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

Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

press.asus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#201

Post by simoncion »

tom_alexander wrote: post #119
qaq wrote: post #49

6K 32" ProArt model PA32QCV might be more practical for YN crowd at 1299 USD VS 8-9K USD PA32KCX will run you

I'm not buying a new monitor with a decade-old version of DisplayPort. Non-oled monitors are products that last a long time (at least a decade) so if I bought this monitor, I'd still be using DisplayPort 1.4 from 2016 in 2036. I need UHBR20 on a new monitor so I can rest assured that I will have some lanes available for my other peripherals. I've already lived the hell of needing to dedicate all 4 lanes to DisplayPor…

> I'm not buying a new monitor with a decade-old version of DisplayPort.

With the greatest of respect, this is a deeply silly way to think of it.

The way you should be thinking of it is:

> I'm not buying a new monitor that requires DSC to run at native resolution. That's fucking garbage.

Since DP 1.4, the only thing the DisplayPort version indicates that an end-user gives a shit about is the maximum supported speed link speed. So, if all you need is HRB3 to drive a display at its native resolution, refresh rate, and maximum bit depth without fucking DSC, then DisplayPort 1.4 will be just fine. And if DSC doesn't bother you, then your range of acceptable displays is magically widened!

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#202

Post by efficax »

metaphor wrote: post #22
efficax wrote: post #20

realistically what’s the point of all those pixels at 32 inches? 5k at 27 inches seems more than enough.

Apparently, ASUS believes there's an addressable market willing to pay a premium for +26.5% color-calibrated ppi in larger form factor.

i'm not suggesting there's no market, i'm just trying to understand why it exists

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#203

Post by eertami »

swiftcoder wrote: post #121
stephenr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you were to make an analogy you should target for a few devices that represent the "average" For Macs, 220DPI absolutely is the average.

I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from - my former employers equipped all the software engineers with dual-4K displays nearly a decade ago. One is hard-put to buy a developer-power laptop with a sub-2K display these days, even in the Windows world, and >2K displays have been cheap on desktop for a really long time.

If you have 20/20 vision, a 27" display at 1440p (~110 DPI) has a visual acuity distance of 79cm - ie, if you are sat 79cm or further away from the screen, humans are not capable of resolving any extra detail from a higher resolution. High refresh rate 1440p IPS screens are very widely available at good prices, so it isn't that crazy that people choose them.

Phone and laptop have higher DPI screens of course, but I'm not close enough to my desktop monitor for a higher DPI to matter.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#204

Post by Kon5ole »

Aurornis wrote: post #159
martinald wrote: post #89

Me and a friend were just chatting how annoying it is monitors stalled out at 4K. I think I got my first set of 4k monitors ~15 years ago (!) and there's been no improvements since then apart from high end pro monitors resolution wise. Why is this? 5k/6k at 27" would be the sweet spot for me, and potentially 8k at 32". However, I'm not willing to drop $2k per monitor to go from a very nice 27" 4k to 27" 5k. You can g…

> You can get 8K TVs for 8K at jumbo TV size has relatively large pixels compared to an 8K desktop monitor. It’s easier to manufacture. > And an Quest 3 headset has 2 displays at far higher PPI for $600 Those displays are physically tiny. Easier to deal with lower yields when it’s only taking a few square inches. Ultra high resolution desktop monitors would exist in the middle: Very small pixel sizes but also relativ…

>> You can get 8K TVs for >8K at jumbo TV size has relatively large pixels compared to an 8K desktop monitor. It’s easier to manufacture.

I don't think that's true.

I've been using a 8k 55" TV as my main monitor for years now. It was available for sub-800 USD before all such tv's vanished from the market. Smaller pixels were not more expensive even then, the 55"s were the cheapest.

4k monitors can be had for sub-200 usd, selling 4x the area of the same panel should be at most 4x that price. And it was, years ago.

So they were clearly not complicated or expensive to manufacture - but there was no compelling reason for having 8k on a TV so they didn't sell. However, there IS a compelling reason to have 8K on a desktop monitor!

That such monitors sell for 8000 usd+ is IMO a very unfortunate situation caused by a weird incompetence in market segmentation by the monitor makers.

I firmly believe that they could sell 100x as many if they cut the price to 1/10th, which they clearly could do. The market that never appeared for tv's is present among the world's knowledge workers, for sure.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#205

Post by lwhsiao »

qaq wrote: post #49

6K 32" ProArt model PA32QCV might be more practical for YN crowd at 1299 USD VS 8-9K USD PA32KCX will run you

I second this, I recently switched [1] and have been delighted by the crisp fonts.

[1]: https://luke.hsiao.dev/blog/pa32qcv/

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#206

Post by Aurornis »

swiftcoder wrote: post #198
ak217 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

> You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity 32" 4K at 36" is 91 ppd. Which I guess is good enough, seeing as I'm well the far side of 25 year old. > Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. 36" is the point where I can see all 4 corners of the monitor at the same time (and significantly too close to focus on one corner and have the other 3 corners in view at the same time). 40…

> 40 degrees of FoV is massive for a single monitor! I'm sitting here wondering how much you have to turn your head to use this size monitor up close

You move your eyes, not your head. Plus or minus 20 degrees is a trivial amount of eye movement.

Most people are fine with this. Your requirement to comfortably see everything with minimal eye/head movement is atypical.

Even if you do have to move your head, that’s not a bad thing. A little head movement during long computing sessions is helpful.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#207

Post by [deleted] »

ak217 wrote: post #192
swiftcoder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. It's also incorrectly applied math. You need to take into account the viewing distance - the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays (at the distance one typically holds a smartphone). For a 32" monit…

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

[deleted]

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#208

Post by ericd »

Moto7451 wrote: post #183
guhcampos wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more widespread than we like to admit. Developers writing software on 64GB M4 Macs often don't realize the performance bottlenecks of the software they write. Developers working over 1gbps Internet connections often don't realize the data gluttony of the software they write. Developers writing services over unlimited cloud budgets often don't realize the resource wastes into which their software incurrs. And…

> Developers working over 1gbps Internet connections often don't realize the data gluttony of the software they write. As a developer and AirBnB owner, what I’ve also noticed is the gluttony of the toolchain as well. I’ve had complaints about a 500/30 connection from remote working devs (very clear from the details they give) which is the fastest you can get for much of the metro I am in. At home I can get up to 5/5…

OT, but leaving the zeros on those gigabit numbers makes this a lot less work to understand, at first I thought maybe you were in mbps throughout.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#209

Post by kijin »

Moto7451 wrote: post #183
guhcampos wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more widespread than we like to admit. Developers writing software on 64GB M4 Macs often don't realize the performance bottlenecks of the software they write. Developers working over 1gbps Internet connections often don't realize the data gluttony of the software they write. Developers writing services over unlimited cloud budgets often don't realize the resource wastes into which their software incurrs. And…

> Developers working over 1gbps Internet connections often don't realize the data gluttony of the software they write. As a developer and AirBnB owner, what I’ve also noticed is the gluttony of the toolchain as well. I’ve had complaints about a 500/30 connection from remote working devs (very clear from the details they give) which is the fastest you can get for much of the metro I am in. At home I can get up to 5/5…

Not only bandwidth but also latency can vary dramatically depending on where you are. Some of your guests might have been trying to connect to a VPN that tunnels all their traffic halfway around the world. That's much, much worse than getting a few hundred Mbps less bandwidth.

Re: Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX

#210

Post by eertami »

ak217 wrote: post #192
swiftcoder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simple math. A 32" 4K monitor is about 130 PPI. Retina displays (where you could reasonably say the pixels are not noticeable, and the text is sharp enough to not strain the eyes) start at 210 PPI. It's also incorrectly applied math. You need to take into account the viewing distance - the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone displays (at the distance one typically holds a smartphone). For a 32" monit…

Take a look at this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64679-2 - the limits at "normal visual acuity" (18 observers ~25 years old) are far beyond what you imply. You need over 95 ppd to exhaust normal visual acuity. > For a 32" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the monitor's surface Why are you assuming 36"? Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away. Most people use less than half that di…

> and by staring at these monitors all day, we are slowly degrading it

Yes, but that is probably accelerated more by sitting closer to screens than is healthy for too long, than it is by the resolution of the screen. It's anecdata so maybe truly everyone you know does sit 45cm away from a desktop monitor - but I can't say I've ever experienced that.

Of course if you do sit that close then higher resolution is resolvable. Perhaps what your statement actually should be is: "Perhaps Retina doesn't matter if you sit at a (perfectly comfortable and healthy) further distance away from the screen - that's OK", otherwise I can a reader may think you are trying to imply the OP is somehow inferior, but really the only thing that differs is your viewing distance.

Post reply on HN