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

441–450 of 470 posts

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

#441

Post by veidr »

debug-desperado wrote: post #417
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…

Did Apple slip some better scaling in with the M2 chips? Or maybe with the OS update? Or perhaps you're referring to HDMI 2.1 support?

No, HDMI 2.1 doesn't matter (yet) because there are no 8K desktop monitors (meaning 32-inch size or similar) on the market that use HDMI.

The only 8K monitor has for years been the Dell UP3218K, which uses DisplayPort -- and requires two DisplayPort cables, actually, to get 7680 × 4320 at 60Hz.

Apple has never supported this on any of their machines -- they just couldn't drive the monitor. (It worked, but only in 4K mode.)

They quietly changed this with the M2 machines. I had a MacBook Pro M1 Max that couldn't drive this monitor at 8K. Then I found this GitHub thread[1] where it was revealed that M2 Pro can drive up to one of these 8K displays over Thunderbolt (to DisplayPort). And the M2 Ultra on a Mac Pro or Mac Studio can drive 3 of them.

I don't think it is scaling, per se, but rather that Apple has never supported the full DisplayPort spec. That 8K monitor apparently needs support for something called "dual SST" and Apple never supported that in their software. More details are in the linked GitHub discussion.

So, I don't know why they didn't make this work on the M1 Ultra, too, but Apple gonna Apple. So I went down to the Apple Store and bought a Mac Studio M2 Ultra the day I read that. Now I can plug my Mac into my KVM switch and use this monitor on Mac just like I always could with Linux and Windows.

[1]: https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay/discussions/199#d...

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

#442

Post by SomeHacker44 »

boycott-israel wrote: post #432
lelanthran wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite for me; I have to move small things away in order to focus on them. I always joke that if it gets much more worse my arms won't be long enough to hold my phone :-)

So too close and they're out of focus / blurry? Does VR work for you?

This happens naturally with age, usually starting sometime between age 45-50, as your eyes shift from variable focus to fixed focus (at distance). Google presbyopia.

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

#443

Post by RulerOf »

alin23 wrote: post #381
nathancahill wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wanted to say, thanks for the fantastic app. It's the first thing I install on a new computer.

Hey thanks! So happy to hear that ^_^

I'm really glad I stumbled upon this thread. I need this app badly.

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

#444

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

masklinn wrote: post #371
mlonkibjuyhv wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever try using the KVM feature on for instance a Phillips monitor, you'll realize the Dell feature is a dream!

Oh I’m sure, it’s mostly fine, my biggest annoyance is actually that the OSD buttons take just a bit too much force (especially for how small they are) so you pretty much always lift the corner, which results in the display “bouncing” for a few seconds before it settles. And that sometimes it’ll get confused and won’t switch the USB peripherals correctly, but that’s not too common (hasn’t happened in a long while in…

The Dell 6k has the buttons on the back so this is not a problem.

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

#445

Post by zamadatix »

bartvk wrote: post #326
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.

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.

Many would disagree with you is the the point I was making, not that everyone should agree. Some don't think 32" 4k at 200% scaling is large enough while others don't think running a ~4k 16" MacBook at 100% scaling is too small to use. What's relevant is that 4k 32" at 100% scaling remains popular and should not be surprising to read about as a use case, despite whatever one's personal preference is.

Some of this comes down to visual acuity, viewing distance, and what one is used to as feeling normal. Things like changing font sizes are just another way at upping the scaling factor though.

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

#446

Post by raisedbyninjas »

lrem wrote: post #333
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The built-in kvm feature is very basic and I don't even setup the keyboard shortcuts because that requires software to be installed on the computers. Basically it just lets me switch between computers with 2 quick button presses on each monitor. I use an additional usb 3.0 switch from CableMatters so my peripherals can be switched between each display incase I want to have both computers up side by side. If you only…

Extremely badass but still 60Hz :( I wonder if I’ll ever find a way to drive 4k@144Hz and switch inputs without the current cable replugging ritual.

Gigabyte m32uc

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

#447

Post by imwally »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #129
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people have switched to larger screens (32+ inch) that they place farther away, lowering the need for pixel density. I'm on a 4K 27" monitor. That's a PPI of 163. I don't feel it's dismal, and I sit relatively close to my monitor.

I’m using a 4K 28” (I didn’t think there were any 4K 27” given the geometry), and it’s ok but I would really prefer a 5K 27”, those are just more clear although not incredibly so. But they are so expensive to get outside of an iMac. I recently bought my wife a 24” 4K, which has a similar density to the 27” 5K, and her screen looks much better than my 28” 4K.

Which 24” 4K did you get her? There doesn’t seem to be many on the market?

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

#448

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

bernawil wrote: post #424
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their main supposed advantage, that they mitigate glare, is just false. It is very true, contrary to what you claim. The glare on my old trusty Dell U2413 matte display is next to non-existent compared to Apple M1 Air that is hooked to it.

maybe I wasn't very clear in my point. I'm not saying matte doesn't attenuate glare. I'm saying that it does some, mainly by diffusing it and spreading it around and I personally can't stand any amount of it. It's binary for me: If I get any amount of glare I tilt my screen away until there's none. Another issue is the nature of the reflection. In a glossy screen, the reflection often is a mirror effect that, at leas…

That's just like, your opinion, man. It is clear that you don't like matte screens, but it is a far road from your preferences to universal statements like "Matte never made sense at all."

Also, screen protectors? Last time I saw one was ~1994.

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

#449

Post by brailsafe »

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 find that higher refresh rate seems more impactful on otherwise rather choppy experiences, or games, or phones. I'd go for it if it was free and came with no or extremely minimal compromises to resolution or picture quality, but the underlying display tech is pretty important. Of course, if I were spending $6k on a screen, it better have higher refresh rate and incredible picture quality, because that's not an amount of money I spend on anything except taxes.

I recently had the opportunity to try out an ultrawide 144hz VA panel at approximately the same pixel density as my Dell Ultrasharp 30" that came out a great number of years ago, and it was... fine. Used it for a few months and then sold it. Swapped the 30" back in and am back to my old stance that whatever replaces this screen is going to have to have wildly better picture quality than the ultrawide; I haven't even thought about it since. The picture quality on the VA wasn't necessarily bad enough to notice while I was using it, except for the viewing angles, but comparatively it didn't hold up at all.

Having used another 144hz display right at again the same pixel density at 27" next to my MacBook pro being actively used as a second screen, I think the density and quality of the MacBook display sort of nullified anything I got from refresh rate.

For me to replace my current screen, what I'm hoping for is basically for this 6k to either come down to earth in price, or for competition to come in and build an equivalent. If I could get that for ~$1500CAD eventually (only half of what they are right now on sale), refresh rate would still only be a nice to have. More important to me is a good KVM feature, thunderbolt/one-cable connectivity, and better aesthetics I guess above most other features. A nice webcam would be nice too, but I don't really care much about that being built-in unless it's invisible.

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

#450

Post by squeaky-clean »

pxc wrote: post #217
squeaky-clean wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the original commenter but, it... has a certain look to it. It's not something that can be totally solved by the OS or any scaling algorithm because fundamentally you have to deal with rendering fractional portions of a pixel to a physical screen where there is no such thing as a fractional pixel. It just always looks different, and IMO worse, than integer scaling. You have to trade off distortions for bluriness…

I don't understand why 'distortion' (things being rendered ± 1 pixel over on some screens vs. on others) is a problem unless your GUI frameworks and/or apps count on pixel-exact layouts for some UI elements. But why would they? Isn't the entire web built on a reflowable format that works pretty well? Shouldn't those tiny 1-pixel differences be like the easiest possible variation for a GUI system's layout engine to co…

For me, a 1 pixel asymmetry in a button at medium ppi is noticeable and mildly distracting. I don't mind it much for UI, but I understand why others would want to avoid it. I tend to set my ui and toolbars to auto-hide. Personally, the reasons why I avoid it are text rendering and gaming usage.
Post reply on HN