Salvaging my laptop for 4K displays: is there any way?

W

wyem

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
100
I love my laptop. As a relatively light/business user, it performs just flawlessly for everything I do on a daily basis.

But it has one snag: it has Intel HD 4000 graphics which do not support 4K.

I already emailed Intel, and they dismissed a confusing news articles I read which stated driver updates would allow the HD 4000 to run 4k. It in fact can not.

I'm assuming that the HD 4000 is integrated into the motherboard. I have a Lenovo G767 and it's been hard to find information on it anywhere online, including the Lenovo website.

Do I need to buy a whole another laptop just to run 4K? Or is there any workaround at all that's possible, even if it costs a bit more than a video card?
 
1. Are you sure it isn't a G70? I can't find a G767 anywhere.
2. It may be able to do 4K over HDMI, but it would be at a very low framerate.
3. It would probably be easier for you to sell yours and get one that is 4K ready.
 
wyem said:
I love my laptop. As a relatively light/business user, it performs just flawlessly for everything I do on a daily basis.

But it has one snag: it has Intel HD 4000 graphics which do not support 4K.

I already emailed Intel, and they dismissed a confusing news articles I read which stated driver updates would allow the HD 4000 to run 4k. It in fact can not.

I'm assuming that the HD 4000 is integrated into the motherboard. I have a Lenovo G767 and it's been hard to find information on it anywhere online, including the Lenovo website.

Do I need to buy a whole another laptop just to run 4K? Or is there any workaround at all that's possible, even if it costs a bit more than a video card?
Click to expand...

First off Just because intel does not call them apu does not mean that isn't what they are. That gpu is part of the cpu in that system and it is likely soldered to the board so yes you will need to buy a new laptop. However I don't buy into the hype of a 4k display especially on something like a laptop. I think pixel density and color rendition are much more important factors than just resolution for example i would rather have a 1366x768 ips monitor with a higher dpi than my 1920x1080 TN panel do i think my 1080p looks bad no but i do find text annoyingly small at times and i don't much care for the scaling appearance i am still in the process of adjusting my settings though...

4k is fine for tv sized displays but for smaller 1080p is more than enough and especially for laptops.

<dons Flame suit>
You do have another option you can output 1080p and upscale it to 4k. Better than nothing i guess.
</goes to sleep in flame suit>
 
Last edited:
Well I want a TV sized 4k display.

It is indeed a G767. you can find the Lenovo G 700 series quite easily on Google. But I guess there was a small run on my model, or maybe it was only sold overseas. I bought it off of eBay year and a half ago.

Bummer to hear that a sale is the only feasible option. I'm in Thailand so it won't be easy to just throw it up on eBay
 
Post a picture of the full model number. Even including foreign language results the only thing remotely close to having anything to do with Lenovo is this thread.

Is it this?
 
I would try to flip it for a new one in HK. Flights are cheap and laptop prices are good.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
wyem said:
Well I want a TV sized 4k display.

It is indeed a G767. you can find the Lenovo G 700 series quite easily on Google. But I guess there was a small run on my model, or maybe it was only sold overseas. I bought it off of eBay year and a half ago.

Bummer to hear that a sale is the only feasible option. I'm in Thailand so it won't be easy to just throw it up on eBay
Click to expand...

keep it get a mini pc for the tv

like this or this or this
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
defaultluser said:
This is why I always recommend people buy desktops. Much easier to buy a new graphics card than work around the limits of notebooks.

The best option you have is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-USB3DP4KB-DisplayPort-3840x2160-DisplayLink/dp/B00OSMYI18

It would be $100 (adapter plus HDMI converter) and it doesn't support HDCP, so it's worthless for using a 4k TV.
Click to expand...

Just what I was looking for, thanks!

I am planning on buying a 40 inch 4K monitor so as long as it has a displayport input, I assume I won't need a displayport to HDMI converter.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
kasakka said:
Note that it supports only 30 Hz refresh rates at 4K. That is very jarring on the desktop and can even cause headaches to some.
Click to expand...

I thought LCD monitors didn't have the same refresh rate problem as CRTs.
 
He means the source signal will be 30 Hz, it has nothing to do with the monitor's capabilities. You will very much notice it when anything on screen is moving. I wouldn't use one of those adapters for 4k for anything but simple text editing, even then I wouldn't.
 
from another website:

LCD pixels get turned on by current and turned off when the current stops. On the other hand, CRT pixels get excited when the electron beam hits them and immediately start to fade.

The implications of this are:

With a too low refresh rate, a CRT appears to flicker as the brain has time to notice that it went dark. This depends on the individual and which part of the eye sees it since our peripheral vision is more sensitive to light.

An LCD does not appear to flicker because pixels do not go dark between refreshes. They simply transition from one state to the next.

The refresh rate of both CRTs and LCDs affect how they render motion. For CRTs, higher refresh rates give smoother motion. This is due to the fading property of CRTs. For LCDs, frame interpolation gives smoother motion. However, this requires drawing more frames, which means increasing the refresh rate. This suggests the refresh rate is responsible for smoother motion for LCDs, where in fact this is because of frame interpolation.

LCDs have a latency for a pixel to change state. This is known as response time. If the response time is too slow, then some pixels do not have enough time to change; this results in ghosting. The refresh rate however, is not a cause for this.

Is it possible on a CRT to have ghosting as well, but only at very high refresh rates, since phosphors fade quite fast.

LCDs do not have lower limits to their refresh rates. I once tested a display with 3830×2400 resolution and the first version had a 24 Hz rate. No flicker was noticeable. It was then upgraded to 48 Hz, and then, sadly, discontinued. I guess not enough people paid the 27K price tag!
Click to expand...
 
I use my computer for business and the occasional video. I hear videos run at 24 FPS so I think I should be okay for the motion issue. And it sounds like the flicker issue is not a problem with LCDs.
 
30 Hz equals 15 FPS. Just buy the adapter, wallow in sorrow and regret, then upgrade your laptop.
 
wyem said:
I use my computer for business and the occasional video. I hear videos run at 24 FPS so I think I should be okay for the motion issue. And it sounds like the flicker issue is not a problem with LCDs.
Click to expand...

Video can run at different frequencies:

DV NTSC standard is 29.97
DV PAL standard is 25.00

(Almost all of my Premiere sequence presets are 29.97 and 25.00 with two presets being 23.976.)

We do screencasting and FMV (Full Motion Video) capture at 30 FPS because that's what our distribution network uses as their input parameters, but everything we produce is going straight to computer users (desktop or mobile) so we're not constrained to use NTSC or PAL standards for video production.

24 FPS is commonly known as the lowest FPS that the eye/brain can be tricked into believing that you're looking at seamless motion and not having it displayed as frames in rapid succession to simulate motion (which is not universally true, but it's the common misconception that so much of our technology standards were built on).
 
wyem said:
I use my computer for business and the occasional video. I hear videos run at 24 FPS so I think I should be okay for the motion issue. And it sounds like the flicker issue is not a problem with LCDs.
Click to expand...

You won't see flicker and the comparison to video isn't valid as you are not interacting with video. I don't know if your current display supports it, but you could try and see if you can set it to 30 Hz refresh rate. Trust me, it feels like crap.
 
Here are the comments I'm getting on Amazon from people who have bought that USB to 4K adaptor:

You don't notice it after a while. I use it for development and doesn't cause any problems. But again 4K on a 28inch monitor is still too small to look at it for a long time. So I prefer to use it as Quad.
Click to expand...

I've been using it on a Seiki 39" monitor at my work for months with no issues. I read emails, view CAD drawings, and photos with ease. Video is good as long as it is in a partial screen window. Full screen video is choppy... No headaches at all.
Click to expand...
 
dscherf said:
Video can run at different frequencies:

DV NTSC standard is 29.97
DV PAL standard is 25.00

(Almost all of my Premiere sequence presets are 29.97 and 25.00 with two presets being 23.976.)

We do screencasting and FMV (Full Motion Video) capture at 30 FPS because that's what our distribution network uses as their input parameters, but everything we produce is going straight to computer users (desktop or mobile) so we're not constrained to use NTSC or PAL standards for video production.

24 FPS is commonly known as the lowest FPS that the eye/brain can be tricked into believing that you're looking at seamless motion and not having it displayed as frames in rapid succession to simulate motion (which is not universally true, but it's the common misconception that so much of our technology standards were built on).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 24 FPS thing needs to die. I have to make sure to relax and not watch for the different frames when I go to a movie or else it just bugs me to death. And even then, sometimes I see the separate frames. Stupid jittery mess is what it is.
 
wyem said:
Just what I was looking for, thanks!

I am planning on buying a 40 inch 4K monitor so as long as it has a displayport input, I assume I won't need a displayport to HDMI converter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you won't need the converter. Enjoy :D

I don't know how good the image quality will be (USB means you have to compress the pixels), but I imagine it will be pretty good if you're not showing moving video often.

You do have a USB 3.0 port, right? I've been assuming that since you have HD 4000, you have USB 3, but if you don't this will not work for you.
 
Thanks and yeah I see the blue connector so I should be good to go!

Another poster on Amazon responds:

I use this on a 4K monitor. For text, it is very good. I ran a resolution test and there is only a small amount of high frequency rolloff. However, the frame rate for video is poor so not recommended if you plan to watch videos either in 4K or 1080p.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some people are more sensitive to the effect than others, but really if you want to 4k properly the best solution would be to get a PC that can do that natively at 60 frames per second unless you just can't afford it. I think even a Richland APU could probably do what you want.
 
Wade88 said:
Some people are more sensitive to the effect than others, but really if you want to 4k properly the best solution would be to get a PC that can do that natively at 60 frames per second unless you just can't afford it. I think even a Richland APU could probably do what you want.
Click to expand...

I suggested 2 mini pc and 1 android that claimed to do that. But yes if the op does it with any frequency the best solution will be a dedicated box for the tv and use the laptop for laptop things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top