3 ms·

Only 60 hz. Sigh - I hope mainstream moves to 100+Hz monitors soon. I love the fluency of my far-too-expensive 'gaming' IPS 144hz monitor despite I don't play t

by fsloth 9y ago

Only 60 hz. Sigh - I hope mainstream moves to 100+Hz monitors soon. I love the fluency of my far-too-expensive 'gaming' IPS 144hz monitor despite I don't play that much. Just the fact that web pages and mouse pointers don't lag is a noticeable improvement.

scarlac 9y ago
I agree. 60hz is fine but having tried +100hz CRT monitors back in 199X I am still waiting for them to be mainstream. Perhaps Apple will take the iPad's "ProMotion" 120hz to the mainstream crowd in a not-too-expensive display package.
jrockway 9y ago
Yeah, 60Hz looks like a slideshow after using 144Hz for a while. It does get rapidly better after 60, though. I think I can stop telling a difference at around 80. So there is some hope that we can have 4k@better-than-60 in the near future.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Using text, I am fine with 5fps if it is not blinking like a CRT did. My kindle I think does 0fps when not changing pages and it is 100x better than a monitor. I have found the 300fps thing a bit silly for computers meant for text (which is my use case, not claiming it is the ONLY use case).
LeoNatan25 9y ago
I rather we invest in PPI rather than refresh rate. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but as I look at my use cases, most of the time the screen is static, so a higher refresh rate would be wasted, whereas higher PPI screens improve readability and legibility (when they work on Windows).
- fsloth 9y ago
  You mean 4k on a desktop is not dense enough for you?
  - 80211 9y ago
    This isn't 4K or even 4x HD. There's not enough vertical resolution. Consumer 4K is 2160 vertical pixels. This is only 1600. If you write software for a living, vertical space is precious!
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    No, it's not. Because a 4K "retina" (aka HiDPI) display is only 1080P. 1080P on anything larger than a 24" screen is a non-starter for me (thanks but no thanks to huge icons on screen). I'd ideally like a 27-30" 8k "retina" monitor (aka 4K useable) with DCI-P3 color gamut. Refresh rate I'm ok with 60hz, but wouldn't object to higher obviously.
  - LeoNatan25 9y ago
    Not for a 27” panel and above. 5120x2880/3200 for a 27” is good, but for larger panels (29”, 30”, 32”), an even higher logical resolution is needed. That’s for 2x scaling, of course, but I don’t think fraction scaling creates a good end result, unless everything is vector, which decidedly, very little is.
  - zanny 9y ago
    4k / 28" is 157 PPI, which is only indistinguishable at around 2 feet view distance on average. Better eyesight puts that distance further back. 8k at 28" is "retina" at just under a foot. So depending on how far you sit from your screen PPI can matter more or less to you, but when we finally get 8k panels we should also finally be getting people in retina range most of the time. 8k / 120+hz is the holy grail for me.
    - jamiek88 9y ago
      I can see Apple bringing 120hz to the iMac, so 5k at 120hz would be getting close. I wish they sold screens still.

by fsloth 9y ago

scarlac 9y ago

I agree. 60hz is fine but having tried +100hz CRT monitors back in 199X I am still waiting for them to be mainstream. Perhaps Apple will take the iPad's "ProMotion" 120hz to the mainstream crowd in a not-too-expensive display package.

jrockway 9y ago

Yeah, 60Hz looks like a slideshow after using 144Hz for a while. It does get rapidly better after 60, though. I think I can stop telling a difference at around 80. So there is some hope that we can have 4k@better-than-60 in the near future.

brianwawok 9y ago
Using text, I am fine with 5fps if it is not blinking like a CRT did. My kindle I think does 0fps when not changing pages and it is 100x better than a monitor. I have found the 300fps thing a bit silly for computers meant for text (which is my use case, not claiming it is the ONLY use case).

LeoNatan25 9y ago

I rather we invest in PPI rather than refresh rate. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but as I look at my use cases, most of the time the screen is static, so a higher refresh rate would be wasted, whereas higher PPI screens improve readability and legibility (when they work on Windows).

fsloth 9y ago
You mean 4k on a desktop is not dense enough for you?
- 80211 9y ago
  This isn't 4K or even 4x HD. There's not enough vertical resolution. Consumer 4K is 2160 vertical pixels. This is only 1600. If you write software for a living, vertical space is precious!
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  No, it's not. Because a 4K "retina" (aka HiDPI) display is only 1080P. 1080P on anything larger than a 24" screen is a non-starter for me (thanks but no thanks to huge icons on screen). I'd ideally like a 27-30" 8k "retina" monitor (aka 4K useable) with DCI-P3 color gamut. Refresh rate I'm ok with 60hz, but wouldn't object to higher obviously.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  Not for a 27” panel and above. 5120x2880/3200 for a 27” is good, but for larger panels (29”, 30”, 32”), an even higher logical resolution is needed. That’s for 2x scaling, of course, but I don’t think fraction scaling creates a good end result, unless everything is vector, which decidedly, very little is.
- zanny 9y ago
  4k / 28" is 157 PPI, which is only indistinguishable at around 2 feet view distance on average. Better eyesight puts that distance further back. 8k at 28" is "retina" at just under a foot. So depending on how far you sit from your screen PPI can matter more or less to you, but when we finally get 8k panels we should also finally be getting people in retina range most of the time. 8k / 120+hz is the holy grail for me.
  - jamiek88 9y ago
    I can see Apple bringing 120hz to the iMac, so 5k at 120hz would be getting close. I wish they sold screens still.