Especially people spoil their eyesight under the Chrome browser, which I have already proved 100 times on many forums with screenshots.

Due to intentional malicious behavior by the Chrome developers, there is no way to undo incorrect, muddy font smoothing. Which appeared with the 50th version of chrome. This problem, if not solved at the code level, is only resolvable at ppi above 220, and this is only a 4k panel and nothing else.

Precisely because the bastards in Google are only interested in the smartphone market as the main monetization market, they don't give a damn and they don't respond to hundreds of requests from various developers and just users in their bug tracker, which clearly and clearly shows why they spoil the entire population of the planet's eyesight on laptops and monitors with ppi below 220-250.

You can easily see this for yourself by magnifying the screenshots of this page by 4 times and comparing anti-aliasing options, for example, in FireFox up to version 69 (with certain settings) and by default in Chrome and Firefox, as well as other browsers based on Chromium.

The majority of the population is so stupid that they do not see the obvious problem of damage to personal vision, which amazes me - when I show the difference to any layman - there is no dispute. Well, it's like a fake covid - that's why this global scam succeeded - thanks to stupid people, of whom the majority on the planet. They do not see the obvious facts right in front of their own noses.
Because they have nothing to compare with, they are illiterate to use another browser like Firefox, where the crooked muddy anti-aliasing can at least be completely turned off, but not in Chrome.

Modern civilization in general is striking in its boundless stupidity of the majority of the population, with all their possibilities of obtaining all knowledge at their fingertips...

Quote from: Hotz on March 26, 2023, 12:04:53Even 1000:1 would be sufficient.

No, not enough. The empirically sufficient level is 1500:1. For example, almost all cinemas with DLP projectors show movies with an on/off contrast (not even ANSI) of 2000:1.

IPS today has allegedly reached 2000: 1 only in new models from LG. The rest of the semi-matte IPS have a hard time reaching 1500:1 in rare models like the Legion 7 Slim with 4k panels, at least measurements show that they are close to these numbers.

For example, in complete darkness, watching movies or TV shows on a screen with 1000: 1 is uncomfortable - the black level is too obvious. 1500:1 is much better, and 2000:1 is even better. AMOLED screens rule here, but they have serious drawbacks when working in normal office mode with text under lighting.

As for 4k, you again have a typical illiterate judgment of an ordinary layman - 4k is an ideal ppi. And that's it. The reasons why 2.5k is bad I have already written many times - read my comments. 2.5k should be removed from the market altogether.

Only notebooks with 4k@144-165Hz should remain. And no others, similar to smartphones, where 300+ ppi has long been the minimum norm.

Quote from: NikoB on March 21, 2023, 15:32:15The screen cannot have a contrast of 2000:1 in a semi-matte finish, if it's not LG Black IPS, but here is AUO...the latency is terrible. Why not 4k@120-144hz, lenovo?

In general, the model is morally outdated.

Frankly, a contrast of 2000:1 is more than enough. Even 1000:1 would be sufficient. Also 4K would be totally overkill for a 14" display. I have used a 14" laptop with 2K resolution once, and I could hardly read the text, menus etc. because it was so small. I don't want to imagine how bad it would be in 4K. And no - scaling isn't a solution. Because in the end everything is too small, you lack space, and would want a physically larger display.

Against the backdrop of Apple's M2 Pro and M2 Max, integrated Intel/AMD graphics and even the GTX3050 look absolutely shameful.

Again, a meaningless test in single-channel mode. But seeing the speed of memory in single-channel, it is clearly seen that in dual-channel the speed is shameful for i7 too, the timings in BIOS from Lenovo are completely inadequate.

The screen cannot have a contrast of 2000:1 in a semi-matte finish, if it's not LG Black IPS, but here is AUO...the latency is terrible. Why not 4k@120-144hz, lenovo?

In general, the model is morally outdated.

QuoteNeben der integrierten Iris XE des Prozessors verbaut Lenovo die GeForce MX550 von Nvidia. Die Grafikkarte bietet in den Benchmarks auch einen spürbaren Vorteil gegenüber der iGPU von Intel, doch die integrierte Radeon 680M im AMD-Modell ist zumindest in den synthetischen Tests gleichauf. Hier stellt sich also schon die Frage, warum man noch eine zusätzliche Komponente benötigt.

Ja, wirklich lohnenswert ist das eigentlich nicht mehr. Sie hättens bei der Intel Iris XE belassen können.

Es ist wahrscheinlich so, dass das reine Intel-Modell mit iGPU deutlich schwächer abgeschnitten hätte als das reine AMD-Modell mit iGPU. Also wurde noch eine billige Nvidia dazugeklatscht.

Die MX550 ist ja auch ein bisschen stärker (in einigen Games sogar 100% stärker) als die Radeon. Da das aber nicht bei allen Titeln ist, vermute ich dass es nur ausgesuchte Titel betrifft, die schon jahrelange Treiberoptimierung erhalten haben, z.B: GTA5 oder DOTA.

Was mich auch mehrmals gewundert hat, ist dass GTA5 auch mit einer GTX 1050Ti gut 50% schneller läuft als eine Radeon 680m. Ich vermute daher auch dort, dass es an starker Treiberoptimierung liegt. Solche Treiberoptimierungen würde ich mir von AMD auch wünschen (naja, immerhin tun sie auch was).

"hohe Systemleistung"

Unsinn. Der RAM ist überwältigend langsam!