A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
They are a waste of time since the things with enough fidelity to matter run like shit on them without a large investment. Its just a money sink with little reward.
Subjective obviously.
Oh there are more pixels, sure. But not worth the money and most (and a big most) applications want more frames and smoother movement with less input lag over more pixels. The push for 4k gaming has went no where and it has been more then 10 years. You want to watch some 4k video? sure! That is a use case, but just get a TV with the nicer lumen, slower rates and comparably tiny price tag. I can not stop people from buying stupid crap, but I am judging them.
What about the vast majority of people who stare at screens for work?
Frame rates aren’t really important, it’s making things more readable in less space.
The cost / benefit is a completely different dynamic.
Oh I said it before there are use cases. Most working monitors are 1080p since excel is not really benefited from 4k+. However I have seen some graphic designers want the higher resolutions for example.
The vast majority of people working will get pissed at you if you changed their monitor to an ultra high resolution (I have been the one getting yelled at) without scaling it to look like 1080p. No one wants to squint to use their workstation.
Are you talking about 8K or 4K? Not only can you game in 4K with a cheap card depending on the game the desktop and everything else just looks nicer.
Ether, 1440p is about the limit I draw before the extra fidelity is not worth the performance hit.
Your own budget is by definition your business but you can run some stuff in 4K on my desktop I bought in 2020 for $700. Not worth it “TO ME” requires no defense but it is pretty silly to say its a money sink with no reward when we are talking about PC gaming. You know where you game on a 24-32" screen 1 foot or 2 from your face. The study clearly says its not.
I have at one point of time made my living in hardware, I would not advise running in 4k or higher without good reason. You being able to run at 4k does not in anyway change the terrible value proposition of losing frames and latency for fidelity. I would not recommend anyone not wanting to go absolutely silly to run a 4 or 8k monitor. Run an multiscreen setup at lower resolution like a normal person. Don’t make your own preferences or sunk costs your position on tech in general.
Credentials like “made my living in hardware” are both non-specific and non-verifiable they mean nothing. I have 2 27" 4K 60hz monitors because last gen hardware just isn’t that expensive.
When not gaming this looks nicer than 2x FHD and I run it in either 1080 or 4K depending on the game depending on what settings need to be set to get a consistent 60 FPS. My hardware isn’t poverty level nor is it expensive. An entry level Mac would be more expensive.
Leaving aside gaming isn’t it obvious to you that 4K looks nicer in desktop use or are your eyes literally failing?
I have 2 collage diplomas and worked 10 years in the industry at IBM alone. Your not going to cow me or tell me I have no credentials, those accusations mean nothing. I don’t really get why you are so very aggressively pushing this nonsense, do you just love tech slop so much? Are you getting a kickback with every 4k monitor sold? Why of all the hills to die on it is this?
And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?
if you have an ultra-high desktop resolution, you’re probably using a scaling factor to make everything look about the same size it would otherwise be at ~ 1080p… windows will even default to something around that… just no ‘jaggies’.
so yea, it does ‘look nicer’ and no, everything is not ‘stupid and tiny’.
Why is it that this example keeps coming back as if having your ultra high resolution using scaling to look like 1080p is not a self burn? Its not a worth while cost for the monitor, more so when you run them in lower resolutions for performance anyway. You would be foolish to go for a ultra high resolution monitor over a lower response time or higher frequency. The desktop argument is pathetic, its the desktop, no one but arch users spend their time stareing at it.
On the internet where you go by “Moonpoo” you in fact have no credentials because nobody can verify anything.
It is in a way hilarious to imagine that IBM is so broken that its employees can’t figure out how to make fonts not tiny on 4K. You must have been a manager.
Oh IBM is way more broken then that. But by making the fonts bigger so you can read them on a 4k monitor is not the augment you think it is for 4k…
But hey as long as everyone buys monitors for roughly 3x the price then its all good then, right? I think you are even losing the plot here on WHY people should buy 4K or higher monitors. There are fringe cases, of course, but the vast majority of time its just a fool and their money soon to be parted.