Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

michael.stapelberg.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 470 posts

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#41

Post by hedora »

stalfosknight wrote: post #17

Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up Retina in macOS.

I think part of the reason is that high DPI support was completely broken under windows for at least a decade after it was working fine in MacOS and Linux (pre-wayland and the rise of "HiDPI support").

Most PC's are targeting windows, and stuff would be unreasonably small if you plugged in a midrange monitor from the early 2000's. So, monitor manufacturers stopped offering monitors with reasonable DPI.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#43

Post by mkozlows »

stalfosknight wrote: post #17

Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up Retina in macOS.

Because they're expensive. It's the same reason that phones have higher DPI than laptops/tablets do -- what's economical on a 6" screen isn't on a 13", and what's economical on 13" isn't on 27."

(Why? Yields. A 6" phone screen is like 12 square inches. A 27" desktop monitor is over 300 square inches. If you have a 98% yield of phone screens without defects, that implies only one defect per ~600 square inches, which means that at a handwave level, you'd have a 50% yield of desktop monitors with that same tech. "We have to throw away half the screens we make as junk" is a lot worse than "we have to throw away 2% of them.")

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#44

Post by hedora »

densh wrote: post #38
howinteresting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M1 MacBook Pro 14" shipped with a GtG response time of 58.4ms. The U3224KB featured in this review has a GtG response time of 5ms in fast mode, which is considered average but not great. Most high-end monitors manage GtG response times of around 1ms. With OLED it's closer to 0.5ms. 58.4ms is unacceptably bad.

Sure, they are not fast response gaming screens, but I am specifically calling out reading all forms of text (web/email/documents/coding) as a main use case. OLED would be great if we could finally get 27” 5K. Currently all the gaming screens sit at around 1440p pixel density and are often coupled with non RGB pixel layout that causes color fringing on text: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing…

You should be able to set the font anti-aliaser's subpixel order unless you're running a terrible operating system.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#45

Post by howinteresting »

densh wrote: post #38
howinteresting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M1 MacBook Pro 14" shipped with a GtG response time of 58.4ms. The U3224KB featured in this review has a GtG response time of 5ms in fast mode, which is considered average but not great. Most high-end monitors manage GtG response times of around 1ms. With OLED it's closer to 0.5ms. 58.4ms is unacceptably bad.

Sure, they are not fast response gaming screens, but I am specifically calling out reading all forms of text (web/email/documents/coding) as a main use case. OLED would be great if we could finally get 27” 5K. Currently all the gaming screens sit at around 1440p pixel density and are often coupled with non RGB pixel layout that causes color fringing on text: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing…

To be clear, a 58ms response time is so bad that it produces a ton of ghosting while just scrolling text. Apparently Apple screens have always been this bad and Mac users just live with it.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#46

Post by hocuspocus »

drcongo wrote: post #10
adamgamble wrote: post #2

Although I haven’t used these monitors, my experience with high dpi on windows and Linux has been a nightmare compared to OSX. It’s surprising me the non Mac world hasn’t made this a bigger priority.

High DPI screens with Windows really show how bad the font rendering is.

At high DPI the difference in font rendering between ClearType, Freetype and macOS diminish greatly, it's mostly a matter of taste, and at least Microsoft hasn't crippled low DPI rendering in recent Windows versions like Apple did with macOS.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#47

Post by nordsieck »

smolder wrote: post #29
malfist wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> 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.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#49

Post by bryantraywick »

smolder wrote: post #25
Matheus28 wrote: post #3

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…

What is your actual use case apart from technology fetishism?

Literally a 3'x5-6' monitor that can render text as crisply and cleanly as print. That's all I want.

Re: Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

#50

Post by [deleted] »

walrus01 wrote: post #15
justahuman74 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for tmux + firefox

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN