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

171–180 of 470 posts

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

#171

Post by francislavoie »

orliesaurus wrote: post #169

I feel like a fish out of water - I understand the importance of having an external monitor, maybe even 2 monitors if you're on desktop, but...8K ? 32 inch? curved? 120hz ... wow I feel like I have absolute no problems sitting here with a 27 inch 60 hz monitor alongside my Macbook pro...

Higher refresh rate does make a noticeable difference, if you have 60hz and 120hz or higher side by side you notice it instantly from the mouse cursor movement and scrolling websites etc, it's just buttery in comparison. Definitely not a must, just nice to have.

I don't see the benefit of going higher than 1440p or 1600p though, any higher res just means I need to increase scaling otherwise things are too small to read comfortably for me.

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

#172

Post by Saris »

francislavoie wrote: post #171
orliesaurus wrote: post #169

I feel like a fish out of water - I understand the importance of having an external monitor, maybe even 2 monitors if you're on desktop, but...8K ? 32 inch? curved? 120hz ... wow I feel like I have absolute no problems sitting here with a 27 inch 60 hz monitor alongside my Macbook pro...

Higher refresh rate does make a noticeable difference, if you have 60hz and 120hz or higher side by side you notice it instantly from the mouse cursor movement and scrolling websites etc, it's just buttery in comparison. Definitely not a must, just nice to have. I don't see the benefit of going higher than 1440p or 1600p though, any higher res just means I need to increase scaling otherwise things are too small to re…

High res with scaling does make text and stuff really crisp though which is nice

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

#173

Post by Dalewyn »

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…

As someone who has a 240Hz 1920x1080 Dell monitor, the 60Hz is intolerably choppy and 120Hz is the budget/compromise option.

Seriously, getting at least a 120Hz monitor makes for a world of difference because it makes everything smoother. Increases in resolution beyond 1920x1080 meanwhile are going to quickly hit the point of diminishing returns, anything beyond 2160p particularly so.

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

#174

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

kurthr wrote: post #166
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is none of these refresh rates are multiples of 23.976.

I think your point is that 1/1000 frames would need to be 6:5 at 120Hz? I'd be more concerned with the automatic black frame insertion most LCDs do to increase contrast.

Theoretically maybe, but 3:2 pulldown is used for playing 23.976 fps video at 29.97Hz. Since this is HN maybe someone with more knowledge about how video editors and modern TVs typically handle this can jump in here. Regardless, I think this would actually have more impact on the end user viewing experience than the job of video editing. The time between frames is tremendous from the standpoint of a video editor, and editing is usually (traditionally) done by feel: press button when the cut should happen, mark it, then arrange the timeline accordingly. Lag aside, frame rate and which frame is actually on the screen at that time matters much less than whether the software knows which frame should be on the screen at that time. Hopefully that makes sense. For this reason, resolution and color accuracy will still take priority when it comes to display hardware.

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

#175

Post by fomine3 »

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…

It's a bit complex in my case. For smartphone, 120Hz vs 60Hz OLED is night and day, especially for scrolling. Never leave from 120Hz+. For PC monitor, 120Hz vs 60Hz LCD is distinguishable but not much benefits. Maybe due to I use Windows and non-smooth scroll mouse. It's nice for gaming but needs $$ for GPU.

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

#176

Post by snarfy »

encodedrose wrote: post #136
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…

Is there a Group 4: Can tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz? I use the 32" Odyssey G7 which is 2560x1440@240Hz.

Yep. It really depends what you do with your monitors. For gaming I'll never go back to anything less than 240hz. Even high end video cards struggle to render modern games at 240hz consistently at 4k. 1080p is fine.

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

#177

Post by afterburner »

veidr wrote: post #170

Absolutely, hell no, if you are talking about the screen itself. The difference in crispness between the Dell UP321K (~280ppi at 7680x64280 at 31.5 inches) and this new U3224KBA (~220ppi at 6144 x 3456 at 32") is dramatic . The new Dell 6K is about the same as the Apple 6K (the XDR Pro Display). I had that 6K Apple and the 8K Dell side-by-side on my desk for a few months (until I could find a buyer for the dramatical…

Are you sure you're not just experiencing some other difference in manufacturing, like a difference in the matte finish?

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

#178

Post by glowingly »

dogma1138 wrote: post #7
davidhyde wrote: post #4

Just give me a 2K monitor that turns on instantly, doesn’t hunt for sources, consumes less than 20W of power and I’ll be a happy guy. Bonus for having physical buttons to select explicit input sources without delays.

You ain’t getting a modern monitor with less than 20W of power unless you want something very small and very dim with very low refresh rate.

Nowadays, I think it is doable with modern displays.

My 165Hz 1440p 32" (31.5") LG with 8 bit color and two external speakers consumes ~20W, measured at the wall.

My 14" laptop screen is about 19.8% of the area of that display. I have loosely measured it from ranges of ~My office has the usual LED lighting at night or a large window + sliding glass door during the day. Not a dark cave by any means!

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

#179

Post by the_pwner224 »

j45 wrote: post #125
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)…

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,…

The point isn't to have more pixels, it's to have more detailed pixels. You use scaling to get whatever display size you want.

4k 27" with 2x scaling is effectively the same size as 1080p 27". But one looks like absolute crap, the other is reasonably sharp and detailed. Text is much better with higher PPI. And 4k27" is just 160 PPI, the 6k 32" monitors are 220 PPI so text is very crisp.

I don't know about other OSs, but fractional scaling "just works" on KDE Linux. The size of displayed content has nothing to do with the pixels you have. You control the physical screen size (inches) and scale factor to get the content size you want, and you buy as many pixels as you can afford to get good quality at that size. There's a parent comment on this submission talking about how his 8k 32" monitor is visibly better than 6k 32" for text sharpness; TFA says the same thing. You really want as many pixels as you can afford to buy.

Of course, the minimum (densest) content size you can use is constrained by PPI, low PPI won't be able to display very small content.

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

#180

Post by jiggawatts »

We've had the technology for a while now to make an 8K HDR 120 Hz OLED monitor. The panel tech exists, the scalers exist, the ports and cables also both exist.

We'll have this available for purchase any decade now... any decade. Soon, perhaps as early as the 2030s, 2040s tops!

All joking aside, I'm tempted to create a GoFundMe page for this and see if there's other people out there interested in convincing a panel manufacturer to print some 8K monitor-sized OLEDs...

Post reply on HN