5 ms·

There really isn't much benefit of going above 4K with either TVs or desktop displays and multiple drawbacks. I run dual 4K monitors on my desktop and the pixel

by starky 3y ago

There really isn't much benefit of going above 4K with either TVs or desktop displays and multiple drawbacks. I run dual 4K monitors on my desktop and the pixel size is smaller than you can resolve at reasonable viewing distances, while I've yet to find an OS that deals with HiDPI displays well (Windows and Linux are both terrible at this). If you want to game you are pushing 4X the pixels as with 1080p so you don't get good framerates unless you spend an exorbitant amount on a GPU. For content viewing, 4K is probably the upper limit of what you want, and if you game there probably isn't much benefit for going above 1440p.

leptons 3y ago
Speak for yourself. I want a single curved 55" 8k display to replace my three 32" 4k monitors. Going from 6k to 8k with no bezels is an upgrade I will pay $$$$ for.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  For gaming it’s useful, but for work I like the separate panels. Multiple single-window screens beats overlapping windows.
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    Why overlapping? Nothing prevents you from tiling the large screen into multiple screens; just with zero bezels between them.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      Then the temptation to drag the "bezels" is too great - I have poor impulse control.
Sentionolo 3y ago
Different people have different use cases. Surprise My DSLR takes pictures bigger than 4k for a few years already. Guess what? You can see a difference between the 4k 27" and a retina display. And no for this use case you don't need a magic GPU. And yes I also see a.difference in resolution on my 4k OLED between 4k and 1440p.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  > a retina display. What does this mean? The "retina" resolutions are all over the place and depend on the device size and type. Also they seem to always be somewhere in the middle of pc options, e.g. for the macbook air 13 you have 1920x1200 (average pc) < 2560x1664 (air or expensive pc) < 3840x2400 (overkill pc). For your example at 27" that seems to be 4k (average pc) < 5k (studio display) < 6k (dell etc.) < 8k (overkill).
  - Sentionolo 3y ago
    Ah im not familiar with it. For me retina means my Mac book pro 14" which should be 3k x 2k.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      All displays from Apple have different resolutions. Natively they are comparable to previous Apple displays of half the linear density (800x1280-ish for 13”, 1080 for 15” and so on).
    - diffeomorphism 3y ago
      Okay, so you can "see the difference" (positively, I assume?) of this to a 27" 4k monitor. What about 27" 6k or 14" 4k? Side rant: Yeah, apple makes great stuff, but the naming is obnoxious. It is not "hidpi" it is "retina", not "high refresh rate" but "promotion" and then you have to look through the marketing material to figure out how '14" retina' compares to a normal UHD+ display.
      - Sentionolo 3y ago
        If I can see the difference I would assume I will be able to see a difference between 27" 4k and 27" 6k. My canon 80d has a resolution of 6k x 4k. I also can perceive the sharpness of text. I don't mind to not run 8k IF driving the display pixels consumes too much energy. The argument of Performance though should not really exist. It's much more pixels true but there are plenty of technics to separate this technically. Even on gaming they have adaptive rendering but the display resolution itself stays the same.
girvo 3y ago
Gaming on a proper 4K native display is superior to 1440p: I have both, and the clarity is worth it. In my opinion of course!
rsynnott 3y ago
I've got a 5K 27" display at home (the much maligned LG Ultrafine) and generally use a 4K 27" one at work. The difference is very obvious. That said I wouldn't see a huge amount of point in going far _beyond_ 5K at that screen size, and 27" is about as big as I want to go for a screen, so for my purposes we've hit the limits (albeit only expensively).
kuschku 3y ago
KDE handles HiDPI really well since a few weeks ago. Try the current release of Ubuntu Studio on Wayland, it's working incredibly well.
smolder 3y ago
I like having a 4k monitor with a somewhat underpowered video card for the task. Most games that are graphically intense let you set the 3D render scale to something lower. At 70% render scale I get the benefit of sharp 4K text and UI stuff but with the 3D parts being closer to 1440p resolution. Upscaling can be really ugly at lower pixel densities, but rendering 1440p scale on 4K is hardly distinguishable from 1440p native, in my experience.

by starky 3y ago

leptons 3y ago

Speak for yourself. I want a single curved 55" 8k display to replace my three 32" 4k monitors. Going from 6k to 8k with no bezels is an upgrade I will pay $$$$ for.

rbanffy 3y ago
For gaming it’s useful, but for work I like the separate panels. Multiple single-window screens beats overlapping windows.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  Why overlapping? Nothing prevents you from tiling the large screen into multiple screens; just with zero bezels between them.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    Then the temptation to drag the "bezels" is too great - I have poor impulse control.

Sentionolo 3y ago

Different people have different use cases. Surprise My DSLR takes pictures bigger than 4k for a few years already. Guess what? You can see a difference between the 4k 27" and a retina display. And no for this use case you don't need a magic GPU. And yes I also see a.difference in resolution on my 4k OLED between 4k and 1440p.

diffeomorphism 3y ago
> a retina display. What does this mean? The "retina" resolutions are all over the place and depend on the device size and type. Also they seem to always be somewhere in the middle of pc options, e.g. for the macbook air 13 you have 1920x1200 (average pc) < 2560x1664 (air or expensive pc) < 3840x2400 (overkill pc). For your example at 27" that seems to be 4k (average pc) < 5k (studio display) < 6k (dell etc.) < 8k (overkill).
- Sentionolo 3y ago
  Ah im not familiar with it. For me retina means my Mac book pro 14" which should be 3k x 2k.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    All displays from Apple have different resolutions. Natively they are comparable to previous Apple displays of half the linear density (800x1280-ish for 13”, 1080 for 15” and so on).
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    Okay, so you can "see the difference" (positively, I assume?) of this to a 27" 4k monitor. What about 27" 6k or 14" 4k? Side rant: Yeah, apple makes great stuff, but the naming is obnoxious. It is not "hidpi" it is "retina", not "high refresh rate" but "promotion" and then you have to look through the marketing material to figure out how '14" retina' compares to a normal UHD+ display.
    - Sentionolo 3y ago
      If I can see the difference I would assume I will be able to see a difference between 27" 4k and 27" 6k. My canon 80d has a resolution of 6k x 4k. I also can perceive the sharpness of text. I don't mind to not run 8k IF driving the display pixels consumes too much energy. The argument of Performance though should not really exist. It's much more pixels true but there are plenty of technics to separate this technically. Even on gaming they have adaptive rendering but the display resolution itself stays the same.

girvo 3y ago

Gaming on a proper 4K native display is superior to 1440p: I have both, and the clarity is worth it. In my opinion of course!

rsynnott 3y ago

I've got a 5K 27" display at home (the much maligned LG Ultrafine) and generally use a 4K 27" one at work. The difference is very obvious. That said I wouldn't see a huge amount of point in going far _beyond_ 5K at that screen size, and 27" is about as big as I want to go for a screen, so for my purposes we've hit the limits (albeit only expensively).

kuschku 3y ago

KDE handles HiDPI really well since a few weeks ago. Try the current release of Ubuntu Studio on Wayland, it's working incredibly well.

smolder 3y ago

I like having a 4k monitor with a somewhat underpowered video card for the task. Most games that are graphically intense let you set the 3D render scale to something lower. At 70% render scale I get the benefit of sharp 4K text and UI stuff but with the 3D parts being closer to 1440p resolution. Upscaling can be really ugly at lower pixel densities, but rendering 1440p scale on 4K is hardly distinguishable from 1440p native, in my experience.