4 ms·
I don't understand why 5K @ 27" is so sought after. My partner uses a 4K 32" display currently and if I'm at a normal sitting distance, I couldn't tell the diff
by pathartl 3y ago
I don't understand why 5K @ 27" is so sought after. My partner uses a 4K 32" display currently and if I'm at a normal sitting distance, I couldn't tell the difference between it and a 5K Studio Display. The 32" is 137ppi which sounds low, but with your eyes at 25" away it's still "retina".
As I sit at my desk now looking at my 27" 1440p (108ppi) display at a distance of 23" I really cannot fathom having double the pixel density. Could it be better? Sure! I chose 144Hz over density, but double the amount of pixels? No way in hell
- kcb 3y agomacOS fractional scaling never looked good for me on a 4K 32" screen. At 5K you can get a clean 2560x1440 integer scale.
- canes123456 3y ago4k on 32” doesn’t look good on windows either.
- kcb 3y agoThat's what I'm running now with 125% scale and it looks perfect to me.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y agoI run it in KDE at 168% scaling. Yeah I like everything big and very smmoth.
- kecupochren 3y ago4k 32" is 77% less pixels than 5k 27". That many pixels make night and day difference in text sharpness
- canes123456 3y ago4k on 32” is usable but is very clearly much less sharp than 4k on 27”. If you can’t tell the difference, you might need to update your glasses or contacts.