3 ms·
images tend to be very large now. 4k monitors are normal, 16k monitors are planned in the future. So yeah I think it matters. Not always but often!
by gameswithgo 7y ago
images tend to be very large now. 4k monitors are normal, 16k monitors are planned in the future. So yeah I think it matters. Not always but often!
- lalaithion 7y ago16K monitors? What size of monitor do you expect to use? If you sit 2 feet away from your monitor, you'd need a 57 inch monitor to resolve the pixels.
- bitwize 7y agoThere is basically no upper bound to the display resolution people want, even if their eyes can't physically resolve it. Graphic designers and gamers will still swear there's a difference. It's like audiophilia for the visual system.
- whatshisface 7y agoAt a certain point people will prefer large and more monitors over increased resolution. If I could buy two 16k monitors instead of one 32k monitor I'd do it, and that puts a soft upper limit on the resolution.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Crinus 7y ago4K monitors are very rare, in regular desktop stats they are so insignificant statistically that they do not even show up: http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/worldwide/2019 http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/wo... In gaming they are just at 1.61% right below 1280x1024 and the increase is so low (+0.01) that might as well be zero (compare with 1080p's +2.04% which is the one increasing the most): https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ Tech minded people are a bubble, gamers are a tiny bubble among those and /r/pcmasterrace 4K-or-die boasters are a tiny bubble among gamers. 4K, or even 1440p, matters way less in practice than tech minded people think.
- bmurphy1976 7y agoAgain, where's the proof that the performance is a problem? The standard library should solve for the 80% case. I suspect it is well within "fast enough."