3 ms·

"Fractional scaling does not work with the NVIDIA proprietary driver (bug 1870736, bug 1873403)." That's kind of a big deal for any desktop users with a high re

"Fractional scaling does not work with the NVIDIA proprietary driver (bug 1870736, bug 1873403)." That's kind of a big deal for any desktop users with a high resolution display.

sho_hn 6y ago
While I would agree it's certainly not insignificant, fractional means, say, 1.5.x. A nice high-resolution display will be 2x, which will generally result in a nicer experience (largely due to how software deals with it or not). Now many people do indeed have displays where a fractional multiplier works better, but as a buying rec - try to avoid them.
- innocenat 6y ago
  You usually want 1.5x for 13.3" laptop with 1080p which is not uncommon at all and is kinda hard to avoid.
  - jhasse 6y ago
    I work around that by setting the default scale in the browser and that's it.
- oefrha 6y ago
  The nice 2x high-resolution display is generally significantly more expensive (just compare 4k and 5k displays at 27’’), so the advice isn’t wrong, it’s just not very practical.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    > just compare 4k and 5k displays at 27’’ I have one of these, a Samsung U28E590D which I'm very happy with in every way. That thing cost me 220 € (purchased in Germany), so I don't see what's particularly expensive about 4K 27" displays at this point unless you have some very particular requirements about shortest possible reaction time or precise color calibration.
    - oefrha 6y ago
      The point is 5k 27’’ displays are significantly more expensive than 4k 27’’ ones (which are very affordable). And unless you prefer very large everything, running a 4k 27’’ display at 2x (meaning 1920x1080) is not desirable. But 5k 27’’ displays can be relatively comfortably run at 2x.
      - jabl 6y ago
        I have a 4k 32", and IMHO 1x is too tiny, 2x too large, something like 125% or 150% is just right for me.
        debian3 6y ago
        I always use mine at 1x
- Too 6y ago
  If you put your scale to 2x you might as well save your money and buy an old 1200p screen instead of 4K. Biggest benefit of a 4k screen is more screen real estate, smoother text is of course nice too but imo secondary. When comparing image quality you also have to take panel type into consideration, a very good 2k IPS screen can still be cheaper and have better image quality than a entry level 4K with TN panel.
kart23 6y ago
Yeah, its one of the main reasons using GNOME is near impossible for me. I have a 32" 4K. 2x is too big, 1x is too small. Also, the nvidia drivers are weird for some cards in linux. I'm not running ubuntu, but I have the same exact problem as this guy. https://askubuntu.com/questions/1133071/why-is-my-tty-green https://askubuntu.com/questions/1133071/why-is-my-tty-green
foresto 6y ago
To any Nvidia desktop users out there who don't know yet: the AMD drivers are getting quite good lately. I switched this year, and have been very happy about it. Just be careful if you're buying a new model of GPU, as the drivers are a few months behind in new hardware support.

"Fractional scaling does not work with the NVIDIA proprietary driver (bug 1870736, bug 1873403)." That's kind of a big deal for any desktop users with a high resolution display.

sho_hn 6y ago

While I would agree it's certainly not insignificant, fractional means, say, 1.5.x. A nice high-resolution display will be 2x, which will generally result in a nicer experience (largely due to how software deals with it or not). Now many people do indeed have displays where a fractional multiplier works better, but as a buying rec - try to avoid them.

innocenat 6y ago
You usually want 1.5x for 13.3" laptop with 1080p which is not uncommon at all and is kinda hard to avoid.
- jhasse 6y ago
  I work around that by setting the default scale in the browser and that's it.
oefrha 6y ago
The nice 2x high-resolution display is generally significantly more expensive (just compare 4k and 5k displays at 27’’), so the advice isn’t wrong, it’s just not very practical.
- majewsky 6y ago
  > just compare 4k and 5k displays at 27’’ I have one of these, a Samsung U28E590D which I'm very happy with in every way. That thing cost me 220 € (purchased in Germany), so I don't see what's particularly expensive about 4K 27" displays at this point unless you have some very particular requirements about shortest possible reaction time or precise color calibration.
  - oefrha 6y ago
    The point is 5k 27’’ displays are significantly more expensive than 4k 27’’ ones (which are very affordable). And unless you prefer very large everything, running a 4k 27’’ display at 2x (meaning 1920x1080) is not desirable. But 5k 27’’ displays can be relatively comfortably run at 2x.
    - jabl 6y ago
      I have a 4k 32", and IMHO 1x is too tiny, 2x too large, something like 125% or 150% is just right for me.
      - debian3 6y ago
        I always use mine at 1x
Too 6y ago
If you put your scale to 2x you might as well save your money and buy an old 1200p screen instead of 4K. Biggest benefit of a 4k screen is more screen real estate, smoother text is of course nice too but imo secondary. When comparing image quality you also have to take panel type into consideration, a very good 2k IPS screen can still be cheaper and have better image quality than a entry level 4K with TN panel.

kart23 6y ago

Yeah, its one of the main reasons using GNOME is near impossible for me. I have a 32" 4K. 2x is too big, 1x is too small. Also, the nvidia drivers are weird for some cards in linux. I'm not running ubuntu, but I have the same exact problem as this guy. https://askubuntu.com/questions/1133071/why-is-my-tty-green https://askubuntu.com/questions/1133071/why-is-my-tty-green

foresto 6y ago

To any Nvidia desktop users out there who don't know yet: the AMD drivers are getting quite good lately. I switched this year, and have been very happy about it. Just be careful if you're buying a new model of GPU, as the drivers are a few months behind in new hardware support.