17 ms·

I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. Back then display port ran at 60fps, a

I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. Back then display port ran at 60fps, and hdmi ran at 30fps. My hardware has changed and moved on, but I still default to using a display port cable. It's rare to not find a graphics card without display port, and it's rare to find a monitor without one, so I've never had a reason to try HDMI. As far as I can tell it's a stubborn format that continue to fight to live on. Frankly, I don't really get why we still have HDMI today.

JeremyNT 7y ago
> I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. Important caveat: the display needs to actually be big enough for this to matter. I've got the 4k Dell XPS 13, but I run at a lower resolution, since I simply cannot perceive any difference.
zenlot 7y ago
> If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. I am on 4k60 on 43". I spend most of my day in terminal (ubuntu, i3-regolith) - it's nice, but don't think I would be missing out much without it.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  4K on a 43” is a pretty low PPI. If you had something worse than that for a screen of the same size, you would be missing out.
  - jfim 7y ago
    It gives a ridiculously large amount of screen real estate, though. For example, on one of those, one can have a side-by-side diff with 120+ character lines and still have half of the screen width remaining for documentation or terminals.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      It feels like too much screen for me, I’m happy with a single 5K 27”. I could never get used to the unfocus or having multiple things on multiple screens all at once.
  - zokier 7y ago
    4k@43" is close to PPI of "standard" 1440p@27" or 1080p@22". Considering that the viewing distance probably is bit longer, it sounds pretty appropriate for 100% scaling
- clarkmo 7y ago
  You're not reaping the benefits of high pixel density at that size. It's a shame 5K 27" monitors aren't more prevalent. That perfect 2x pixel density increase from 1440p is incredibly sharp.
  - kitsunesoba 7y ago
    Writing code on 27” 5k with 2x scaling is incredible. It’s the sweet spot of sharpness to screen real estate and I agree that manufacturers should focus more on this format.
    - Matthias247 7y ago
      The problem with that resolution is that neither hdmi 2.0 nor the equivalent DisplayPort revision supports it. Therefore it is currently a thunderbolt 3 only thing - which has its own set of issues. I’m looking forward to see more 5k+ screens once those standards evolve
    - TheOperator 7y ago
      It's not that I don't acknowledge that it's better it just doesn't seem worth it unless specifically buying the 5k iMac. TB3 as a display standard + costs double what a 4k monitor does + lack of guarantee of long term vendor support for either TB3 as an input or 5k. I also think there are just such economies of scale around 4k as well.
dmos62 7y ago
> If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. I really don't. Would anyone care to share their experience? Currently, I'm thinking that a vertical monitor would be an improvement for me, but I don't see a reason to get a screen that's several times denser.
- mlyle 7y ago
  They're probably suggesting to get a bigger monitor at the same time. You can have somewhat higher DPI and smoother text, and more real estate. If you're used to 24" 1080P, going to 32" 4K gets you 1.5x the DPI and 1.77x the screen area. For what's now a $300 monitor, that is a pretty significant improvement overall. The DPI means my characters go from 9x18 pixels to 13x27, which is a big difference in text rendering fidelity and just feels a little nicer. And the additional screen real estate speaks for itself.
  - quikorder 7y ago
    Would you mind linking the $300 monitor you're talking about?
    - sjm-lbm 7y ago
      Not OP, but I've been using an older version of this monitor for about two years now: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_B079H5Z4S8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_... There's quite a few choices at that price point, though.
    - phonon 7y ago
      https://smile.amazon.com/LG-32UK50T-W-Class-FreeSync-Monitor/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ https://smile.amazon.com/LG-32UK50T-W-Class-FreeSync-Monitor...
      - bsenftner 7y ago
        Speaking as a guy with six 4K monitors on my desk, get Samsung over LG. My two LG monitors are a bit soft, whereas the Samsungs are sharp as diamonds.
G4E 7y ago
I'm always confused by those statements, that it's rare to find a monitor without DP. I live in France, and actually HDMI is the norm here. All low-range and mid-range screens are HDMI only, and it's rare to find a DP actually. It's especially sad when you wants to use freesync on Linux, as mesa (the gpu driver) added support in 2018 for DP, but it's still not usable over HDMI.
- sq_ 7y ago
  IIRC, Freesync will only ever work over DP because it relies on features that the HDMI protocol doesn't/won't ever have. Also, it's very interesting that things are so different in France with regard to display cables. I would've assumed that, since it's mostly the same manufacturers making everything around the world, they'd have more or less standard models across regions.
  - TomVDB 7y ago
    The DVI and HDMI protocols doesn’t need anything specific to support variable refresh rate: nothing prevents one to just extend the vertical front porch time. It’s just a question whether or not the GPU can generate that kind of signal and whether the monitor scaler chip is willing to deal with it.
  - Latty 7y ago
    HDMI 2.1 has a variable refresh rate mode which will presumably become the standard over time. https://www.hdmi.org/spec21Sub/VariableRefreshRate https://www.hdmi.org/spec21Sub/VariableRefreshRate
- proverbialbunny 7y ago
  Wow. That's surprising to hear that there are 4k60 monitors without DP. I'm sorry to hear you can't find a proper monitor in France.
  - G4E 7y ago
    I don't know about 4k60Hz screens actually. I'm not sure they are in the low/mid range price point (yet) ? I was responding more generally about HDMI and it's usefulness.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
I prefer to write code on a 5K iMac, it is the best 27” screen out there, and code looks paper-like in resolution. 220 PPI is an ideal pixel density.
- m463 7y ago
  Apple also enables fancy features and tweaks on it's own hardware.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  It's unfortunate that the price difference between 27" 4k and 27" 5k is enormous.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    One is 163ppi and the other is 218ppi, that’s a huge difference. Anyways, it isn’t that bad if you just buy an entire iMac 5k. But ya, the LG standalone is pricey.
mumblemumble 7y ago
I have a large 4K monitor when I'm my desk in the office, a smaller 1920x440 at home, and just the (Retina) laptop screen when I'm elsewhere. My sense is that the 4K monitor is a bit nicer than the 1920x440, but nowhere near enough nicer for me to have ever felt motivated to replace the 10 year old monitor I already have at home. The real difference is between 2 monitors vs just the one. I also briefly had a 15" laptop with a 4K monitor, and UGH NO CRANK THAT RESOLUTION DOWN RIGHT NOW. My take-away: Ignore the marketing fluff that focuses overmuch on resolutions; the resolution is not an end in and of itself. Pick a screen size, and then pick a resolution that gives you an appropriate DPI for that size.
- caymanjim 7y ago
  Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons (e.g. gaming). Every OS has UI scaling built-in now. It works perfectly in Windows 10 and MacOS. It works pretty well in Linux, but given the mess that is Linux UI toolkits, not all applications will scale properly. Everything I use regularly looks fine, even in experimental non-standard scaling like 175%. Running a 4k monitor at 1920x1080 looks like crap. Running a 4k monitor with 200% UI scaling gets you the same dimensions but glorious smooth fonts.
  - mumblemumble 7y ago
    > Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons ehhhhhh..... > It works pretty well in Linux, but given the mess that is Linux UI toolkits, not all applications will scale properly. Yep, exactly.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons (e.g. gaming). Every OS has UI scaling built-in now. So, I have a game I want to run hitting the following properties: - The game should only render 1920x1080. This keeps fps around 30. - The game should cover my whole screen. - Running the game should not resize all my other open windows. All of these seem like stupid-obvious goals, but there doesn't seem to be a way to get them all. The game itself offers fullscreen (which automatically resizes my other open windows, when the game resolution is lower than the desktop resolution -- I don't understand this ridiculous anti-feature, but it doesn't seem to be configurable), and windowed mode where the window occupies a range of pixels equal to the game resolution (which is a really small window, and really hurts enjoyment of the game). I've tried sending win32 messages [well, SetWindowLong; I think "messages" are something different] to a 1920x1080 game window to expand its rectangle, but the game just starts rendering higher-resolution images for the bigger window -- even though it's configured for 1920x1080 -- dropping the frame rate. Are you saying there's a way for me to scale this window to get the behavior I want? (Render a 1920x1080 image, then paint it over the 3840x2160 desktop.) What is it?
sphix0r 7y ago
> I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. 4K adds a lot of screen-estate. Having a "normal" 27" 4k screen, I recently worked on a ultra-wide curved screen. It blew me away. I can so much recommend curved screens over regular 4k screens. All you applications can fit next to each other on eye height.
- Latty 7y ago
  Those curved displays look nice, but they only compare well in real estate to a single 4k monitor. I'd be a step down from a double/triple 4k setup.
- jiggawatts 7y ago
  This is a very... erm... "early PC era" way of thinking. Back in the days, many moons ago, both displays and software typically had a fixed DPI (96 for Windows) and so a larger resolution was basically the same thing as a larger display. The two were interchangeable. In the photography and print world (and everywhere else) the resolution is just the "level of detail" or "sharpness", completely independent of the size. With Windows 10, Windows Server 2016, and recent-ish OSX the display resolution is finally decoupled from the display size. This is especially true at nice even resolutions such as precisely double or triple the legacy 96 DPI (200% or 300% scaling). I've been using 4K monitors for over a decade, basically since they've been available and it always cracks me up to see some people run them at "100%" scaling with miniscule text. That's not the point. The point is that at 200% scaling text looks razor sharp, but is exactly the same size as it would be at 1920x1080.. You can clearly distinguish fonts that look virtually identical at 1920x1080. It's amazing, you have to try it yourself. Caveat: If you need (or nearly need) prescription glasses, 4K or higher resolutions may not make much of a difference for you. In this case, you're likely better off having a bigger screen and/or a very big screen further away from you.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    That whole reasoning seems suspect to me, honestly. "I want 4x as many pixels so that every pixel can be scaled up to 4 pixels!". Sure font rendering can take advantage of that, but is the difference significant? To my eyes, no, not really.
jhallenworld 7y ago
Do you really need 60 Hz for writing code? I've found that on cheap laptops it helps to set the refresh to 40Hz in the name of stability- it makes the recover from suspend process more reliable for some reason.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Using a mouse on 30Hz is like molasses.
  - bluedino 7y ago
    Scrolling is gross too
  - myself248 7y ago
    Now you've got me curious. I've been playing with various Bluetooth and 2.4GHz-proprietary-wireless mice, along with a cheapie wired one, and never noticed much difference. But it's always been at the same refresh rate. Brb, finding out what my screen maxes out at.
  - jrockway 7y ago
    Honestly, at 30Hz you can feel the input lag. It always feels like the mouse is a little behind, and the key you pressed isn't quite there yet. It's only 33ms, but you can definitely see it. 60Hz is quite usable but if you are used to 120 or 144Hz you will notice it immediately.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    It gives me some nasty headaches too.
  - arvinsim 7y ago
    30hz is a non starter for me no matter what task I am doing.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  Yes, I would even want 120hz. It makes using the computer feel so much more responsive and fluid.
detrino 7y ago
Do you use Mac OS X? When using Windows or Linux I don't find much benefit in text rendering on a 4k display. But as Mac OS X has no sub pixel rendering or grid fitting text looks terrible without a high ppi display.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  When did that happen? Back in my day, OSX was the one with sub pixel rendering and Windows users would constantly complain that it looked fuzzy.
  - detrino 7y ago
    OSX has had sub pixel rendering disabled by default since Mojave. It also never had the strong hinting that you can find on Linux and Windows which makes text significantly sharper at the cost of differing from the shape as specified by the font.
    - radicaldreamer 7y ago
      They were paying to license Microsoft’s ClearType patents and decided not to pay anymore once retina displays had become near standard for lost Macs and subpixel rendering was no longer necessary
      - jjoonathan 7y ago
        If true, it's a pity they were paying. Apple's SPR goes back to the Woz days, whereas ClearType didn't come around until XP, and wasn't a default until Vista.
- AnthonBerg 7y ago
  macOS looks fine on a 32” 4K
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  This! MacOS (mbp15r) with seemingly any non-Apple external monitor, text looks just awful regardless of font or resolution settings.
m463 7y ago
If you're using it for coding, 4k can be wonderful, but requires desktop scaling. If you aren't able to configure it, you get just get microscopic text (unless you're using something like a 55" tv as your monitor)
- izacus 7y ago
  For machines that don't need to mix scaling this is pretty much a solved problem - I've run Windows at 125%, Linux/Cinnamon at 150% and OS X at ~150% and they've all preformed just fine for coding tasks. The only mess is if you have mixed displays - and even that is mostly still problem only on Linux.
  - m463 7y ago
    OSX didn't allow a 150% setting for me - I think that works only with an apple display. I could set the resoluion to something lower like 1080p, but what I wanted a high native resolution and then scaling of the icons and fonts.
    - wwright 7y ago
      It works with non-Apple displays (I use a Dell 4K monitor with my Mac Mini), but the OS has to be able to detect that the pixel density is suitable. It’s possible that macOS can’t discern enough about your monitor. If you option-click on the resolution options you may be able to manually override it.
      - thirdsun 7y ago
        Careful with that setting. Any non-integer scaling like 1.5x will force macOS to render everything in 5K (I think?) and scale it down to the target resolution - this is way more taxing on GPU, battery life etc. than 2x scaling which simply display all content twice as large (everything is delivered with 2x assets after all).
    - izacus 7y ago
      It showed up for my 4K display (a no-name Samsung) but I don't really know the conditions when the scaling options appear.
rayhendricks 7y ago
I have tried hdmi 2.0 and Displayport from a 32” lg 4K to an Ubuntu 18.04 box with a 1050ti, both seem to work in Linux and windows 10. Displayport to usbc also works at 4kp60 for my MacBook. This was tested with a cheapo monoprice cable and a LG cable. Edit: code & text is 100% better on a 4K moknitor with proper scaling.
jaytaylor 7y ago
The max run length for a display port cable is much, much shorter than HDMI.
Polylactic_acid 7y ago
HDMI exists because the corporations behind the HDMI group are the ones that make most of the TVs and dvd boxes. So by pushing HDMI they get to use it for free while the competitors have to pay extra and are at a disadvantage. Nvidia and AMD are not on the HDMI group which is why on pro and enthusiast hardware displayport is pushed much more. My current gpu has 3 displayport and 1 hdmi. On the tv side, the benefits of displayport are less important since most users are not watching 4k 144hz content and hdmi is now capable of playing 4k at 60hz. So hdmi is not only pushed by the corporations but is also the most convenient option the users want since all of their other hardware uses hdmi and it works fine. Honestly I think GPUs should drop the hdmi port entirely and ship with a displayport to hdmi cable which works fine because displayport gpus also support hdmi and dvi over the dp port.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  You forgot to mention that besides royalties, the main reason HDMI is used in consumers electronics is that it also streams audio with CEC as apposed to Display Port that only does video. For most consumers, plugging in just one cable that does everything is a lot more convenient. Edit: sorry, didn't know DP can also stream audio, my bad
  - neurostimulant 7y ago
    I think HDCP is also one of the top reason. Does display port support content protection like HDMI?
  - jmiserez 7y ago
    DisplayPort does audio. The main reason for HDMI is DRM.
    - matthewmacleod 7y ago
      DisplayPort has done HDCP and DPCP DRM since early on, so I don’t think it’s that.
fyfy18 7y ago
I bought a 4K monitor a few years ago. It's beautiful when displaying 4K, but I'm still waiting for Linux to catch up. I used in on a desktop and that worked mostly ok, but on a laptop with different scalings on the internal and external monitors it is hopeless. I'm not even trying to use both monitors at once, I just want Firefox to be scaled from 2x to 1x when I disconnect the external monitor (and vice versa). I recently bought a new monitor for my office and explicitly avoided a 4K monitor for this reason, it turns out there aren't that many 27" 1440p monitors nowadays. I ended up getting a Lenovo P27h (comes with USB-C) and it works great.
- p1mrx 7y ago
  > it turns out there aren't that many 27" 1440p monitors nowadays. Huh? 1440p is the third most popular resolution on the Steam hardware survey[1], after 1080p and 1366x768. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    The Steam hardware survey is never representative of what the average purchase is. Most computers do not have dedicated graphics, let alone 74% of them using NVIDIA GPUs
    - nate_meurer 7y ago
      For someone who knows nothing about Steam, can you say more about what the hardware survey means? If it doesn't indicate resolutions in actual use, what does it indicate?
      - winrid 7y ago
        The hardware of people that like to game.
      - ksec 7y ago
        Stats from Steam, Since Steam Is for Gamers only, you are only looking at Gamer focused survey, then of coz you get results where 70% of PC has dedicated GPU.
TheOperator 7y ago
I will warn that 4K60 actually has hardware requirements. 4K Netflix requires 3gb dedicated/shared VRAM and really 4gb doesn't hurt. No modern GPUs that I know if will stay in P0 with enough 4K displays attached to them. 4x 4K is also a limit most of the time. 1440p monitors are usually better at the same price point in some way. Maybe refresh rates... Maybe image quality... Well specced 4k displays still cost a decent amount. Still I would say now is a decent type to leap into the ecosystem. The era of 1080p/1440p has already peaked.
twhitbeck 7y ago
I heard this advice somewhere, and I invested nearly $1k in 2 4k monitors and required hardware to run them at 60hz. It was a terrible experience, and I ended up selling them at a loss and going back to 2 1920x1200 monitors (love 16:10). Two main issues for me: I run Linux (4k support is simply _not_ there) and the input lag was very distracting. I tried a couple different 4k monitors, HP Z27 and LG 27UK850-W, and while the LG was slightly better, after a couple months I just couldn't bear it any longer. I'm a full-time dev writing code mostly in Jetbrains IDEs. Hope this can spare somebody else the cost of trying 4k.
- parasense 7y ago
  I run Linux as well; Went from 1920x1200 (the fabulous 16:10 ratio) to 2560x1440 (16:9) and would never go back down. I'm using a triple display setup with 1440p, and they operate at 75Hz no problem (no input/output lag). Coding no problem, multi-task no problem, everything is just peachy. I suspect the jump up to 4k is just symptomatic of crossing the boundary of acceptable image scale. Apparently 1440 approaches the boundary, but 4K is well beyond. My GPU is not very fabulous, and in fact is the limited GPU available with an Intel NUC (Hades Canyon), but the connector to the display is using DisplayPort, and that I believe is the point the OP is trying to make with the Opinion Piece. I find this conclusion troubling because DP is a few thing: a cable standard (shielding, twists of pairs, etc), a differential signaling protocol, and the features layered on top. A lot of people conflate one aspect with the other, which quickly becomes problematic. For example, the DP protocol was incorporated into thunderbolt 3, so the high level stuff mostly, protocol, etc. The thunderbolt 3 cabling sufficiently meets the standard for the cable standard parts (shielding, isolation, etc). I guess where i'm going with this is that HDMI is slightly more problematic here, especially in terms of the matrices of cable standards versus protocol standards, and the consumer buying the cable or understanding what protocol they need, etc... HDMI made the mistake of introducing a kind of "high speed cable" in the HDMI 1.x protocol era, rather than simply jumping to HDMI 2.x, that is to say NOT aligning major spec jumps to to physical cable requirements, but instead to protocol features. It's probably not a fair comparison with DP and HDMI, since DP sorta didn't have the issue, but it becomes apparent that the future generations of DP cable bring physical cable requirements with the next major version bump, protocol topics are there too but we can get to those later. So for example, DP being in Thunderbolt 3, and now Thunderbolt 4 being drafted, and and.. the combination of Thunderbolt 4 with USB 4... which is capable of transporting HDMI 2.x spec protocols. Ugh... So it seems the physical cable specs of video cables is coming to an end, except for high-end video products (e.g. 8K and beyond). In the general purpose (4K and less) sense there will be one cable for both HDMI and DP (where DP is the default protocol). So all that said, I don't really see HDMI the protocol being a problem, but certainly HDMI cables and interfaces are a problem, perhaps not so big a problem considering most modern cables meet or exceed the requirements. But there are outliers, and there is the problem.

JeremyNT 7y ago

> I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. Important caveat: the display needs to actually be big enough for this to matter. I've got the 4k Dell XPS 13, but I run at a lower resolution, since I simply cannot perceive any difference.

zenlot 7y ago

> If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. I am on 4k60 on 43". I spend most of my day in terminal (ubuntu, i3-regolith) - it's nice, but don't think I would be missing out much without it.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
4K on a 43” is a pretty low PPI. If you had something worse than that for a screen of the same size, you would be missing out.
- jfim 7y ago
  It gives a ridiculously large amount of screen real estate, though. For example, on one of those, one can have a side-by-side diff with 120+ character lines and still have half of the screen width remaining for documentation or terminals.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    It feels like too much screen for me, I’m happy with a single 5K 27”. I could never get used to the unfocus or having multiple things on multiple screens all at once.
- zokier 7y ago
  4k@43" is close to PPI of "standard" 1440p@27" or 1080p@22". Considering that the viewing distance probably is bit longer, it sounds pretty appropriate for 100% scaling
clarkmo 7y ago
You're not reaping the benefits of high pixel density at that size. It's a shame 5K 27" monitors aren't more prevalent. That perfect 2x pixel density increase from 1440p is incredibly sharp.
- kitsunesoba 7y ago
  Writing code on 27” 5k with 2x scaling is incredible. It’s the sweet spot of sharpness to screen real estate and I agree that manufacturers should focus more on this format.
  - Matthias247 7y ago
    The problem with that resolution is that neither hdmi 2.0 nor the equivalent DisplayPort revision supports it. Therefore it is currently a thunderbolt 3 only thing - which has its own set of issues. I’m looking forward to see more 5k+ screens once those standards evolve
  - TheOperator 7y ago
    It's not that I don't acknowledge that it's better it just doesn't seem worth it unless specifically buying the 5k iMac. TB3 as a display standard + costs double what a 4k monitor does + lack of guarantee of long term vendor support for either TB3 as an input or 5k. I also think there are just such economies of scale around 4k as well.

dmos62 7y ago

> If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. I really don't. Would anyone care to share their experience? Currently, I'm thinking that a vertical monitor would be an improvement for me, but I don't see a reason to get a screen that's several times denser.

mlyle 7y ago
They're probably suggesting to get a bigger monitor at the same time. You can have somewhat higher DPI and smoother text, and more real estate. If you're used to 24" 1080P, going to 32" 4K gets you 1.5x the DPI and 1.77x the screen area. For what's now a $300 monitor, that is a pretty significant improvement overall. The DPI means my characters go from 9x18 pixels to 13x27, which is a big difference in text rendering fidelity and just feels a little nicer. And the additional screen real estate speaks for itself.
- quikorder 7y ago
  Would you mind linking the $300 monitor you're talking about?
  - sjm-lbm 7y ago
    Not OP, but I've been using an older version of this monitor for about two years now: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_B079H5Z4S8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ref=psdc_1292115011_t1_... There's quite a few choices at that price point, though.
  - phonon 7y ago
    https://smile.amazon.com/LG-32UK50T-W-Class-FreeSync-Monitor/dp/B07K3P7ZBS/ https://smile.amazon.com/LG-32UK50T-W-Class-FreeSync-Monitor...
    - bsenftner 7y ago
      Speaking as a guy with six 4K monitors on my desk, get Samsung over LG. My two LG monitors are a bit soft, whereas the Samsungs are sharp as diamonds.

G4E 7y ago

I'm always confused by those statements, that it's rare to find a monitor without DP. I live in France, and actually HDMI is the norm here. All low-range and mid-range screens are HDMI only, and it's rare to find a DP actually. It's especially sad when you wants to use freesync on Linux, as mesa (the gpu driver) added support in 2018 for DP, but it's still not usable over HDMI.

sq_ 7y ago
IIRC, Freesync will only ever work over DP because it relies on features that the HDMI protocol doesn't/won't ever have. Also, it's very interesting that things are so different in France with regard to display cables. I would've assumed that, since it's mostly the same manufacturers making everything around the world, they'd have more or less standard models across regions.
- TomVDB 7y ago
  The DVI and HDMI protocols doesn’t need anything specific to support variable refresh rate: nothing prevents one to just extend the vertical front porch time. It’s just a question whether or not the GPU can generate that kind of signal and whether the monitor scaler chip is willing to deal with it.
- Latty 7y ago
  HDMI 2.1 has a variable refresh rate mode which will presumably become the standard over time. https://www.hdmi.org/spec21Sub/VariableRefreshRate https://www.hdmi.org/spec21Sub/VariableRefreshRate
proverbialbunny 7y ago
Wow. That's surprising to hear that there are 4k60 monitors without DP. I'm sorry to hear you can't find a proper monitor in France.
- G4E 7y ago
  I don't know about 4k60Hz screens actually. I'm not sure they are in the low/mid range price point (yet) ? I was responding more generally about HDMI and it's usefulness.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

I prefer to write code on a 5K iMac, it is the best 27” screen out there, and code looks paper-like in resolution. 220 PPI is an ideal pixel density.

m463 7y ago
Apple also enables fancy features and tweaks on it's own hardware.
arvinsim 7y ago
It's unfortunate that the price difference between 27" 4k and 27" 5k is enormous.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  One is 163ppi and the other is 218ppi, that’s a huge difference. Anyways, it isn’t that bad if you just buy an entire iMac 5k. But ya, the LG standalone is pricey.

mumblemumble 7y ago

I have a large 4K monitor when I'm my desk in the office, a smaller 1920x440 at home, and just the (Retina) laptop screen when I'm elsewhere. My sense is that the 4K monitor is a bit nicer than the 1920x440, but nowhere near enough nicer for me to have ever felt motivated to replace the 10 year old monitor I already have at home. The real difference is between 2 monitors vs just the one. I also briefly had a 15" laptop with a 4K monitor, and UGH NO CRANK THAT RESOLUTION DOWN RIGHT NOW. My take-away: Ignore the marketing fluff that focuses overmuch on resolutions; the resolution is not an end in and of itself. Pick a screen size, and then pick a resolution that gives you an appropriate DPI for that size.

caymanjim 7y ago
Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons (e.g. gaming). Every OS has UI scaling built-in now. It works perfectly in Windows 10 and MacOS. It works pretty well in Linux, but given the mess that is Linux UI toolkits, not all applications will scale properly. Everything I use regularly looks fine, even in experimental non-standard scaling like 175%. Running a 4k monitor at 1920x1080 looks like crap. Running a 4k monitor with 200% UI scaling gets you the same dimensions but glorious smooth fonts.
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  > Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons ehhhhhh..... > It works pretty well in Linux, but given the mess that is Linux UI toolkits, not all applications will scale properly. Yep, exactly.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Don't ever turn the resolution on a 4k monitor down, unless it's for performance reasons (e.g. gaming). Every OS has UI scaling built-in now. So, I have a game I want to run hitting the following properties: - The game should only render 1920x1080. This keeps fps around 30. - The game should cover my whole screen. - Running the game should not resize all my other open windows. All of these seem like stupid-obvious goals, but there doesn't seem to be a way to get them all. The game itself offers fullscreen (which automatically resizes my other open windows, when the game resolution is lower than the desktop resolution -- I don't understand this ridiculous anti-feature, but it doesn't seem to be configurable), and windowed mode where the window occupies a range of pixels equal to the game resolution (which is a really small window, and really hurts enjoyment of the game). I've tried sending win32 messages [well, SetWindowLong; I think "messages" are something different] to a 1920x1080 game window to expand its rectangle, but the game just starts rendering higher-resolution images for the bigger window -- even though it's configured for 1920x1080 -- dropping the frame rate. Are you saying there's a way for me to scale this window to get the behavior I want? (Render a 1920x1080 image, then paint it over the 3840x2160 desktop.) What is it?

sphix0r 7y ago

> I'm an early adopter of 4k60. If you write code and you're not on 4k, you don't know what you're missing. 4k is great. 4K adds a lot of screen-estate. Having a "normal" 27" 4k screen, I recently worked on a ultra-wide curved screen. It blew me away. I can so much recommend curved screens over regular 4k screens. All you applications can fit next to each other on eye height.

Latty 7y ago
Those curved displays look nice, but they only compare well in real estate to a single 4k monitor. I'd be a step down from a double/triple 4k setup.
jiggawatts 7y ago
This is a very... erm... "early PC era" way of thinking. Back in the days, many moons ago, both displays and software typically had a fixed DPI (96 for Windows) and so a larger resolution was basically the same thing as a larger display. The two were interchangeable. In the photography and print world (and everywhere else) the resolution is just the "level of detail" or "sharpness", completely independent of the size. With Windows 10, Windows Server 2016, and recent-ish OSX the display resolution is finally decoupled from the display size. This is especially true at nice even resolutions such as precisely double or triple the legacy 96 DPI (200% or 300% scaling). I've been using 4K monitors for over a decade, basically since they've been available and it always cracks me up to see some people run them at "100%" scaling with miniscule text. That's not the point. The point is that at 200% scaling text looks razor sharp, but is exactly the same size as it would be at 1920x1080.. You can clearly distinguish fonts that look virtually identical at 1920x1080. It's amazing, you have to try it yourself. Caveat: If you need (or nearly need) prescription glasses, 4K or higher resolutions may not make much of a difference for you. In this case, you're likely better off having a bigger screen and/or a very big screen further away from you.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  That whole reasoning seems suspect to me, honestly. "I want 4x as many pixels so that every pixel can be scaled up to 4 pixels!". Sure font rendering can take advantage of that, but is the difference significant? To my eyes, no, not really.

jhallenworld 7y ago

Do you really need 60 Hz for writing code? I've found that on cheap laptops it helps to set the refresh to 40Hz in the name of stability- it makes the recover from suspend process more reliable for some reason.

paulddraper 7y ago
Using a mouse on 30Hz is like molasses.
- bluedino 7y ago
  Scrolling is gross too
- myself248 7y ago
  Now you've got me curious. I've been playing with various Bluetooth and 2.4GHz-proprietary-wireless mice, along with a cheapie wired one, and never noticed much difference. But it's always been at the same refresh rate. Brb, finding out what my screen maxes out at.
- jrockway 7y ago
  Honestly, at 30Hz you can feel the input lag. It always feels like the mouse is a little behind, and the key you pressed isn't quite there yet. It's only 33ms, but you can definitely see it. 60Hz is quite usable but if you are used to 120 or 144Hz you will notice it immediately.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  It gives me some nasty headaches too.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  30hz is a non starter for me no matter what task I am doing.
rhinoceraptor 7y ago
Yes, I would even want 120hz. It makes using the computer feel so much more responsive and fluid.

detrino 7y ago

Do you use Mac OS X? When using Windows or Linux I don't find much benefit in text rendering on a 4k display. But as Mac OS X has no sub pixel rendering or grid fitting text looks terrible without a high ppi display.

jjoonathan 7y ago
When did that happen? Back in my day, OSX was the one with sub pixel rendering and Windows users would constantly complain that it looked fuzzy.
- detrino 7y ago
  OSX has had sub pixel rendering disabled by default since Mojave. It also never had the strong hinting that you can find on Linux and Windows which makes text significantly sharper at the cost of differing from the shape as specified by the font.
  - radicaldreamer 7y ago
    They were paying to license Microsoft’s ClearType patents and decided not to pay anymore once retina displays had become near standard for lost Macs and subpixel rendering was no longer necessary
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      If true, it's a pity they were paying. Apple's SPR goes back to the Woz days, whereas ClearType didn't come around until XP, and wasn't a default until Vista.
AnthonBerg 7y ago
macOS looks fine on a 32” 4K
chrisweekly 7y ago
This! MacOS (mbp15r) with seemingly any non-Apple external monitor, text looks just awful regardless of font or resolution settings.

m463 7y ago

If you're using it for coding, 4k can be wonderful, but requires desktop scaling. If you aren't able to configure it, you get just get microscopic text (unless you're using something like a 55" tv as your monitor)

izacus 7y ago
For machines that don't need to mix scaling this is pretty much a solved problem - I've run Windows at 125%, Linux/Cinnamon at 150% and OS X at ~150% and they've all preformed just fine for coding tasks. The only mess is if you have mixed displays - and even that is mostly still problem only on Linux.
- m463 7y ago
  OSX didn't allow a 150% setting for me - I think that works only with an apple display. I could set the resoluion to something lower like 1080p, but what I wanted a high native resolution and then scaling of the icons and fonts.
  - wwright 7y ago
    It works with non-Apple displays (I use a Dell 4K monitor with my Mac Mini), but the OS has to be able to detect that the pixel density is suitable. It’s possible that macOS can’t discern enough about your monitor. If you option-click on the resolution options you may be able to manually override it.
    - thirdsun 7y ago
      Careful with that setting. Any non-integer scaling like 1.5x will force macOS to render everything in 5K (I think?) and scale it down to the target resolution - this is way more taxing on GPU, battery life etc. than 2x scaling which simply display all content twice as large (everything is delivered with 2x assets after all).
  - izacus 7y ago
    It showed up for my 4K display (a no-name Samsung) but I don't really know the conditions when the scaling options appear.

rayhendricks 7y ago

I have tried hdmi 2.0 and Displayport from a 32” lg 4K to an Ubuntu 18.04 box with a 1050ti, both seem to work in Linux and windows 10. Displayport to usbc also works at 4kp60 for my MacBook. This was tested with a cheapo monoprice cable and a LG cable. Edit: code & text is 100% better on a 4K moknitor with proper scaling.

jaytaylor 7y ago

The max run length for a display port cable is much, much shorter than HDMI.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago

HDMI exists because the corporations behind the HDMI group are the ones that make most of the TVs and dvd boxes. So by pushing HDMI they get to use it for free while the competitors have to pay extra and are at a disadvantage. Nvidia and AMD are not on the HDMI group which is why on pro and enthusiast hardware displayport is pushed much more. My current gpu has 3 displayport and 1 hdmi. On the tv side, the benefits of displayport are less important since most users are not watching 4k 144hz content and hdmi is now capable of playing 4k at 60hz. So hdmi is not only pushed by the corporations but is also the most convenient option the users want since all of their other hardware uses hdmi and it works fine. Honestly I think GPUs should drop the hdmi port entirely and ship with a displayport to hdmi cable which works fine because displayport gpus also support hdmi and dvi over the dp port.

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
You forgot to mention that besides royalties, the main reason HDMI is used in consumers electronics is that it also streams audio with CEC as apposed to Display Port that only does video. For most consumers, plugging in just one cable that does everything is a lot more convenient. Edit: sorry, didn't know DP can also stream audio, my bad
- neurostimulant 7y ago
  I think HDCP is also one of the top reason. Does display port support content protection like HDMI?
- jmiserez 7y ago
  DisplayPort does audio. The main reason for HDMI is DRM.
  - matthewmacleod 7y ago
    DisplayPort has done HDCP and DPCP DRM since early on, so I don’t think it’s that.

fyfy18 7y ago

I bought a 4K monitor a few years ago. It's beautiful when displaying 4K, but I'm still waiting for Linux to catch up. I used in on a desktop and that worked mostly ok, but on a laptop with different scalings on the internal and external monitors it is hopeless. I'm not even trying to use both monitors at once, I just want Firefox to be scaled from 2x to 1x when I disconnect the external monitor (and vice versa). I recently bought a new monitor for my office and explicitly avoided a 4K monitor for this reason, it turns out there aren't that many 27" 1440p monitors nowadays. I ended up getting a Lenovo P27h (comes with USB-C) and it works great.

p1mrx 7y ago
> it turns out there aren't that many 27" 1440p monitors nowadays. Huh? 1440p is the third most popular resolution on the Steam hardware survey[1], after 1080p and 1366x768. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  The Steam hardware survey is never representative of what the average purchase is. Most computers do not have dedicated graphics, let alone 74% of them using NVIDIA GPUs
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    For someone who knows nothing about Steam, can you say more about what the hardware survey means? If it doesn't indicate resolutions in actual use, what does it indicate?
    - winrid 7y ago
      The hardware of people that like to game.
    - ksec 7y ago
      Stats from Steam, Since Steam Is for Gamers only, you are only looking at Gamer focused survey, then of coz you get results where 70% of PC has dedicated GPU.

TheOperator 7y ago

I will warn that 4K60 actually has hardware requirements. 4K Netflix requires 3gb dedicated/shared VRAM and really 4gb doesn't hurt. No modern GPUs that I know if will stay in P0 with enough 4K displays attached to them. 4x 4K is also a limit most of the time. 1440p monitors are usually better at the same price point in some way. Maybe refresh rates... Maybe image quality... Well specced 4k displays still cost a decent amount. Still I would say now is a decent type to leap into the ecosystem. The era of 1080p/1440p has already peaked.

twhitbeck 7y ago

I heard this advice somewhere, and I invested nearly $1k in 2 4k monitors and required hardware to run them at 60hz. It was a terrible experience, and I ended up selling them at a loss and going back to 2 1920x1200 monitors (love 16:10). Two main issues for me: I run Linux (4k support is simply _not_ there) and the input lag was very distracting. I tried a couple different 4k monitors, HP Z27 and LG 27UK850-W, and while the LG was slightly better, after a couple months I just couldn't bear it any longer. I'm a full-time dev writing code mostly in Jetbrains IDEs. Hope this can spare somebody else the cost of trying 4k.

parasense 7y ago
I run Linux as well; Went from 1920x1200 (the fabulous 16:10 ratio) to 2560x1440 (16:9) and would never go back down. I'm using a triple display setup with 1440p, and they operate at 75Hz no problem (no input/output lag). Coding no problem, multi-task no problem, everything is just peachy. I suspect the jump up to 4k is just symptomatic of crossing the boundary of acceptable image scale. Apparently 1440 approaches the boundary, but 4K is well beyond. My GPU is not very fabulous, and in fact is the limited GPU available with an Intel NUC (Hades Canyon), but the connector to the display is using DisplayPort, and that I believe is the point the OP is trying to make with the Opinion Piece. I find this conclusion troubling because DP is a few thing: a cable standard (shielding, twists of pairs, etc), a differential signaling protocol, and the features layered on top. A lot of people conflate one aspect with the other, which quickly becomes problematic. For example, the DP protocol was incorporated into thunderbolt 3, so the high level stuff mostly, protocol, etc. The thunderbolt 3 cabling sufficiently meets the standard for the cable standard parts (shielding, isolation, etc). I guess where i'm going with this is that HDMI is slightly more problematic here, especially in terms of the matrices of cable standards versus protocol standards, and the consumer buying the cable or understanding what protocol they need, etc... HDMI made the mistake of introducing a kind of "high speed cable" in the HDMI 1.x protocol era, rather than simply jumping to HDMI 2.x, that is to say NOT aligning major spec jumps to to physical cable requirements, but instead to protocol features. It's probably not a fair comparison with DP and HDMI, since DP sorta didn't have the issue, but it becomes apparent that the future generations of DP cable bring physical cable requirements with the next major version bump, protocol topics are there too but we can get to those later. So for example, DP being in Thunderbolt 3, and now Thunderbolt 4 being drafted, and and.. the combination of Thunderbolt 4 with USB 4... which is capable of transporting HDMI 2.x spec protocols. Ugh... So it seems the physical cable specs of video cables is coming to an end, except for high-end video products (e.g. 8K and beyond). In the general purpose (4K and less) sense there will be one cable for both HDMI and DP (where DP is the default protocol). So all that said, I don't really see HDMI the protocol being a problem, but certainly HDMI cables and interfaces are a problem, perhaps not so big a problem considering most modern cables meet or exceed the requirements. But there are outliers, and there is the problem.