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

121–130 of 470 posts

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

#121

Post by kelvie »

Retric wrote: post #98
petepete wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you try a high refresh rate monitor, even for work, you just don't want to go back. Every movement and animation is buttery smooth. Try setting your refresh rate to 30hz for an hour.

People say this, but I’ve had people fail double blind tests for 120hz vs 90hz vs 60hz. I’ve yet to find anyone that can reliably tell 144hz vs 120hz. What people mostly notice is latency not refresh rate.

That's crazy to me, just move the mouse around really quickly and you'll quickly notice it's not 120hz (if you are used to it).

What blind test did you use?

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

#122

Post by simooooo »

dizhn wrote: post #97
petepete wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you try a high refresh rate monitor, even for work, you just don't want to go back. Every movement and animation is buttery smooth. Try setting your refresh rate to 30hz for an hour.

I have 60, 144 and 165hz displays. I have to say I don't really see much of a difference. Around 30 hz yes. But not over 60. It's probably some sort of genetic vision difference thing.

Even moving the mouse quickly should be a very different experience between 60 and 165

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

#123

Post by j45 »

I find a 2Kish (2560x1440or1600) resolution on a 24-27" Monitor to be the most usable for text.

I understand things like fonts render smoother on a 4-6-8K monitor but it also draws more power usually to power all those pixels.

The use of a Chroma 4:4:4 capable 4K tv is also often really helpful because one 4K screen at large enough size gives four 1920x1080 working surfaces. 4K seems to become useful at 38" Or so in a TV.

Is there something I'm missing out on in terms of option that are superior to 2K for external monitors in terms of usability?

Many of the ultrawide monitors sometimes have worse or close to the same resolution as a single 2K monitor.

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

#125

Post by j45 »

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, am I missing something when it comes to 6K or 8K Monitors?

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

#126

Post by Aeolun »

boyter wrote: post #114
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 thought I was in 2... till I actually got a 120Hz screen. Since I flip between my desktop at 120Hz and Macbook Air M1 at 60Hz frequently I discovered I really notice. Its always so much nicer when I leave the Air. Everything is so much smoother.

Same difference between 30 and 60hz I imagine. Feels like you go from mega choppy to smooth as butter.

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

#127

Post by hopfenspergerj »

111111IIIIIII wrote: post #120
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…

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.

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

#128

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Matheus28 wrote: post #112
smolder wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your actual use case apart from technology fetishism?

120 Hz feels a lot smoother for scrolling or anything with movement on the screen. 8K is the point in which at the monitor size I use, individual pixels would be too hard to see. They're already a bit hard to see at 4K, but at 8K it'd be perfect.

Just sit further away or get older :)

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

#129

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #68
stalfosknight wrote: post #17

Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up Retina in macOS.

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.

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

#130

Post by RetpolineDrama »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #100
Matheus28 wrote: post #3

Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…

8K is four times the pixels and therefore four times the bandwidth as a 4K monitor. It took us a long time to go from 1080p to 4K. It has taken even longer for 4K at 120-144Hz to be practical. It’s more likely that you’ll end up with intermediate steps to 5K, 6K, than getting 8K 120Hz. The other limitation is lack of demand. You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it, and you need a powerful video card to driv…

>You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it

I have a 4k 24" monitor that I can still see aliasing on with AA disabled.

8K 32" would give me more real estate and should, in theory, completely eliminate the need for AA.

Post reply on HN