17 ms·

Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limit

Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…

CobaltFire 3y ago
I run the DELL G3223Q (144Hz 4K) and mine calibrated at ~98% DCI-P3 for reference. I'm quite happy with it. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q
- f001 3y ago
  I have the same monitor but would get an 8k equivalent in a heartbeat. I run it at 100% scaling, and would love that sweet sweet 200% scaling
malfist 3y ago
8k@120Hz is going to need one heck of a video card
- dogma1138 3y ago
  Not for productivity.
- densh 3y ago
  I’d argue that AI driven super resolution like DLSS should be more than sufficient to upscale 4k to 8k with minimal performance loss and acceptable image quality even for gaming.
- justahuman74 3y ago
  Not for tmux + firefox
  - walrus01 3y ago
    Unless people are far more sensitive than I am, I don't see how >60Hz is needed for a desktop workstation environment. High frame rate is really only noticeable for very fast reaction time gaming. 4K 120Hz may be noticeable if editing ultra high frame rate video on a video editing workstation, but if you are a video production crew with a camera capable of recording at that framerate, you probably already know that.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Many people are more sensitive than you are. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120 on both my phone and my desktop. Though response times also matter a lot for ghosting and such.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - jonatron 3y ago
      I can immediately tell just from moving the mouse a little. I wouldn't say it's needed either though.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ricardobeat 3y ago
      It's immediately noticeable when scrolling in a browser, dragging stuff around or just moving the mouse. If you haven't seen it in person, go to an Apple store and do a quick comparison between the Macbook Pro (120hz) and the Air (60hz), or iPad vs iPad Pro. They're always next to each other.
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm a gamer and I definitely notice the difference between 60 hz and 120+ hz. But for desktop productivity? I don't feel I gain anything from it. 60 hz is fine.
- smolder 3y ago
  It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of pointless number crunching to render at that level of detail for anyone who has human eyes.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of pointless number crunching to render at that level of detail for anyone who has human eyes. Depends on your monitor size. Might be a waste at 27", but if you want to use a 48" display, I can assure you that you'd notice the move from 4k -> 8k.
    - buildbot 3y ago
      Yeah, even driving the display at 4K, you start to notice the higher pixel fill factor for 8K displays above 48in. I love my 65in 8K Q900 - even though it mostly lives at 4k (120hz!).
      - ajolly 3y ago
        Can you explain this a bit more, I tried googling but I can't quite understand what you mean here by pixel fill factor and how it would differ between the resolutions?
        buildbot 3y ago
        The gaps between the pixels tend to be smaller the higher the resolution - so even if you drive the display at a lower resolution, it can look better the same lower res display that has larger spacing between each subpixel.
        ajolly 3y ago
        Interesting, does this give you a noticeable benefit for text, or does this mostly apply to images or video?
  - 3y ago
- wruza 3y ago
  Not if you ignore overhyped (imo) rtx graphics and return back to gaming worlds, instead of smoke-and-neon-lights-in-mirrors pseudorealism.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  ARM macs can probably handle that, the M2 can do 10 8k video streams at once, 22 simultaneously on the Ultra, and people are running 4k 120hz on the M1 with a couple hacks.
- speed_spread 3y ago
  Not in text mode. Hercules FTW
- Matheus28 3y ago
  I'd likely not be gaming at 8K for a while. But for productivity tools it'd be amazing.
walrus01 3y ago
I think you're going to be waiting a long time, even the geforce 4080 and 4090 don't support displayport 2.0. Additionally much of the demand for >60Hz is for gaming purposes, and there is nowhere near a powerful enough GPU anyone can afford that would be able to render games in high quality or extreme detail level at 8K above 60 FPS. Right now a GPU that costs $1500 USD can maybe render a 4K game with extreme detail level at framerates that vary between 55 to 75 fps.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  The 3090 does support displayport 2.0, though. The 40 series are geared towards productivity use cases where people are fine with 60hz.
rektide 3y ago
It's been pretty amazing how stagnant the monitor space is. I too am really craving an 8k@120 monitor, although there's a decent chance I'll balk at the price.
- Aaargh20318 3y ago
  It’s crazy how much of a regression there was in resolution and picture quality when we went from CRT to LCD displays. In the late 90’s you could get a CRT that did 2048x1536 no sweat with great color and decent refresh rate. Then suddenly LCD displays became the standard and they looked awful. Low resolutions, terrible colors and bad viewing angles. The only real advantage they had was size. It took a decade or so to get back to decent resolutions and color reproduction.
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    How much did a 2048x1536 CRT monitor cost though? That's usually high and I bet it probably priced similar to what a 6K or 8K monitor is today.
    - smcleod 3y ago
      Not at all! Your common as milk Philips and ViewSonic 19-21” could do that easily!
    - snovv_crash 3y ago
      Also that CRT was probably 21" max, and weighed 20% of the human looking at it.
      - woobar 3y ago
        You are way too optimistic about the weight. ViewSonic p225f with 20" visible display, that reportedly was capable of 2560x1920/63Hz weighted 30.5 kgs! I am not sure with that dot pitch of 0.25mm it was worth it. [1] https://www.backoffice.be/prod_uk/ViewSonic/p225f_viewsonic_p225f_display_crt_22_dquote_2560_x_1920_.asp https://www.backoffice.be/prod_uk/ViewSonic/p225f_viewsonic_...
smolder 3y ago
What is your actual use case apart from technology fetishism?
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I can't speak for him, but for me? Straight integer scaling of 4k and 1440p. I loathe fractional scaling, and I cannot wait for the day that I can run an 8k display at > 90hz without compromise
  - pxc 3y ago
    > I loathe fractional scaling Why? Is that an OS problem?
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      Not the original commenter but, it... has a certain look to it. It's not something that can be totally solved by the OS or any scaling algorithm because fundamentally you have to deal with rendering fractional portions of a pixel to a physical screen where there is no such thing as a fractional pixel. It just always looks different, and IMO worse, than integer scaling. You have to trade off distortions for bluriness and you can't avoid both of those artifacts at the same time. The higher your pixel ppi, the less noticeable any scaling artifacts will be though.
      - pxc 3y ago
        I don't understand why 'distortion' (things being rendered ± 1 pixel over on some screens vs. on others) is a problem unless your GUI frameworks and/or apps count on pixel-exact layouts for some UI elements. But why would they? Isn't the entire web built on a reflowable format that works pretty well? Shouldn't those tiny 1-pixel differences be like the easiest possible variation for a GUI system's layout engine to cope with? Do we have lots of scalable UI elements that expect to line up with raster images a certain way on most operating systems?
bryantraywick 3y ago
Absolutely. Mediocre resolution increases has been one of many disappointments for me when it comes to technology over the past 20 years. We had CRT monitors with better resolution than 1080p back in the late 90's early 2000's before LCD panels saddled us with 1080p resolution for 15 years. 4k is the bare minimum that should be available right now. I can't wait until I can have a 16k monitor at about 3'x5-6' on my desk. Maybe it will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
8K is four times the pixels and therefore four times the bandwidth as a 4K monitor. It took us a long time to go from 1080p to 4K. It has taken even longer for 4K at 120-144Hz to be practical. It’s more likely that you’ll end up with intermediate steps to 5K, 6K, than getting 8K 120Hz. The other limitation is lack of demand. You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it, and you need a powerful video card to drive it. The number of people who would buy such a monitor is very, very small.
- RetpolineDrama 3y ago
  >You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it I have a 4k 24" monitor that I can still see aliasing on with AA disabled. 8K 32" would give me more real estate and should, in theory, completely eliminate the need for AA.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Which makes me wonder what's the point of the article's author, 4k vs 6k on 32 inch one is already far into diminishing returns, 8k on 32 inch is just numbers for numbers sake
- f001 3y ago
  I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I use a 32” 4k 144hz monitor at 100% scaling just fine. I’d loooove to replace it with an 8k monitor with similar refresh rate to run at 200% scaling and keep the same amount of workspace I have now
skunkworker 3y ago
I would love a 120Hz 8k 40 inch monitor. You could use 8k for productivity and then 4k for gaming.
- speleding 3y ago
  For some reason all 40 inch monitors have disappeared off the market! For me 40 inch is the sweet spot for coding: any larger and it gets too pixelated at 4K (you can make out the pixels, but that's OK for coding), the UI scale can be set at 100% so all is well proportioned. Entire classes/methods fit on a screen without scrolling. I own two Philips 4K 40 inch monitors, they only cost ~$600 at the time, and I dread the day they stop working. I would be first in line for 6K or 8K, or any ≥4K really, at 40 inch.
alkonaut 3y ago
I wish some monitors would have good hybrid uses like being able to do say 6K 60Hz and some much lower res (2K) at 120 or something. I can definitely live with 60Hz on desktop if I have to, and I can't game at 6K anyway, so doing 2K@120Hz gaming and 6K@60Hz or 8K@60Hz desktop work would be ideal, and wouldn't get into the silly bandwidths of 8K@120.

CobaltFire 3y ago

I run the DELL G3223Q (144Hz 4K) and mine calibrated at ~98% DCI-P3 for reference. I'm quite happy with it. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q

f001 3y ago
I have the same monitor but would get an 8k equivalent in a heartbeat. I run it at 100% scaling, and would love that sweet sweet 200% scaling

malfist 3y ago

8k@120Hz is going to need one heck of a video card

dogma1138 3y ago
Not for productivity.
densh 3y ago
I’d argue that AI driven super resolution like DLSS should be more than sufficient to upscale 4k to 8k with minimal performance loss and acceptable image quality even for gaming.
justahuman74 3y ago
Not for tmux + firefox
- walrus01 3y ago
  Unless people are far more sensitive than I am, I don't see how >60Hz is needed for a desktop workstation environment. High frame rate is really only noticeable for very fast reaction time gaming. 4K 120Hz may be noticeable if editing ultra high frame rate video on a video editing workstation, but if you are a video production crew with a camera capable of recording at that framerate, you probably already know that.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Many people are more sensitive than you are. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120 on both my phone and my desktop. Though response times also matter a lot for ghosting and such.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - jonatron 3y ago
    I can immediately tell just from moving the mouse a little. I wouldn't say it's needed either though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    It's immediately noticeable when scrolling in a browser, dragging stuff around or just moving the mouse. If you haven't seen it in person, go to an Apple store and do a quick comparison between the Macbook Pro (120hz) and the Air (60hz), or iPad vs iPad Pro. They're always next to each other.
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm a gamer and I definitely notice the difference between 60 hz and 120+ hz. But for desktop productivity? I don't feel I gain anything from it. 60 hz is fine.
smolder 3y ago
It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of pointless number crunching to render at that level of detail for anyone who has human eyes.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of pointless number crunching to render at that level of detail for anyone who has human eyes. Depends on your monitor size. Might be a waste at 27", but if you want to use a 48" display, I can assure you that you'd notice the move from 4k -> 8k.
  - buildbot 3y ago
    Yeah, even driving the display at 4K, you start to notice the higher pixel fill factor for 8K displays above 48in. I love my 65in 8K Q900 - even though it mostly lives at 4k (120hz!).
    - ajolly 3y ago
      Can you explain this a bit more, I tried googling but I can't quite understand what you mean here by pixel fill factor and how it would differ between the resolutions?
      - buildbot 3y ago
        The gaps between the pixels tend to be smaller the higher the resolution - so even if you drive the display at a lower resolution, it can look better the same lower res display that has larger spacing between each subpixel.
        ajolly 3y ago
        Interesting, does this give you a noticeable benefit for text, or does this mostly apply to images or video?
- 3y ago
wruza 3y ago
Not if you ignore overhyped (imo) rtx graphics and return back to gaming worlds, instead of smoke-and-neon-lights-in-mirrors pseudorealism.
ricardobeat 3y ago
ARM macs can probably handle that, the M2 can do 10 8k video streams at once, 22 simultaneously on the Ultra, and people are running 4k 120hz on the M1 with a couple hacks.
speed_spread 3y ago
Not in text mode. Hercules FTW
Matheus28 3y ago
I'd likely not be gaming at 8K for a while. But for productivity tools it'd be amazing.

walrus01 3y ago

I think you're going to be waiting a long time, even the geforce 4080 and 4090 don't support displayport 2.0. Additionally much of the demand for >60Hz is for gaming purposes, and there is nowhere near a powerful enough GPU anyone can afford that would be able to render games in high quality or extreme detail level at 8K above 60 FPS. Right now a GPU that costs $1500 USD can maybe render a 4K game with extreme detail level at framerates that vary between 55 to 75 fps.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
The 3090 does support displayport 2.0, though. The 40 series are geared towards productivity use cases where people are fine with 60hz.

rektide 3y ago

It's been pretty amazing how stagnant the monitor space is. I too am really craving an 8k@120 monitor, although there's a decent chance I'll balk at the price.

Aaargh20318 3y ago
It’s crazy how much of a regression there was in resolution and picture quality when we went from CRT to LCD displays. In the late 90’s you could get a CRT that did 2048x1536 no sweat with great color and decent refresh rate. Then suddenly LCD displays became the standard and they looked awful. Low resolutions, terrible colors and bad viewing angles. The only real advantage they had was size. It took a decade or so to get back to decent resolutions and color reproduction.
- goosedragons 3y ago
  How much did a 2048x1536 CRT monitor cost though? That's usually high and I bet it probably priced similar to what a 6K or 8K monitor is today.
  - smcleod 3y ago
    Not at all! Your common as milk Philips and ViewSonic 19-21” could do that easily!
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Also that CRT was probably 21" max, and weighed 20% of the human looking at it.
    - woobar 3y ago
      You are way too optimistic about the weight. ViewSonic p225f with 20" visible display, that reportedly was capable of 2560x1920/63Hz weighted 30.5 kgs! I am not sure with that dot pitch of 0.25mm it was worth it. [1] https://www.backoffice.be/prod_uk/ViewSonic/p225f_viewsonic_p225f_display_crt_22_dquote_2560_x_1920_.asp https://www.backoffice.be/prod_uk/ViewSonic/p225f_viewsonic_...

smolder 3y ago

What is your actual use case apart from technology fetishism?

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I can't speak for him, but for me? Straight integer scaling of 4k and 1440p. I loathe fractional scaling, and I cannot wait for the day that I can run an 8k display at > 90hz without compromise
- pxc 3y ago
  > I loathe fractional scaling Why? Is that an OS problem?
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    Not the original commenter but, it... has a certain look to it. It's not something that can be totally solved by the OS or any scaling algorithm because fundamentally you have to deal with rendering fractional portions of a pixel to a physical screen where there is no such thing as a fractional pixel. It just always looks different, and IMO worse, than integer scaling. You have to trade off distortions for bluriness and you can't avoid both of those artifacts at the same time. The higher your pixel ppi, the less noticeable any scaling artifacts will be though.
    - pxc 3y ago
      I don't understand why 'distortion' (things being rendered ± 1 pixel over on some screens vs. on others) is a problem unless your GUI frameworks and/or apps count on pixel-exact layouts for some UI elements. But why would they? Isn't the entire web built on a reflowable format that works pretty well? Shouldn't those tiny 1-pixel differences be like the easiest possible variation for a GUI system's layout engine to cope with? Do we have lots of scalable UI elements that expect to line up with raster images a certain way on most operating systems?

bryantraywick 3y ago

Absolutely. Mediocre resolution increases has been one of many disappointments for me when it comes to technology over the past 20 years. We had CRT monitors with better resolution than 1080p back in the late 90's early 2000's before LCD panels saddled us with 1080p resolution for 15 years. 4k is the bare minimum that should be available right now. I can't wait until I can have a 16k monitor at about 3'x5-6' on my desk. Maybe it will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.

PragmaticPulp 3y ago

8K is four times the pixels and therefore four times the bandwidth as a 4K monitor. It took us a long time to go from 1080p to 4K. It has taken even longer for 4K at 120-144Hz to be practical. It’s more likely that you’ll end up with intermediate steps to 5K, 6K, than getting 8K 120Hz. The other limitation is lack of demand. You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it, and you need a powerful video card to drive it. The number of people who would buy such a monitor is very, very small.

RetpolineDrama 3y ago
>You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it I have a 4k 24" monitor that I can still see aliasing on with AA disabled. 8K 32" would give me more real estate and should, in theory, completely eliminate the need for AA.
ilyt 3y ago
Which makes me wonder what's the point of the article's author, 4k vs 6k on 32 inch one is already far into diminishing returns, 8k on 32 inch is just numbers for numbers sake
f001 3y ago
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I use a 32” 4k 144hz monitor at 100% scaling just fine. I’d loooove to replace it with an 8k monitor with similar refresh rate to run at 200% scaling and keep the same amount of workspace I have now

skunkworker 3y ago

I would love a 120Hz 8k 40 inch monitor. You could use 8k for productivity and then 4k for gaming.

speleding 3y ago
For some reason all 40 inch monitors have disappeared off the market! For me 40 inch is the sweet spot for coding: any larger and it gets too pixelated at 4K (you can make out the pixels, but that's OK for coding), the UI scale can be set at 100% so all is well proportioned. Entire classes/methods fit on a screen without scrolling. I own two Philips 4K 40 inch monitors, they only cost ~$600 at the time, and I dread the day they stop working. I would be first in line for 6K or 8K, or any ≥4K really, at 40 inch.

alkonaut 3y ago

I wish some monitors would have good hybrid uses like being able to do say 6K 60Hz and some much lower res (2K) at 120 or something. I can definitely live with 60Hz on desktop if I have to, and I can't game at 6K anyway, so doing 2K@120Hz gaming and 6K@60Hz or 8K@60Hz desktop work would be ideal, and wouldn't get into the silly bandwidths of 8K@120.