5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoCan 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 agoThe 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 agoInteresting, does this give you a noticeable benefit for text, or does this mostly apply to images or video?
- Dylan16807 3y agoUser interfaces shouldn't load a GPU very much even at that resolution. 8K in a game will use tremendous amounts of power, but it's not pointless. It's like having antialiasing turned on. And high frame rates are important for motion because normal rendering only gives you a single point in time.