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

321–330 of 470 posts

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

#321

Post by lrem »

kimburgess wrote: post #290
LoganDark wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display. It doesn't matter if it's a wearable, phone, laptop, monitor, TV, or stadium wrapping LED surface, the only important factors for resolution are the distance to the viewer's eyes and the distance between the pixels. For context, 20/20 vision is the ability to perceive 1 arcminute of angular resolution. Beyond that point there are diminishin…

20/20 vision is a low bar though. I’m bothered by how much my vision has deteriorated since I was a teenager. The difference is obvious, as I now need to walk up to things I used to read from a distance. I’ve tested 20/20 a few weeks ago.

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

#322

Post by alin23 »

aftbit wrote: post #251
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)…

Does it support DDC over i2c? I want at least sleep mode, input, and brightness control.

Lunar dev here. Looks like it does support DDC brightness control: https://f.alinpanaitiu.com/nAa7gs/Image.png

I checked this on https://db.lunar.fyi using the following query:

    select control, name from displays where name like '%U3224K%'
Can’t be sure about DDC input switching though, I have no way of knowing that it works without trying it in front of the monitor. DDC reports success even if the command failed to switch the input.

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

#323

Post by iod »

Having owned Dell's 5K for years, last year I finally upgraded to their 8K model. I could never go back to anything less. If you need it and can justify the cost, you will know; but I don't see either being justifiably true for very many people at this point. While higher refresh would be nice, 60Hz is more than adequate for me, as it's the screen real estate that matters, and you really don't have many options to choose from.

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

#324

Post by t0bia_s »

adrian_b wrote: post #291
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…

Yes, since many years my minimum requirements for any monitor are 4k resolution and 30-bit Display P3 / DCI P3 colors. There are plenty of very affordable monitors like this. I would like very much to also have an 120 Hz frame rate, but then the price would become much higher.

Mine 27" MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD has 188% sRGB, 127% AdobeRGB, 133 DCI-P3, 10bit@120Hz or 8bit@165Hz, cost around 450$. A would say solid price for this results measured by spectometer.

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

#325

Post by stephen_g »

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?

Yeah, we’ve been in an awkward spot for the last few years where the interfaces haven’t quite been there to eliminate the trade off. I’d like 120Hz, but I don’t need it if I have to forgo resolution to get it. Once I can get both for a reasonable cost, then I’m all for it.

I’m still annoyed there are no 5K 27” monitors in the ~$500-800 bracket. I’d rather that kind of pixel density with decent quality in that price bracket first, and then let’s talk higher refresh rates.

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

#326

Post by bartvk »

zamadatix wrote: post #208
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)…

32" is an extremely common size for 4k at 100% scaling so I can see the desire for 8k using 200% scaling at the resolution. 225-250% would probably be more "proper" densities for such a display but many like to go a bit under standard scale.

I have a 32" monitor with 4k resolution. With macOS, it's unusable at 100% scaling. It's far too dense. Sure, you can change fonts in many applications, but not all.

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

#327

Post by LoganDark »

kimburgess wrote: post #290
LoganDark wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display. It doesn't matter if it's a wearable, phone, laptop, monitor, TV, or stadium wrapping LED surface, the only important factors for resolution are the distance to the viewer's eyes and the distance between the pixels. For context, 20/20 vision is the ability to perceive 1 arcminute of angular resolution. Beyond that point there are diminishin…

> Forget 4K, 6K, or 8K. Pixel density is the spec when considering any display.

I'm not really sure what you're refuting, if anything. Either I personally find 220ppi now rather unimpressive, or I found the 2015 MacBook display to have been especially impressive, but I am not sure which; all I was really saying is that they do indeed have quite similar pixel densities.

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

#328

Post by acumenical »

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…

After experiencing 120Hz it ruined 60Hz monitors for me

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

#329

Post by vladvasiliu »

FpUser wrote: post #267
zamadatix wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

32" is an extremely common size for 4k at 100% scaling so I can see the desire for 8k using 200% scaling at the resolution. 225-250% would probably be more "proper" densities for such a display but many like to go a bit under standard scale.

What would be more proper in this case is to make it 64" display. Otherwise it is just a waste of resources. But one can not sit in front of 64" monitor at a normal viewing distance. I would guess except some very limited niches 8K PC monitor makes little sense

I don't think so. From where I'm sitting, I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor. The easiest way to observe this is some skinny light text on a dark background.

Other than that, I'm quite happy with my screen real-estate. So, I would indeed love it to have a higher resolution. I could probably use a somewhat bigger screen, a bit further away, that would do a better job as a TV the rare times I use it as such (don't have an actual TV). But all in all, I just want smaller pixels.

Others are talking about higher refresh rates, but for my use case it wouldn't be as useful since I rarely drag things around (I use a TWM) and don't use smooth scrolling in apps.

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

#330

Post by secure »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #277

> To drive that resolution at 60 Hz, about 34 Gbps of data rate is needed. ... But then the table just below states the MacBook does it at 8gbps without DSC. What's going on here?

Copying my reply from Mastodon:

> I honestly don’t know. Maybe this is a bug in the monitor’s firmware and it does use some version of DSC after all? Or you’re right regarding lack of DSC support and it uses more than 8 Gbps but displays it incorrectly? Not sure. But something is definitely different about the monitor’s link when a MacBook is connected…

Then I read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36581855, which points out 24 bit colors vs. 30 bit colors. The MacBook links up with 24-bit colors indeed. Maybe that’s the difference?

Post reply on HN