. It's all fine and good to have 4K screens as option (eventually, from the looks of it) but 1080p is perfectly fine for the panel's physical size. I could even understand 1440p just to squish very slightly noticeable pixels, but 4K? No.
On the GTX 980M matter, not only would it deliver proper fps at the panel's native resolution but it would also be able to do so for longer, as opposed to simply being unable to due to having a ridiculously high resolution panel.

Also, upgradability doesn't come for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tribaljet

This is exactly where I strongly disagree. It's all fine and good to have 4K screens as option (eventually, from the looks of it) but 1080p is perfectly fine for the panel's physical size. I could even understand 1440p just to squish very slightly noticeable pixels, but 4K? No.
On the GTX 980M matter, not only would it deliver proper fps at the panel's native resolution but it would also be able to do so for longer, as opposed to simply being unable to due to having a ridiculously high resolution panel.

Also, upgradability doesn't come for free.

---

Um..are you high ? I know 1440p would be fine, that's what I said :P

I didn't say 4K, I said QHD...1440p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunnah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tribaljet

This is exactly where I strongly disagree. It's all fine and good to have 4K screens as option (eventually, from the looks of it) but 1080p is perfectly fine for the panel's physical size. I could even understand 1440p just to squish very slightly noticeable pixels, but 4K? No.
On the GTX 980M matter, not only would it deliver proper fps at the panel's native resolution but it would also be able to do so for longer, as opposed to simply being unable to due to having a ridiculously high resolution panel.

Also, upgradability doesn't come for free.

---

... I know 1440p would be fine, that's what I said :P

I didn't say 4K, I said QHD...1440p

---

Nevermind, I read your comment as agreeing with the review's "the full-HD resolution could now be considered behind the times on a high-end machine such as this." bit, which I honestly found nonsensical. But again, I can agree with having different screen resolution options, what I don't agree is having a minimum of 4K, which would dramatically hurt performance for little gain in return given the panel's physical size.

Honestly, I'd rather have all +17" laptops have a minimum of 1200p, a proper PC aspect ratio. Same goes for alternative 1600p (definitely not 1440p).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tribaljet

Nevermind, I read your comment as agreeing with the review's "the full-HD resolution could now be considered behind the times on a high-end machine such as this."

---

I think that statement would be true if Windows handled scaling effectively. I'm using a 13.3 inch laptop with a 3200x1800 display and when something scales properly it looks stunning, so much more crisp and detailed than 1920x1080. However, the bulk of applications do not scale properly (on Windows 8.1), so 1920x1080 is still the best hassle-free solution for most gaming laptops since scaling isn't required at 15~17 inch form factors. I think going to QHD/WQXGA would be a mistake as scaling would be required even on a 17 inch panel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyanM

I think that statement would be true if Windows handled scaling effectively. I'm using a 13.3 inch laptop with a 3200x1800 display and when something scales properly it looks stunning, so much more crisp and detailed than 1920x1080. However, the bulk of applications do not scale properly (on Windows 8.1), so 1920x1080 is still the best hassle-free solution for most gaming laptops since scaling isn't required at 15~17 inch form factors. I think going to QHD/WQXGA would be a mistake as scaling would be required even on a 17 inch panel.

---

Poor scaling on Windows is one reason, but also mostly how single-GPU systems simply lack the processing power to handle such high resolutions at playable framerates when gaming. Not to mention how some people already use scaling on 1920x1080 at 17", nevermind the same resolution at smaller screens.

But I still stand for wanting actual PC aspect ratios rather than small TVs acting as computer screens.

i have the defiance 15.6" with the gtx 970m and it's simply amazing to be able to have a laptop that doesnt weight a ton, pretty slim, really good refrigeration and a good cpu-gpu combo to play anything in ultra at 1080p, whats more, the aluminum case gives it a really sturdy chassis even though it is so slim

need 4K IPS display for my 4k video no 4k then no sale simple