Win 8.1 "Ultrabooks", and very high resolution display. (Lenovo YogaPro 2)

This is getting annoying!
Seems that the low end version of this convertible tablet laptop is
too slow to use the maximum display resolution for "first person
shooter" games that have really high res graphics. (Nothing new, actually)
The real problem seems to be getting the display to automatically switch
automatically from the native high resolution to one suitable for the
game. (4K,X or whatever they are calling it to maybe 1024x768 for instance.
Reducing the game's idea of resolution produces a small borderless or
bordered window that cannot be re-sized and takes up a small part of the
overall display. The only effective way I've found is to manually change
the display resolution with the usual display control panel, play the
game, and switch it back.
Getting the display to re-size more or less as earlier versions of
windows using lower resolution is either impossible, or I've missed the
exact combination of settings needed to get the job done.
The display drivers are Intel, for the 4000 series GPU? on the MBD.

Ideas?

charlie wrote in
:

This is getting annoying!
Seems that the low end version of this convertible tablet laptop is
too slow to use the maximum display resolution for "first person
shooter" games that have really high res graphics. (Nothing new,
actually) The real problem seems to be getting the display to
automatically switch automatically from the native high resolution to
one suitable for the game. (4K,X or whatever they are calling it to
maybe 1024x768 for instance. Reducing the game's idea of resolution
produces a small borderless or bordered window that cannot be re-sized
and takes up a small part of the overall display. The only effective
way I've found is to manually change the display resolution with the
usual display control panel, play the game, and switch it back.
Getting the display to re-size more or less as earlier versions of
windows using lower resolution is either impossible, or I've missed
the exact combination of settings needed to get the job done.
The display drivers are Intel, for the 4000 series GPU? on the MBD.

Ideas?


I've read of several people having similar problems and no one seems to
have come up with an automatic fix.

charlie wrote:
This is getting annoying!
Seems that the low end version of this convertible tablet laptop is
too slow to use the maximum display resolution for "first person
shooter" games that have really high res graphics. (Nothing new, actually)
The real problem seems to be getting the display to automatically switch
automatically from the native high resolution to one suitable for the
game. (4K,X or whatever they are calling it to maybe 1024x768 for instance.
Reducing the game's idea of resolution produces a small borderless or
bordered window that cannot be re-sized and takes up a small part of the
overall display. The only effective way I've found is to manually change
the display resolution with the usual display control panel, play the
game, and switch it back.
Getting the display to re-size more or less as earlier versions of
windows using lower resolution is either impossible, or I've missed the
exact combination of settings needed to get the job done.
The display drivers are Intel, for the 4000 series GPU? on the MBD.

Ideas?

On our desktop systems, the EDID of the LCD screen, declares
it is a multisync device, and capable of accepting a wide
range of inputs. For example, if the computer puts out
640x480, my screen automatically detects the rates involved,
and adjusts to it. This requires scaling in the panel itself,
which is why fonts become blurry if you do that (if the
pixel ratios don't divide nicely). Taking a 1152 wide display
and plunking it into 1280 pixels, might not look that good,
if you intend to fill the screen from edge to edge.

The laptop is potentially different. The laptop driver is
special, as typically the only good version of video driver,
comes from the laptop manufacturer.

As far as I know, the laptop screen doesn't have EDID or
Plug and Play as it were. The driver is told there is a
fixed resolution device, connected to one output of
the GPU crossbar. The laptop manufacturer, adds a small file
to the video driver installation somewhere, which takes the
place of the Plug and Play information. It's possible this
also takes the form of some BIOS level information (like
something is flashed into the BIOS, like some sort of
VESA compatibility information).

The behavior of the LCD panel digital bus connection,
is also different than the VGA connection on the back
of the laptop. The driver knows the panel has quite
different behavior than the VGA, as the panel requires
scaling, and the VGA external monitor has its own
scaler and you can just send any resolution you want to it.

If a laptop has two LCD panel variants (a high end and a
mid-range model), and the user goes to Ebay to replace
a cracked screen, and buys the wrong panel, without
changing any software. only the upper left hand corner
(0,0) of the screen gets used, leaving black bars on the
right and bottom. This means the "fake" Plug and Play
information the laptop now has, is incorrect.

That's just to give you some idea, how laptops differ
from desktops. If the LCD panel had a scaler and
an EDID chip, response might be quite different.

Now, when a DirectX game plays, it's going to request
a resolution. The video driver should realize "Hey,
resolution mismatch", knowing the screen is fixed
resolution, and the driver then uses the scaler in the GPU
to form a replacement for the missing scaler in the
panel. Both should be equally effective. On older
video cards (I have some here), there is no scaler
in the GPU, and it takes 40% CPU to do scaling. Newer
GPUs, this function is virtually free, as it's done
in GPU hardware. So the CPU is not called on to do the
scaling.

Conclusion - it should all work, but because software
is involved, it might not be as seamless as it should be.
If I had to blame someone, it would be the video driver
end, when problems show up.

Every LCD panel starts life as a fixed resolution device.
There is an array of pixels, horizontal and vertical
drivers, and so on. That's the basic panel. On an LCD
monitor, the "input board", a separate circuit board
inside the unit, contains a chip that includes a scaler.
As far as I know, the laptop screen is missing that
"input board". From the laptop manufacturer's perspective,
there is no reason for such an input board to be present.
As all the necessary functions can be emulated by using a
scaler in the GPU. Virtually all newly manufactured
GPUs now, should have a scaler of some sort. There should
not be a significant penalty for doing it that way.

Paul

On 12/23/2013 10:34 AM, Paul wrote:
charlie wrote:
This is getting annoying!
Seems that the low end version of this convertible tablet laptop is
too slow to use the maximum display resolution for "first person
shooter" games that have really high res graphics. (Nothing new,
actually)
The real problem seems to be getting the display to automatically
switch automatically from the native high resolution to one suitable
for the game. (4K,X or whatever they are calling it to maybe 1024x768
for instance.
Reducing the game's idea of resolution produces a small borderless or
bordered window that cannot be re-sized and takes up a small part of
the overall display. The only effective way I've found is to manually
change the display resolution with the usual display control panel,
play the game, and switch it back.
Getting the display to re-size more or less as earlier versions of
windows using lower resolution is either impossible, or I've missed
the exact combination of settings needed to get the job done.
The display drivers are Intel, for the 4000 series GPU? on the MBD.

Ideas?

On our desktop systems, the EDID of the LCD screen, declares
it is a multisync device, and capable of accepting a wide
range of inputs. For example, if the computer puts out
640x480, my screen automatically detects the rates involved,
and adjusts to it. This requires scaling in the panel itself,
which is why fonts become blurry if you do that (if the
pixel ratios don't divide nicely). Taking a 1152 wide display
and plunking it into 1280 pixels, might not look that good,
if you intend to fill the screen from edge to edge.

The laptop is potentially different. The laptop driver is
special, as typically the only good version of video driver,
comes from the laptop manufacturer.

As far as I know, the laptop screen doesn't have EDID or
Plug and Play as it were. The driver is told there is a
fixed resolution device, connected to one output of
the GPU crossbar. The laptop manufacturer, adds a small file
to the video driver installation somewhere, which takes the
place of the Plug and Play information. It's possible this
also takes the form of some BIOS level information (like
something is flashed into the BIOS, like some sort of
VESA compatibility information).

The behavior of the LCD panel digital bus connection,
is also different than the VGA connection on the back
of the laptop. The driver knows the panel has quite
different behavior than the VGA, as the panel requires
scaling, and the VGA external monitor has its own
scaler and you can just send any resolution you want to it.

If a laptop has two LCD panel variants (a high end and a
mid-range model), and the user goes to Ebay to replace
a cracked screen, and buys the wrong panel, without
changing any software. only the upper left hand corner
(0,0) of the screen gets used, leaving black bars on the
right and bottom. This means the "fake" Plug and Play
information the laptop now has, is incorrect.

That's just to give you some idea, how laptops differ
from desktops. If the LCD panel had a scaler and
an EDID chip, response might be quite different.

Now, when a DirectX game plays, it's going to request
a resolution. The video driver should realize "Hey,
resolution mismatch", knowing the screen is fixed
resolution, and the driver then uses the scaler in the GPU
to form a replacement for the missing scaler in the
panel. Both should be equally effective. On older
video cards (I have some here), there is no scaler
in the GPU, and it takes 40% CPU to do scaling. Newer
GPUs, this function is virtually free, as it's done
in GPU hardware. So the CPU is not called on to do the
scaling.

Conclusion - it should all work, but because software
is involved, it might not be as seamless as it should be.
If I had to blame someone, it would be the video driver
end, when problems show up.

Every LCD panel starts life as a fixed resolution device.
There is an array of pixels, horizontal and vertical
drivers, and so on. That's the basic panel. On an LCD
monitor, the "input board", a separate circuit board
inside the unit, contains a chip that includes a scaler.
As far as I know, the laptop screen is missing that
"input board". From the laptop manufacturer's perspective,
there is no reason for such an input board to be present.
As all the necessary functions can be emulated by using a
scaler in the GPU. Virtually all newly manufactured
GPUs now, should have a scaler of some sort. There should
not be a significant penalty for doing it that way.

Paul

On this particular laptop/Tablet, the advertized difference
between the low and high end version is - -
The use of an i3 slower processor instead of an i7 processor
The size of the internal SSD 128G vs 250G (And a price difference of
about $400.
No difference in the LCD or the video hardware. The Intel GPU
is supposedly a 4400 in both. The video driver seems to be the same
between the one supplied by Lenova or Intel. That's not to say that
maybe Lenova "tweaked" something in the driver setup that Intel did not.
Chasing that down can be a bit difficult, due to the way the driver
install software is usually packaged. There is some sort of scaler,
obviously, since it does work (in some applications) via the touch
screen when in tablet mode.

charlie wrote:
On 12/23/2013 10:34 AM, Paul wrote:
charlie wrote:
This is getting annoying!
Seems that the low end version of this convertible tablet laptop is
too slow to use the maximum display resolution for "first person
shooter" games that have really high res graphics. (Nothing new,
actually)
The real problem seems to be getting the display to automatically
switch automatically from the native high resolution to one suitable
for the game. (4K,X or whatever they are calling it to maybe 1024x768
for instance.
Reducing the game's idea of resolution produces a small borderless or
bordered window that cannot be re-sized and takes up a small part of
the overall display. The only effective way I've found is to manually
change the display resolution with the usual display control panel,
play the game, and switch it back.
Getting the display to re-size more or less as earlier versions of
windows using lower resolution is either impossible, or I've missed
the exact combination of settings needed to get the job done.
The display drivers are Intel, for the 4000 series GPU? on the MBD.

Ideas?

On our desktop systems, the EDID of the LCD screen, declares
it is a multisync device, and capable of accepting a wide
range of inputs. For example, if the computer puts out
640x480, my screen automatically detects the rates involved,
and adjusts to it. This requires scaling in the panel itself,
which is why fonts become blurry if you do that (if the
pixel ratios don't divide nicely). Taking a 1152 wide display
and plunking it into 1280 pixels, might not look that good,
if you intend to fill the screen from edge to edge.

The laptop is potentially different. The laptop driver is
special, as typically the only good version of video driver,
comes from the laptop manufacturer.

As far as I know, the laptop screen doesn't have EDID or
Plug and Play as it were. The driver is told there is a
fixed resolution device, connected to one output of
the GPU crossbar. The laptop manufacturer, adds a small file
to the video driver installation somewhere, which takes the
place of the Plug and Play information. It's possible this
also takes the form of some BIOS level information (like
something is flashed into the BIOS, like some sort of
VESA compatibility information).

The behavior of the LCD panel digital bus connection,
is also different than the VGA connection on the back
of the laptop. The driver knows the panel has quite
different behavior than the VGA, as the panel requires
scaling, and the VGA external monitor has its own
scaler and you can just send any resolution you want to it.

If a laptop has two LCD panel variants (a high end and a
mid-range model), and the user goes to Ebay to replace
a cracked screen, and buys the wrong panel, without
changing any software. only the upper left hand corner
(0,0) of the screen gets used, leaving black bars on the
right and bottom. This means the "fake" Plug and Play
information the laptop now has, is incorrect.

That's just to give you some idea, how laptops differ
from desktops. If the LCD panel had a scaler and
an EDID chip, response might be quite different.

Now, when a DirectX game plays, it's going to request
a resolution. The video driver should realize "Hey,
resolution mismatch", knowing the screen is fixed
resolution, and the driver then uses the scaler in the GPU
to form a replacement for the missing scaler in the
panel. Both should be equally effective. On older
video cards (I have some here), there is no scaler
in the GPU, and it takes 40% CPU to do scaling. Newer
GPUs, this function is virtually free, as it's done
in GPU hardware. So the CPU is not called on to do the
scaling.

Conclusion - it should all work, but because software
is involved, it might not be as seamless as it should be.
If I had to blame someone, it would be the video driver
end, when problems show up.

Every LCD panel starts life as a fixed resolution device.
There is an array of pixels, horizontal and vertical
drivers, and so on. That's the basic panel. On an LCD
monitor, the "input board", a separate circuit board
inside the unit, contains a chip that includes a scaler.
As far as I know, the laptop screen is missing that
"input board". From the laptop manufacturer's perspective,
there is no reason for such an input board to be present.
As all the necessary functions can be emulated by using a
scaler in the GPU. Virtually all newly manufactured
GPUs now, should have a scaler of some sort. There should
not be a significant penalty for doing it that way.

Paul

On this particular laptop/Tablet, the advertized difference
between the low and high end version is - -
The use of an i3 slower processor instead of an i7 processor
The size of the internal SSD 128G vs 250G (And a price difference of
about $400.
No difference in the LCD or the video hardware. The Intel GPU
is supposedly a 4400 in both. The video driver seems to be the same
between the one supplied by Lenova or Intel. That's not to say that
maybe Lenova "tweaked" something in the driver setup that Intel did not.
Chasing that down can be a bit difficult, due to the way the driver
install software is usually packaged. There is some sort of scaler,
obviously, since it does work (in some applications) via the touch
screen when in tablet mode.

Why is it, every time I go to the Intel forum, it's a tale of woe ?

"Windows 8.1 Preview Drivers for Intel HD 4400 Broken?"

https://communities.intel.com/message/206620?tstart=0

I guess old habits at Intel, die hard.

Paul

In the last episode of , Paul
said:

Why is it, every time I go to the Intel forum, it's a tale of woe ?

Because not too many people go to a forum and post "Everything is
great!"

"Windows 8.1 Preview Drivers for Intel HD 4400 Broken?"

"Preview" would seem to be the keyword here. I can tell you that on my
Intel HD 4400, everything worked out of the box, and installing the
drivers supplied by ASUS got everything working great for the week or so
before my real video card arrived.

--
If men can run the world, why can't they stop wearing neckties?
How intelligent is it to start the day by tying a noose around
your neck?

On 12/23/2013 10:24 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
In the last episode of , Paul
said:

Why is it, every time I go to the Intel forum, it's a tale of woe ?

Because not too many people go to a forum and post "Everything is
great!"

"Windows 8.1 Preview Drivers for Intel HD 4400 Broken?"

"Preview" would seem to be the keyword here. I can tell you that on my
Intel HD 4400, everything worked out of the box, and installing the
drivers supplied by ASUS got everything working great for the week or so
before my real video card arrived.

I'd agree, since I would not mention things unless there was something
amiss!
As to "preview" windows versions, in comparison to "RTM", I never did
get a good idea of the differences, other than the expiring bit.
There was always concern with development, etc. on versions that
differed from the full retail versions.

At one time, we even had problems that went back to the differences
between the "checked builds" sent to developers, and the retail sold to
the public versions. At the time I/O related critical timing was
different, due to the additional debug features in the checked build. I
doubt, given the speed of today's processors,etc., that the problems we
saw and dealt with would even exist. Although, given the way things have
mushroomed, it's certainly possible. The amount of code between hardware
and an application or even a system function seems to have grown
exponentially.

In the last episode of , charlie
said:

As to "preview" windows versions, in comparison to "RTM", I never did
get a good idea of the differences, other than the expiring bit.

One big difference is that you have incomplete code, with drivers that
are not fully tested. The preview is literally a beta version that has
(likely) undergone a full regression test suite along with various other
test suites, more so than a normal beta would undergo.

--
News: CIVIL SERVANT STAYS AWAKE ALL SHIFT LONG
"Man, I've really got to cut back on the caffeine" he says