16 ms·

The M2 Pro chips finally allow 8k displays! That's a pretty significant new feature (at least on Macs, Windows has supported 8k displays for some time already).

dewey 4y ago
I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature.
- hbn 4y ago
  I know people have made naive comments about computers for years, "why would you ever need more than 8MB of RAM?", etc But I genuinely believe 4k is the upper limit where you stop seeing benefits in increased resolution for a monitor. Our eyes do have limits after all! I have pretty good vision and 4k is enough, and at that point I'd prefer focus on other aspects of picture quality like color accuracy and higher refresh rate. It's already annoying enough how large a screenshot of your monitor comes out (just tested on my desktop and it came out to 10MB). 8k is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > But I genuinely believe 4k is the upper limit where you stop seeing benefits in increased resolution for a monitor. Our eyes do have limits after all! I think it depends on how big the monitor is. You're probably right for 27" monitors. But running a 43" TV as a monitor, the pixel density is quite a bit lower than I'd like.
    - moffkalast 4y ago
      But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance, but much further away. So it really shouldn't make that much of a difference as long as the angular resolution checks out. I've currently got a 32" one running 1080p, from a normal viewing distance I can't see any pixels at all. Going beyond that and having to render 4x as much already seems super gratuitous. 8K is just completely ridiculous unless you're projecting a DnD game board or something that will be viewed up close.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        > But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance, You might be if it had a higher pixel density. There are plenty of people who run 2, 3 or even 4 smaller monitors next to each other at close distances. That could potentially be replaced by one much larger 8k monitor in the future.
      - pwinnski 4y ago
        So many assumptions here! I use tooling to divide my 4K monitor into five rectangles: two across the top each taking up 1/4 of the screen, and three across the bottom each taking up 1/6 of the screen. Even with that, I have to layer some things, and am often actively working with three or more of the "virtual screens" at once. I am old enough that I've started to wear reading glasses to counter my age-related presbyopia, but if I had an 8K monitor it would probably sit less than two feet from my face just as this 4k monitor does, and I would make use of every pixel.
      - nordsieck 4y ago
        > But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance I sit 16-20 inches away from my monitor. I don't really think I sit further from this monitor than smaller monitors I've had in the past. Or a laptop on a stand. As other people point out, I use it like multiple monitors that are seamlessly glued together with a tiling window manager (MacOS so Rectangle).
      - positr0n 4y ago
        I and several other programmers I know use a 43" monitor an arms distance away. I run it at native resolution, like it's 4 1080p monitors glued together with no bezel. I can definitely tell reading text is exactly like reading from a 1080p monitor compared to my retina display macbook screen right next to it. A 43" 8k monitor for $750 or so would be an insta-buy for me.
  - criddell 4y ago
    Do those same eye limits apply to printers? A 24” 4k screen is 180 PPI (according to Google). Can you tell the difference between a page of text and images laser printed at 200 dpi and 1200 dpi?
  - llampx 4y ago
    I think VR can definitely benefit from more pixels.
    - accrual 4y ago
      Agree. The closer the display is to the eyes, the more pixels are needed to make it convincing. I feel the tech is close though. The 2016 HTC Vive (1080 × 1200/eye) is quite pixelated, but the 2020 Index headset (1440 × 1600/eye) looks smooth and clear.
  - philistine 4y ago
    For the unvarnished truth about when resolution is good enough, look at what Apple calls Retina. 4K at 21-inch, 5k at 27-inches, 6k at 32-inches. The resolution for all those displays is good enough to stop individual pixel perception. That's the best idea of what's good enough.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature. From what I understand, even 4k is usually a waste for a living room TV when viewed across the room from a couch. People just don't have the visual acuity to really tell the difference. But I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 8k when a 43" TV is 16" away from me. I get that companies want to make money so the new tech is going into big TVs. But at some level, it's very strange to me.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I have a 65" 4k TV and sit across the room from it. The difference from 1080p to 4k is definitely noticeable. It's not miles apart but the details are absolutely crisper and nicer. I imagine the benefits of 8k only really start showing on 80"+ screens.
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      That's fair. I've seen a number of resolution charts like the one here[1]. But I suppose I forgot how different peoples' setups can be. Sometimes across the room is 6', sometimes it's 15'. And for sure, screen size and eyesight can make a big difference. --- 1. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r...
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        Right. Indeed my living room is not very big. I have made an error though, my TV is 55" - not 65".
cubefox 4y ago
Didn't the M1 MacBook have the much more basic issue of only supporting a single external monitor via HDMI?
- officeplant 4y ago
  Regular M2 still has the same limitation of two total displays. Unless you use USB->HDMI adaptors that have their own display controllers.
  - cubefox 4y ago
    This is crazy. Couldn't much weaker Intel chips do this years ago?
    - 988747 4y ago
      It's Apple approach to market segmentation: you want more than 1 external monitor? Buy macbook pro with M1/M2 Pro/Max, for a $1000 more.
    - officeplant 4y ago
      Intel HD graphics introduced with Westmere (2010) supported dual displays, and then Ivy Bridge (2012) supported three displays on the iGPU. AMD's Llano (2011) supported dual/triple(1) displays on release and Trinity(2012) brought support for up to four displays at once. (1)You could do triple displays on Llano, but it took a particular set of boards using Dual-Link DVI to drive two monitors IIRC.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  The M1 Pro and M1 Max can have multiple display outputs. The M1, be it in the Macbook Air, Mac Mini or Macbook Pro could only ever have 2 display outputs. On laptops, one of those was permanently reserved for the built in display.
  - dad_chowder 4y ago
    Specifically you need the 14 or 16 inch M1 Pro for multiple display outputs. The M1 Pro 13 inch only supports one external display. Same with the M2 Pro 13 inch. This is very confusing imo
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
avisser 4y ago
I'm over 40. I can't see all the pixels on a 4k display, let alone 8k. I'm still happy with my 2013 MBP w/ Retina.
- frereubu 4y ago
  I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but alongside 3nm processes there’s a cutting edge technology called “glasses”…
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Glasses help with focusing, but they don't help if your sensors (retinas) are just degrading. Putting a very fancy lens on a 0.3MP sensor doesn't give you higher resolution photos.
    - frereubu 4y ago
      GP didn't mention degrading retinas, just age. I'm over 50 and need glasses but, while acknowledging that life is a one-way journey, I just don't like people talking like ageing is necessarily this slide into decrepitude after 40.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        > GP didn't mention degrading retinas, just age. Retinas degrading is a factor of age.
        frereubu 4y ago
        The vast, vast majority of people in their 40s (wearing appropriate glasses if necessary) can tell the difference between an average monitor and a 4K display, which is the context of their comment.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  It's not just about the resolution, it's about physical area. My plan is to buy a 65" or 75" 8k TV and use it as computer monitor. I'll have a screen that is as big as my desk. A display of that size will allow me to have my IDE, source control, terminals, log files, the app that I'm developing, my email, the CI dashboard all visible at the same time. Of course I'll mainly use the bottom center of the huge display, but I think it will be a completely different experience when you no longer have to cmd-tab between apps but can just glance up/left/right to see what's going on.

dewey 4y ago

I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature.

hbn 4y ago
I know people have made naive comments about computers for years, "why would you ever need more than 8MB of RAM?", etc But I genuinely believe 4k is the upper limit where you stop seeing benefits in increased resolution for a monitor. Our eyes do have limits after all! I have pretty good vision and 4k is enough, and at that point I'd prefer focus on other aspects of picture quality like color accuracy and higher refresh rate. It's already annoying enough how large a screenshot of your monitor comes out (just tested on my desktop and it came out to 10MB). 8k is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > But I genuinely believe 4k is the upper limit where you stop seeing benefits in increased resolution for a monitor. Our eyes do have limits after all! I think it depends on how big the monitor is. You're probably right for 27" monitors. But running a 43" TV as a monitor, the pixel density is quite a bit lower than I'd like.
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance, but much further away. So it really shouldn't make that much of a difference as long as the angular resolution checks out. I've currently got a 32" one running 1080p, from a normal viewing distance I can't see any pixels at all. Going beyond that and having to render 4x as much already seems super gratuitous. 8K is just completely ridiculous unless you're projecting a DnD game board or something that will be viewed up close.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance, You might be if it had a higher pixel density. There are plenty of people who run 2, 3 or even 4 smaller monitors next to each other at close distances. That could potentially be replaced by one much larger 8k monitor in the future.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      So many assumptions here! I use tooling to divide my 4K monitor into five rectangles: two across the top each taking up 1/4 of the screen, and three across the bottom each taking up 1/6 of the screen. Even with that, I have to layer some things, and am often actively working with three or more of the "virtual screens" at once. I am old enough that I've started to wear reading glasses to counter my age-related presbyopia, but if I had an 8K monitor it would probably sit less than two feet from my face just as this 4k monitor does, and I would make use of every pixel.
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > But simultaneously you won't be looking at that giant monitor from the same distance I sit 16-20 inches away from my monitor. I don't really think I sit further from this monitor than smaller monitors I've had in the past. Or a laptop on a stand. As other people point out, I use it like multiple monitors that are seamlessly glued together with a tiling window manager (MacOS so Rectangle).
    - positr0n 4y ago
      I and several other programmers I know use a 43" monitor an arms distance away. I run it at native resolution, like it's 4 1080p monitors glued together with no bezel. I can definitely tell reading text is exactly like reading from a 1080p monitor compared to my retina display macbook screen right next to it. A 43" 8k monitor for $750 or so would be an insta-buy for me.
- criddell 4y ago
  Do those same eye limits apply to printers? A 24” 4k screen is 180 PPI (according to Google). Can you tell the difference between a page of text and images laser printed at 200 dpi and 1200 dpi?
- llampx 4y ago
  I think VR can definitely benefit from more pixels.
  - accrual 4y ago
    Agree. The closer the display is to the eyes, the more pixels are needed to make it convincing. I feel the tech is close though. The 2016 HTC Vive (1080 × 1200/eye) is quite pixelated, but the 2020 Index headset (1440 × 1600/eye) looks smooth and clear.
- philistine 4y ago
  For the unvarnished truth about when resolution is good enough, look at what Apple calls Retina. 4K at 21-inch, 5k at 27-inches, 6k at 32-inches. The resolution for all those displays is good enough to stop individual pixel perception. That's the best idea of what's good enough.
nordsieck 4y ago
> I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature. From what I understand, even 4k is usually a waste for a living room TV when viewed across the room from a couch. People just don't have the visual acuity to really tell the difference. But I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 8k when a 43" TV is 16" away from me. I get that companies want to make money so the new tech is going into big TVs. But at some level, it's very strange to me.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  I have a 65" 4k TV and sit across the room from it. The difference from 1080p to 4k is definitely noticeable. It's not miles apart but the details are absolutely crisper and nicer. I imagine the benefits of 8k only really start showing on 80"+ screens.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    That's fair. I've seen a number of resolution charts like the one here[1]. But I suppose I forgot how different peoples' setups can be. Sometimes across the room is 6', sometimes it's 15'. And for sure, screen size and eyesight can make a big difference. --- 1. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r...
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      Right. Indeed my living room is not very big. I have made an error though, my TV is 55" - not 65".

cubefox 4y ago

Didn't the M1 MacBook have the much more basic issue of only supporting a single external monitor via HDMI?

officeplant 4y ago
Regular M2 still has the same limitation of two total displays. Unless you use USB->HDMI adaptors that have their own display controllers.
- cubefox 4y ago
  This is crazy. Couldn't much weaker Intel chips do this years ago?
  - 988747 4y ago
    It's Apple approach to market segmentation: you want more than 1 external monitor? Buy macbook pro with M1/M2 Pro/Max, for a $1000 more.
  - officeplant 4y ago
    Intel HD graphics introduced with Westmere (2010) supported dual displays, and then Ivy Bridge (2012) supported three displays on the iGPU. AMD's Llano (2011) supported dual/triple(1) displays on release and Trinity(2012) brought support for up to four displays at once. (1)You could do triple displays on Llano, but it took a particular set of boards using Dual-Link DVI to drive two monitors IIRC.
eptcyka 4y ago
The M1 Pro and M1 Max can have multiple display outputs. The M1, be it in the Macbook Air, Mac Mini or Macbook Pro could only ever have 2 display outputs. On laptops, one of those was permanently reserved for the built in display.
- dad_chowder 4y ago
  Specifically you need the 14 or 16 inch M1 Pro for multiple display outputs. The M1 Pro 13 inch only supports one external display. Same with the M2 Pro 13 inch. This is very confusing imo

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

avisser 4y ago

I'm over 40. I can't see all the pixels on a 4k display, let alone 8k. I'm still happy with my 2013 MBP w/ Retina.

frereubu 4y ago
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but alongside 3nm processes there’s a cutting edge technology called “glasses”…
- vel0city 4y ago
  Glasses help with focusing, but they don't help if your sensors (retinas) are just degrading. Putting a very fancy lens on a 0.3MP sensor doesn't give you higher resolution photos.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    GP didn't mention degrading retinas, just age. I'm over 50 and need glasses but, while acknowledging that life is a one-way journey, I just don't like people talking like ageing is necessarily this slide into decrepitude after 40.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      > GP didn't mention degrading retinas, just age. Retinas degrading is a factor of age.
      - frereubu 4y ago
        The vast, vast majority of people in their 40s (wearing appropriate glasses if necessary) can tell the difference between an average monitor and a 4K display, which is the context of their comment.
newaccount74 4y ago
It's not just about the resolution, it's about physical area. My plan is to buy a 65" or 75" 8k TV and use it as computer monitor. I'll have a screen that is as big as my desk. A display of that size will allow me to have my IDE, source control, terminals, log files, the app that I'm developing, my email, the CI dashboard all visible at the same time. Of course I'll mainly use the bottom center of the huge display, but I think it will be a completely different experience when you no longer have to cmd-tab between apps but can just glance up/left/right to see what's going on.