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

141–150 of 470 posts

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

#141

Post by WheatMillington »

diziet wrote: post #105

I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolutio…

What about the other very large group, like me, who can easily tell the difference but it's very much not worth the price of admission?

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

#142

Post by j45 »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #139
j45 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 3 24" Benq 2K video grade monitors running at 2560x1440 giving me nearly 11 million usable pixels. It has a huge boost in productivity for me. 4K TVs only seem to become usably readable with Chroma 4:4:4 at 38" or above, ideally curved, to get 4 usable 1920x1080 quadrants. When the screen sizes go smaller, absolutely detail and quality increases, but for software development or text centric work is concerned,…

32" displays are a sweet spot in size for me as long as the pixel density is >200 ppi, but more for graphics applications than text editors. For 3D applications especially, it's very beneficial to have a lot of area on one screen since the GUI default layouts tend to fit best on 16:9 screens or close to that and larger screens give you larger multi-viewport layouts. 24 inch displays just couldn't come close here. 32"…

It makes total sense for graphical applications especially with 3d and the emergent VR/AR stuff and something I'll have to keep in mind.

24 definitely can be a bit tight, but realistic for 3 monitor setup.

If I was going with only 2 monitors for software development, or mainly text work, there are nice 2K monitors that are about 25" that are perfect.

I have two older 27" 2K monitors as well and they tend to be too big in the long run, and 3 were untenable.

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

#143

Post by extr »

filoleg wrote: post #22
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think Windows does it better than OS X (and Gnome, Wayland, and anything that does not support true fractional scaling). OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry.

> OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry. I genuinely have zero idea what you are talking about. Typing this from my macbook connected to a 5k LG ultrawide monitor, and it is as crystal sharp as it can get. As opposed to my windows 10 desktop (connected to the same monitor) having some occasional application windows render fairly blurry and inconsistently (one of the main offenders of…

OS X not only uses a lame hack to scale, it completely muddles the issue by introducing the concept of "HiDPI" UI elements. Somehow I can set my 4K monitor to use "native resolution" at 3840 x 2160, and yet the UI and fonts look fuzzy! Absolutely terrible, and a complete embarrassment for Apple imo since they are supposedly the UI kings. You only don't notice the issue because you're using a 27" 5k display, which has been "blessed" by Apple as the "correct" DPI to match native screens. For those of us with 4k screens (95% of the market), I guess we're just supposed to enjoy a subpar experience. Even X11 looks better.

For me, I only closed the book on the issue after finding BetterDisplay [0]. Basically a 3rd party program that gives you complete control over resolution, display density, and a ton of other options on MacOS. It has a trial mode but it is well well worth the money. With that + the CLI tweak to set font smoothing to 0, the 4K experience on MacOS looks decent. You can even decrease the effective scale of the native screen past "More Space", so those of us with good eyes can actually take advantage of the screen real estate.

Also, if you're curious to explore this issue beyond my subjective thoughts here, these [1] [2] blog posts do a great job diving into what is so bad about MacOS scaling, why 4K 27" or 32" screens end up looking bad, and why 5K 27" look okay.

[0] https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay

[1] https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/

[2] https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/

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

#144

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

hopfenspergerj wrote: post #127
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Group 4 does video/photo/graphics work so they prioritize color accuracy and high resolution, so they would always trade >60Hz for more resolution, at least up to a point that has yet to be achieved. And that isn't even factoring in cost, which is a big one since Group 4 is a smaller market than Groups 1-3 so the displays targeting them (like this Dell 6K) tend to be the most expensive on the market by a large margin…

60 is not a multiple of 24.

Nor is 120. Even with a 240Hz display, capturing and editing should use 3:2 pulldown for best end user playback. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

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

#146

Post by r2vcap »

The larger the monitor, generally the better. However, considering GPU performance and power consumption, compromises must be made somewhere. I have a $500 Dell 4K 32-inch monitor, which is the maximum I can accommodate in terms of desk space. (The desk space is greatly influenced by real estate prices, currently estimated at $12,000 per square meter based on my home.)

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

#147

Post by akaru »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #144
hopfenspergerj wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60 is not a multiple of 24.

Nor is 120. Even with a 240Hz display, capturing and editing should use 3:2 pulldown for best end user playback. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

Check your math, son.

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

#148

Post by cespare »

diziet wrote: post #105

I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolutio…

I don't think I'm in any of those groups.

I own a variety of monitors and can easily tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz. All things being equal, I of course prefer 120hz (or 165hz as some of my gaming monitors support).

I also own monitors at resolutions from 1440p to 4k.

For doing work (programming, where I'm mostly looking at text), resolution makes a huge difference. I only do coding on high DPI screens and I would upgrade to 5k or 6k or 8k displays if I were confident that my hardware and OS would support them well. (TFA was very helpful in that respect.) In these settings, high refresh rate makes only a marginal difference to my experience.

For gaming, refresh rate makes a much bigger difference, and resolution makes a somewhat smaller difference -- my hardware can't reasonably drive many of the games I play at 4k or higher anyway. So I just use cheaper, lower-resolution monitors that operate at high refresh rates for gaming.

Someday I guess I'll just be able to spend $300 for an 8k monitor at 240hz and then I won't have to make this kind of choice. (In fact, in the several years since I last bought gaming hardware I think the options for high-refresh-rate 4k monitors have gotten much better; I might use 4k for gaming if I were buying today.)

But for now, I'll always pick resolution over refresh rate for doing work, and it's not because I can't tell the difference.

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

#149

Post by crazygringo »

WheatMillington wrote: post #141
diziet wrote: post #105

I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolutio…

What about the other very large group, like me, who can easily tell the difference but it's very much not worth the price of admission?

Exactly. I can easily tell the difference and couldn't care less.

Brightness, pixel density, and contrast/blacks (including glossiness) are what I care about in terms of image quality.

Maybe if I were a gamer it would matter, but I couldn't care less about how smooth scrolling or cursor movement is. It doesn't change my productivity or affect my comfort at all.

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

#150

Post by LoganDark »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #85

I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA. I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows)…

> The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays.

For context, my MacBook from 2015 had a PPI of 220, so this comment is extremely accurate.

Post reply on HN