51–60 of 65 posts
I've read through this a few times and I'm still not sure what makes this specific for coders or how its different from other 4k monitors. Can someone explain what makes this monitor better for the average coder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vast majority of 120+ Hz displays are 1080p only. That's for gaming. 4k at 120 Hz will need DisplayPort 2.0 and a powerful GPU to provide that bandwidth (40 Gbit/sec). Practically useless for its intended purpose (coding). Will increase the cost for no benefit. Waste of money.
I like to be able to scroll and read at the same time. To do that comfortably you need at least 120hz. Vast majority of $250+ monitors are 100hz or over. This is not a cheap monitor, I think expecting a better refresh rate is a reasonable expectation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vast majority of 120+ Hz displays are 1080p only. That's for gaming. 4k at 120 Hz will need DisplayPort 2.0 and a powerful GPU to provide that bandwidth (40 Gbit/sec). Practically useless for its intended purpose (coding). Will increase the cost for no benefit. Waste of money.
4k@120hz is pretty common now. I recently got an LG UltraGear. I can drive it with a usb-c to DP cable with my MBP M1. Not that expensive. Great text clarity. Personally, I enjoy the higher refresh rate when coding.
Looks like they’re using the same panels as the Huawei Mateview. Only these ones are VESA mountable. 3:2 at such high resolution, for me is a great experience. I’ll maybe grab one for my work desk to run vertically as I can’t do the same with the Mateview
Obviously only an issue for Americans, but the Huawei Mateview isn't widely available due to the ban on Huawei products. It could be imported grey-market, but only at slightly inflated prices and without any warranty protection. The BenQ monitor will be commercially available in the US.
[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b-dualup-monitor
15:10 vs 16:9. I think that's enough difference to notice. 2560 x 1600 resolution is a bit disappointing though. Too bad 1:1 display isn't common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For every unit of height, there is 1.5 units of width. A traditional monitor is 16:9: that means for every unit of height, there is 1.77 units of height. It sounds like a small difference, but it means a ~15% increase in height. ex. my Visual Studio Code would show 70 lines of code instead of 60. This is an especially good tradeoff for code, because we tradtional line wrap at ~80 characters, which leaves large swaths…
Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously.
I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]).
[1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to be able to scroll and read at the same time. To do that comfortably you need at least 120hz. Vast majority of $250+ monitors are 100hz or over. This is not a cheap monitor, I think expecting a better refresh rate is a reasonable expectation.
Where can you get a 4k 100 Hz monitor for $250?