5 ms·

Mostly because 4K is the standard for video content and game consoles, and on desktops it is fine for Windows users, who make up the majority of the market. The

Mostly because 4K is the standard for video content and game consoles, and on desktops it is fine for Windows users, who make up the majority of the market. The only people really clamoring for >4K monitors are Mac users due to Apples decision to standardize on 220dpi in macOS. That is a potential market, but it's a price-insensitive one, so the current gouging for monitors in that category probably isn't going to stop any time soon.

varispeed 2y ago
I don't think so. I'd love to have 8k or more panel at 27-32 inch. The reason is that I can easily see pixels from a metre away and it is annoying. I'd love to have more detail etc. for instance being able to display nice texture underneath my text editor so it is more pleasing and easier to read.
- jsheard 2y ago
  Dell does have the product for you but you're probably not going to like the price tag :( https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monito...
  - varispeed 2y ago
    It's only 60fps and IPS so that would feel like buying 4k monitor from decade ago. Deal breaker.
    - elabajaba 2y ago
      The cables and ports for 5k120hz barely exist at this point (it needs displayport 2.1 uhbr13.5 or better, which only exist AMD's 7000 series GPUs at this point). Dual cable solutions always suck so everyone tends to avoid them.
      - varispeed 2y ago
        Fair point. So these are beginnings still.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
But that doesn't explain why the market settled on 27" and 32" as the de facto 4K sizes instead of 24" or 22". Apple was right on their 220dpi.
- jsheard 2y ago
  There were 24" 4K monitors a while ago, but they stopped making them. Presumably not enough people were buying. https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&F=355600000,635000000 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&F=355...
  - wlesieutre 2y ago
    I had one, Dell's UP2414Q. It was a piece of shit, mostly due to requiring multi-stream transport to run in 60 hz mode. So you'd get a GPU driver or OS update and the screen would stop working. Sometimes the panel would split in half and one of them would black out or shift its content sideways so there was a seam in the middle and a piece of the edge wrapped around to the center. Would not recommend. The ones afterward that got rid of the MST requirement might've been better. Pixel density was great.
    - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
      I have a pair of LG 24" 4K monitors. It's a limitation of Apple Silicon that limits one to being driven at 30Hz (but the other runs at 60 just fine).
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Because most people pick monitors by size, not resolution and PPI. 4K is also popular because it fit within the capabilities of common HDMI and DisplayPort ports on people’s computers and cables. If you try to sell a monitor that doesn’t work well out of the box with the average laptop, it’s going to have an extremely high return rate. That’s why display resolution will always lag behind the common capabilities of your average HDMI port on a cheap laptop.
- zamadatix 2y ago

varispeed 2y ago

I don't think so. I'd love to have 8k or more panel at 27-32 inch. The reason is that I can easily see pixels from a metre away and it is annoying. I'd love to have more detail etc. for instance being able to display nice texture underneath my text editor so it is more pleasing and easier to read.

jsheard 2y ago
Dell does have the product for you but you're probably not going to like the price tag :( https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monito...
- varispeed 2y ago
  It's only 60fps and IPS so that would feel like buying 4k monitor from decade ago. Deal breaker.
  - elabajaba 2y ago
    The cables and ports for 5k120hz barely exist at this point (it needs displayport 2.1 uhbr13.5 or better, which only exist AMD's 7000 series GPUs at this point). Dual cable solutions always suck so everyone tends to avoid them.
    - varispeed 2y ago
      Fair point. So these are beginnings still.

BeFlatXIII 2y ago

But that doesn't explain why the market settled on 27" and 32" as the de facto 4K sizes instead of 24" or 22". Apple was right on their 220dpi.

jsheard 2y ago
There were 24" 4K monitors a while ago, but they stopped making them. Presumably not enough people were buying. https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&F=355600000,635000000 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&F=355...
- wlesieutre 2y ago
  I had one, Dell's UP2414Q. It was a piece of shit, mostly due to requiring multi-stream transport to run in 60 hz mode. So you'd get a GPU driver or OS update and the screen would stop working. Sometimes the panel would split in half and one of them would black out or shift its content sideways so there was a seam in the middle and a piece of the edge wrapped around to the center. Would not recommend. The ones afterward that got rid of the MST requirement might've been better. Pixel density was great.
  - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
    I have a pair of LG 24" 4K monitors. It's a limitation of Apple Silicon that limits one to being driven at 30Hz (but the other runs at 60 just fine).
Aurornis 2y ago
Because most people pick monitors by size, not resolution and PPI. 4K is also popular because it fit within the capabilities of common HDMI and DisplayPort ports on people’s computers and cables. If you try to sell a monitor that doesn’t work well out of the box with the average laptop, it’s going to have an extremely high return rate. That’s why display resolution will always lag behind the common capabilities of your average HDMI port on a cheap laptop.
zamadatix 2y ago