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

The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

m.thewirecutter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#21

Post by alkonaut »

programminggeek wrote: post #5

4K is going to really not matter much for a while simply because the average computer doesn't have good enough graphics to make good use of it. The resolution jump is huge and so you need a lot more GPU memory and processing power to do the same things at a higher resolution. Games are now really taking good advantage of 1080p, so we are another 5-10 years away from 4k being a real thing in terms of mainstream gaming…

With g-sync and similar we will probably see smooth gameplay at lower refresh rates, meaning 4k gaming can be a little closer than it would be if we wanted 4k @ 60Hz.

The real elephant in the room is the poor scaling of applications, on my 4k laptop screen on windows 8.1 I tried making it work for a few weeks using windows' scaling settings, but caved and just set it to 1/4 resolution and haven't looked back. On a small screen the benefit of more pixels just doesn't outweigh the downside of many apps being unusable.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#22

Post by devindotcom »

javipas wrote: post #10

The ASUS PB287Q, AOC U2868PQU and Samsung U28D590D all support UHD resolutions at 60Hz and DisplayPort 1.2 SST. That means that they support working with just "one tile", they don't give the problems the previous dual-tile solutions. I don't really see the problem with these new monitors that are good enough for most people. Good price, the TN panels are quite decent (confirmed by reviews both at The Tech Report ( ht…

I don't mind playing games in a lower resolution and letting it scale up to the monitor's res - I consider the stretching to 4K a form of "natural" (if sloppy) anti-aliasing.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#23

Post by ctdonath »

eterm wrote: post #8

What bothers me about 4k is the switching of terms. 4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!

Further aggravating: "4k" isn't "four thousand (and 96 in binary pocket change)", it's the marketing-by-association of noting that "true 4k" at 4096 is "close enough" as the consequence of taking a 4096x2160 display and feeding it 16:9 content, then trimming the resulting side black bars.

More detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#24

Post by listic »

ScotterC wrote: post #12

I absolutely love wirecutter. If they're not already making ends meet then I'd happily donate for this kind of honesty and quality reviews.

For those not familiar with The Wirecutter, is their concept "the best value-conscious buy"?

I was looking for a review for a MicroSD card to use with a Surface Pro convertible tablet I'm going to buy, and they didn't review 128GB or 64GB models, just 32GB and 16GB ones "because they're very expensive and most people don't need that much space on a microSD card". http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-microsd-card/

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#25

Post by me_again »

By all means wait, but as a programmer, I've found the Samsung 28" UHD monitor terrific. I can get a huge amount of crisp text on the screen at once, and the color accuracy is Good Enough For Me. I have not seen any issues driving the display over DisplayPort 1.2 @ 60Hz - BiOS etc all works fine.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#26

Post by [deleted] »

mortenjorck wrote: post #20

...though you’d be foolish to buy a 24-inch 4K display, we can only hope that Intel and Samsung’s ambitions can push down prices on larger displays. Unless you're a Mac user, in which case you'd be foolish to buy anything else. Reposting from my comment last year: At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one…

[deleted]

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#27

Post by secure »

geekam wrote: post #2

I'd like to know if anyone is using a 4K monitor and their experience with it. I have an Apple thunderbolt display and I am ok with it. I do not have a 4K. I use it with macbook pro 15" (retina display) and even though I do not get the same resolution, it does not look flaky at all and is decent enough for reading. Moreover, it connects with the pro using thunderbolt and thus does not require multiple connections for…

I have the Dell UP2414Q, driving it with Debian Linux. Software support is still not quite there (e.g. in Chrome on Linux), but the display quality is awesome.

I’d buy this monitor again in an instant. Reading/writing/programming/just using your computer does feel a lot better than on “non-retina” panels.

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#28

Post by maxerickson »

listic wrote: post #24
ScotterC wrote: post #12

I absolutely love wirecutter. If they're not already making ends meet then I'd happily donate for this kind of honesty and quality reviews.

For those not familiar with The Wirecutter, is their concept "the best value-conscious buy"? I was looking for a review for a MicroSD card to use with a Surface Pro convertible tablet I'm going to buy, and they didn't review 128GB or 64GB models, just 32GB and 16GB ones "because they're very expensive and most people don't need that much space on a microSD card". http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-microsd-card/

More or less. In their own (maybe slightly breathless) words:

http://thewirecutter.com/about/

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#29

Post by eterm »

dublinben wrote: post #17
eterm wrote: post #8

What bothers me about 4k is the switching of terms. 4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!

We really ought to insist on using more correct terms like UHD (Ultra High Definition = 3840×2160 pixels) and only referring to "true" 4K cinema (4096 × 2160 pixels) content/equipment as 4K.

Like "HD" (1080) vs "HD Ready" (720) I think we've already lost that battle, and yet again it's "buyer beware" where people will get sold inferior goods as if they're the good stuff by having the same or similar terms for different quality. (Although in this case it's not as large a difference as HD vs HD ready was)

Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet

#30

Post by wmf »

mortenjorck wrote: post #20

...though you’d be foolish to buy a 24-inch 4K display, we can only hope that Intel and Samsung’s ambitions can push down prices on larger displays. Unless you're a Mac user, in which case you'd be foolish to buy anything else. Reposting from my comment last year: At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one…

As a diehard Mac user, I still wouldn't want a 24" retina monitor because it has a lot less space than a 34" superwide non-retina.
Post reply on HN