I think the more 4K, the merrier. Even though a shrinking minority of people don’t want it, migrating everything to 4K matte would improve pricing power for Purism, not to mention futureproofing. It does take a bit more battery juice, but that problem can be eliminated by working in FHD when higher resolution is not required. I know I’d be a fool to think that they’d bet the farm on 4K, but at least offering the option would be nice, even if it came with a higher price tag. (But 4K glossy is a total nonstarter.)
4K relates to core count in the sense that it would be a shame to provide 60 Hz or better 4K, but not have a CPU that could dish out enough FPS to utilize it, especially since many videos are now 4K @ 60 Hz. The GPU isn’t necessarily helpful in this regard, as various open-source codecs are entirely CPU-bound.
Furthermore, megahertz distinctions within a given architecture are pretty trivial these days. I’d rather stay at the low end and put the savings (in both money and battery) towards a 4K display. Yes, I think 6 cores (12 threads) is a reasonable tradeoff between per-thread diminishing-returns performance and the ability to do 2 hard things at once. For instance, running Zoom conferencing within a virtual machine would be a good benchmark these days, as millions have to depend on it for work while providing rapid video processing and simultaneously shielding the rest of the system from its foul tentacles.
4K displays do not only draw more power because they need more processing power, they also do so because smaller pixels means more more empty space between the pixels which means less brightness going through from the backlight of the LCD even though it outputs the same amount of power. That’s also why high brightness 4K displays are so much more expensive than high brightness 1080p displays.
First of all, I can only find four 14" laptops which have a 4K screen (Lenovo Yoga C940, Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 7th Gen, Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga 4th Gen and MSI Prestige 14") and all of these have glossy screens. Purism doesn’t have the volume to make special orders for matte screens, so what you are asking is not possible.
If Purism could manage to get the part, it would probably cost $250 for a matte 4K screen vs $50 for a matte 1080p screen, so that would not improve Purism’s pricing power. It would have to charge more for the laptop, which would lower the volume even more.
If you are saying that Purism should offer lower-clocked 6 core CPU which is cheaper, the 10710U is the cheapest U-series Comet Lake 6-core CPU that Intel offers. To go cheaper, you would need a 4-core CPU, which is fine with me, but a lot of people have commented on this forum and in r/Purism, that they need more CPU cores for things like video rendering and compiling.
Purism only has the volume to offer ONE model in a particular form factor, because Purism has to pay for custom manufacturing of its motherboards, and low-volume custom manufacturing is expensive. (Remember that Purism can’t order base models from Clevo like System76, ThinkPenguin, TUXEDO, Entroware, Juno, Slimbook and ubuntushop.eu do.)
The question is whether what you want is what the majority want in the L14. My observation is that not having a 6-core CPU was a blocker for some people, whereas not having a higher resolution screen is not a blocker for many customers. You can hold a poll on this forum (like people are doing for keyboards) to try and prove otherwise.
Also remember that Purism has to charge a huge markup to pay for its hardware and software engineers, which most laptop companies don’t have. Only two other Linux laptop makers do custom manufacturing (Star Labs and PINE64) and only one other Linux laptop maker maintains its own distro (System76), and Purism does final configuration (RAM & SSD) in the US, so Purism has higher costs than any other laptop maker, so the markup is necessary.
Comet Lake U-series only supports HDMI 1.4 (which is a max of 4K @ 24Hz), but it does support DisplayPort at 4K @ 60Hz, so you need to buy a DisplayPort->HDMI adapter.
The IME is an autonomous subsystem in the Platform Controller Hub. The IME has absolutely nothing to do with how the CPU cores do branch prediction and memory access, which is what Spectre and Meltdown exploit. To fix Spectre vulnerabilities, you have to change the silicon or the microcode.
I think the idea of a FHD-vs-4K poll is a good one. I can’t seem to find where to create one, though. If anyone else can, please do so, or else tell me how to do it.
4K is not higher power in reality because one would run it in FHD when on battery. Or certainly the customers smart enough to find this vendor in the first place. But thanks for pointing out the DisplayPort requirement, as 24 Hz is definitely a nonstarter.
There’s also no reason that every model has to be one-size-fits all. It’s just that, if not, then all models including the base model get more expensive. How much is the question. It’s also important to think of the total cost of ownership. FHD in 2025 is gonna look pretty sad, whereas 4K will likely be a basic feature checkbox. More years of use, more better. I mean, midrange phones can do 4K/60 now. To have a hulking laptop not be able to keep up is just embarrassing. Purism is selling bulletproof Hummers, not Ford Fiestas. I want my builtin LCD in the back seat, and I’m willing to pay, dammit.
I do tend to side with the majority on 6 cores, though.
Thanks for setting me straight on the IME. I never knew much about it. Knowing that I needed to disable it was enough for me.
Yes, but Purism is using an LSPCON chip (or something equivalent). So you end up with HDMI 2.0 output from the HDMI port for the external monitor.
It is claimed, I think, that the Librem 14 will be able to drive two external monitors, 4K UHD @ 60Hz (one via HDMI and one via alt mode DisplayPort over USB-C). So that is actually pretty good, and a pretty good increase over the Librem 13.
To be honest, that is more than I myself would need, but that’s OK. However it is less than @whistler wants because s/he wants 4K UHD on the road i.e. for the built-in display. And that’s OK too. We are all different in our requirements.
So for Purism it is a matter of finding the sweet spot that satisfies the maximum number of actual customers.
Oh, I posted about that and then totally forgot about it.
When you create a new post, go to the gear icon in the menu, and you will see an option in the submenu “Build a poll”. You only have 5 minutes to edit it after you post, so make sure you have the right options when posting.
I did a search for a matte 2160x3840 14.0" screen and I found one model by BOE. When I do a web search, I can find no devices using this kind of screen, so BOE can make it, but it is highly unlikely that BOE is currently making it. Purism is talking about a couple thousand units per year, and I doubt BOE will do a production run for a reasonable price per unit. In other words, you can forget about it.
Then I did a search for matte 1440x2560 14" displays and found there are 7 models made by 2 companies (LG Display and AUO). If one of the big laptop companies (like Lenovo) is using this part, Purism might actually be able to get it for a reasonable price, but you are still talking about double or triple the price of a matte 1080x1920 14" screen, because there are 50 models available for that part from nearly every major screen manufacturer.
Still can’t get that poll fired up. For the life of me, I can’t seem to find any gear icon on the screen after clicking the “New Topic” button, apart from the one that just says “Hide Details”. And of course I would point back to this thread from the poll because you all have surfaced so many relevant considerations.
2560x1440 is new to me. Nice find! Might just be the compromise we’re all looking for. But where’d I put that copy of “Polls for Dummies”?
Forgot to mention: I hope the Librem 16 doesn’t replace the Librem 15. I have nothing against a larger form factor, but we’re running up against backpack size issues and travel weight constraints at that point. Maybe just keep the 15 and offer a 17 separately? Anyways that’s for another thread.
Here’s my proposal for the poll:
What LCD panel type do you most want on the new Librem 14? Glossy is of course tougher, but it’s also annoying unless you’re a narcissist.
a. glossy
b. matte
More resolution is always good, but it does cost money to build and energy to run. (Using lower resolutions while on battery can be helpful, but requires conscious effort.) If we define the 1920x1080 (FHD) as having a $0 price premium, then how much more would you pay to have 2560x1440, assuming at least 60 Hz refresh rate?
a. $0
b. $50
c. $100
d. $150
e. $200
f. $250
g. $300
h. $350
i. $400
j. $450
k. $500
Same question as #2, but with 3840x2560 (4K).
a. $0
b. $50
c. $100
d. $150
e. $200
f. $250
g. $300
h. $350
i. $400
j. $450
k. $500
In the following image (captured from the screen during the writing of this reply) I have underlined in red the “gear icon”. Click on it and one of the options is “Build Poll”.
The Librem 14 supersedes the Librem 13 while retaining
the same form factor (footprint or area)
the same weight.
So it’s an extra inch of screen diagonal while retaining the same area and mass. It can do this, in part, because there is a smaller bezel (frame around the screen). So if your concerns are around the physical properties of area and mass, I don’t think you should be worried.
If they can do the same with the Librem 15, wouldn’t that be OK? NB: I have seen no announcement about any upgrade or replacement for the Librem 15, hence this is a hypothetical discussion.
Adding: Actual details of size
Librem 13: 325mm x 18mm x 219mm
Librem 14: 322mm x 17mm x 220mm
Thanks kieran, but when I click that gear icon it just says “Hide details”. Nothing about a poll. Perhaps the issue is one of the anonymizing tools I’m using.
Yes, the specs for the Librem 14 already indicate matte and FHD. It’s not so much that I’m trying to force Purism to reconsider (although perhaps they should). It’s more that I want to prove to them that there’s an unappreciated demand (and willingness to pay) for higher resolution. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is the only way to find out.
If what you said about bezel minimization also applies to Librem 15 as well (thereby resulting in 16), then I guess it’s no more of a challenge to backpack it. That would be nice.
Are you (or anyone else) willing to post the poll?
Just small side note on basic laptop screen resolution, as might be that people keep forgetting that most important (presented on smartphone and laptop screen, other than family living room and public big ones) is vertical resolution of 720 (HD) that multiplies (upscale) with ×2 or ×3. Vertical 1080 resolution is in my eyes obsolete in 2020 for any Internet content usage (other usages not involving quality film (24 Hz) or games production/consumption). If 720p50 and 720p60 are high percentage standards for movies content (TV and Internet streaming), I don’t know when this will be changed (just my point of view), why not to keep up properly with such 720p content at the first place? Comments welcomed but I don’t think they would proof anything other than confirming stubbornness on insisting of delivering 1080p60 only screen within L14 instead of providing/offering 1440p60 screen as basic model. Perhaps even with HW support for 1440p50 (2160 vertical resolution is welcomed, much better than 1080, yet on 14 inch screen not comfortable at all if not ×3 down-scaled, or at least ×2 down-scaled for those with super-sight).
I need to tweak/scale my Internet content by around ×1.50 (up-sizing fonts or rather downsizing visible resolution) in order to see things somewhat properly adjusted on 1080p60 13.3-inch FHD laptop screen one and this is not something I would buy any time again. Having 720p60 on Librem 5 without PWM and perhaps providing HW native 8-bit colors spectrum (+/−100% sRGB) would be just fine with me, as well. Just comparatively, any hypothetical offer of 1440p30 screen with PWM and 6-bit colors support is not something that I would recommend for anyone’s child either, insisting again on the fact (my point of view) that eventual usage of 1080 vertical resolution on L5 screen would be obsolete in any to myself understandable, content related (apps), way. 2880×1440 (720×2=1440) resolution would be nice feature to have it on L5 though (considering that even power consumption might be smaller with such, new IPS generation screen).
Anyway, two quality/bottom line approaches, IMHO, are already presented here (even though I’m not giving my vote for 2160 resolution screen on laptop):
P.S. And, just please don’t encourage again recommendation that I might consider using external monitor (versus CG artist approach) when underway (Road Warrior) with my all-in-one Linux laptop/smartphone. Even Apple knows why they continue, since 2012, to keep up with resolution of 2560×1600 at 227 pixels per inch on their 13-inch portable products (not privacy focused comment, I might understand, but it is still focused, nothing less and “just for a few dollars more”).
@Quarnero thanks for reminding us about IPS. It’s worth the small price premium over conventional matte technology. OLED is even better for high nits, but I personally will not accept a glossy screen, and to my knowledge OLED isn’t made as a matte panel.
Yes, most of us would need to upscale fonts. This is easily done with existing UI controls under various Linux flavors. But it’s even easier to do by dropping back to FHD for most of your textual or browsing work, and only upgrading to UHD when dealing with video. As mentioned previously, Tor Browser is best used at a screen resolution and font size which matches the most other machines. At present, this is FHD.
24 Hz sounds like a joke. I think most people can easily see the difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz, and perhaps some of us can discern an improvement even higher. So in my view, 60 Hz has to be a baseline. 3840x2160 is best, but 2560x1440 would be OK.
Just because of (sometimes preferred), yet purposely related to get (watch live stream, etc.) flicker free and without judder, here in Europe, on laptop own screen, content made within some studio under 50 Hz vertical rate (under PAL, not under NTSC standard), now I somewhat need to push example coming from MBP, as their 16-inch model supports refresh rates of 47.95Hz (23.976 frame/s ×2), 50.00Hz and 59.94Hz.
But my post was, as well (mostly), related to what someone is getting under Gnome settings (if used at all) with 1080 vertical (1080÷2 = 540 vertical resolution on 14-inch screen):
Is there anyone (older than myself) that uses this 200% setting with 1080 vertical resolution display? Just asking, even though it might be that I already lost most of my senses for any kind of jokes (if not funny ones). Thanks Gnome Team anyway, hope I’ll be able to use this 200% option soon!
For example (sorry, again), just for gaming usage with Intel UHD 620 Graphics: “If you want to have above 50 fps on Full HD resolution, you have to put rendering quality on the lowest settings.” … meaning (for myself) Intel Graphics HW supports 50 Hz but my built-in display is either using this feature or not (at all, “users just don’t need this as they don’t need other standard than NTSC” … just being myself, wishing to be wrong here, at least for a second).
or you can enable the “Large Text” option under Universal Access or COMBINE them ?
for me this is a lil’ too much but having larger text is easier on the eyes …
For more precise font size tweaking, try Gnome Tweaks’ font settings. Just be warned that Tor browser seems to import this, which is bad if you want to blend into the crowd. Tor is best used with the default font scaling ratio (100% or 1.0) at FHD (and eventually, 4K).
