[HN Gopher] Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Displa...
___________________________________________________________________
Asus Announces October Availability of ProArt Display 8K PA32KCX
Author : Roachma
Score : 155 points
Date : 2025-10-28 14:17 UTC (8 days ago)
(HTM) web link (press.asus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (press.asus.com)
| fleventynine wrote:
| No mention of 120Hz; I'm waiting for a 6k or higher-density
| display that can do higher refresh rates.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| I was going to joke about 8k@120Hz needing like 4 video cables,
| but it seems we are not too far from it.
|
| [8k@120Hz Gaming on HDMI 2.1 with
| compression](https://wccftech.com/8k-120hz-gaming-world-first-
| powered-by-...)
|
| > With the HDMI 2.2 spec announced at CES 2025 and its official
| release scheduled for later this year, 8K displays will likely
| become more common thanks to the doubled (96 Gbps) bandwidth.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Also as far as 6k goes, that's half the bandwidth of 8k.
| ternus wrote:
| My primary monitor is the Samsung 57" 8Kx2K 240Hz ultrawide.
| That's the same amount of bandwidth, running over DisplayPort
| 2. It _mostly_ works!
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| I use the same monitor can I love it. Couldn't recommend it
| more to people.
| mohsen1 wrote:
| Fifty seven inches??
| DrProtic wrote:
| Just two 4k monitors slapped together, it's 8k wide but
| 2k tall.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Is it actually good for productivity? The curve isn't too
| aggressive? Could you, e.g. stack 3 independent windows and
| use all 3? Or you kind of give up on the leftmost /
| rightmost edges ?
| dietr1ch wrote:
| I think window managers these days do a better job on 3
| monitors than on a single one that could have the same
| area.
|
| With an ultra wide you lose the screen concept for
| managing area and it gets awful because you lose grouping
| windows on different screens, picking per-monitor
| workspaces, moving windows across screens.
|
| Either monitors need to present themselves as multiple
| screens, or window managers need to come up with virtual
| screens to regain the much needed screen abstraction.
| sfjailbird wrote:
| I have three 4K 27" which yield a bit more screen real
| estate. Otherwise I'd love to go to a single ultrawide.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| I prefer 3 monitors because it eases window management
| while being cheaper. For gaming I only need one 240Hz+
| monitor and for Lan parties I only take that one.
|
| Although for sim racing I've been thinking about getting
| a single ultra wide and high refresh rate monitor, but
| I'd probably go for a dedicated setup with a seat,
| monitor and speakers. It gets pricey, but cheaper than
| crashing IRL.
| sfjailbird wrote:
| Yeah, window management is certainly better with separate
| monitors, hopefully this will get better with time.
|
| On the flip side I would love to get rid of physically
| managing three individual pieces of hardware that wasn't
| made to work together as one setup.
| kondro wrote:
| Thunderbolt 5 supports up to 120Gbps one-way.
| usrusr wrote:
| Just don't try putting something convenient in between, at
| least that's what my adventures in TB4 taught me:
| displayport from a TB port works fine, even when DP goes to
| a multiscreen daisychain and the TB does PD to the laptop
| on the side, but try multiscreen through a hub and all bets
| are off. I think it's the hubs overheating and I've seen
| that even on just 2x FHD (Ok, that one was on a cheap non-
| TB hub, but I also got two certified TB4 hub hubs to fail
| serving 2x "2.5k" (2560x1600). And those hubs are
| expensive, I believe that they all run the same Intel
| chipset.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Thunderbolt 5 supports up to 120Gbps one-way._
|
| Two clarify, there are two options for allocating
| bandwidth:
|
| * 80Gbps both up- and downstream
|
| * 120Gbps in one direction (up or down), and 40 in the
| opposite
|
| See:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)#Thu
| nde...
| FootballMuse wrote:
| Uncompressed, absolutely we need another generation bump with
| over 128Gbps for 8K@120Hz with HDR. But with DSC HDMI 2.1 and
| the more recent DisplayPort 2.0 standards is possible, but
| support isn't quite there yet.
|
| Nvidia quotes 8K@165Hz over DP for their latest generation.
| AMD has demoed 8K@120hz over HDMI but not on a consumer
| display yet.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Refresh_frequency_.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Refresh_frequency_limits_.
| ..
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/graphics-cards/compare/
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > 4 video cables
|
| The IBM T220 4k monitor required 4 DVI cables.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
| ryukoposting wrote:
| I wouldn't hold my breath. Competing models seem to top out
| around 120 Hz but at lower resolutions. I don't imagine there's
| a universal push for higher refresh rates in this segment
| anyway. My calibrated displays run at 60 Hz, and I'm happy with
| that. Photos don't really move much, y'know.
| klausa wrote:
| I imagine your mouse still moves plenty though.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| If "the mouse looks nice" is the selling point, I'm not
| sold.
| eviks wrote:
| > Photos don't really move much, y'know.
|
| They do when you move them (scroll)
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| And?
|
| Can you provide a ROI point for scrolling photos at 120Hz+
| ?
| klausa wrote:
| It looks and feels much better to many (but not all)
| people.
|
| I don't really know how you expect that to translate into
| a ROI point.
| eviks wrote:
| Sure, give me your ROI point for an extra pixel and I can
| fit refresh rate in there.
| jbellis wrote:
| About twice the price of the Dell 8k.
| cheema33 wrote:
| There is a lot of marketing material at the linked page. But
| there is no mention of price and available sizes. Also, there is
| no link to purchase one. This is November. I can look these
| things up, but why link to a PR fluff piece if there something
| more substantial available?
| pdpi wrote:
| > But there is no mention of price and available sizes
|
| No idea about prices, but, assuming they follow the usual
| conventions for model codes, that's a 32" unit.
| dklsf wrote:
| Here's some specs: https://www.asus.com/displays-
| desktops/monitors/proart/proar...
|
| 8K, 32inch, 275ppi, 60Hz 2 Thunderbolt 4, 1 DisplayPort 2.1
| cmgriffing wrote:
| I shudder to think how small the macOS ui text will be on this
| but I'm willing to find out.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It'll look normal, maybe even a little big by default if the
| XDR is anything to go by
|
| OSX does great at scaling UIs for high resolutions
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| You can run it natively, but it is better to downscale to 4k or
| 1080p. I run three 5k versions of this monitor and they are all
| downscaled to 1440p. I get 1:1 pixel mapping so text looks
| crisp in every app except Microsoft Teams.
| Tepix wrote:
| Isn't downscaling the wrong term? You're still taking
| advantage of its native resolution.
| Kerrick wrote:
| For macOS, 8K should have a larger screen. This 8K monitor is
| 32 inches, which leaves us with a very awkward 275ppi. 42"
| would be 209ppi, which is great for 16.5" from your face. 48"
| would be 183ppi, which is great for 18.8" from your face (my
| preference). But at 32" and 275dpi, that would be a 12.5"
| viewing distance, which is far too close for a 32" monitor.
| You'd be constantly moving your neck to see much of the screen
| --or wasting visual acuity by having it further.
|
| macOS is optimized for PPIs at the sweet spot in which Asus's
| 5K 27" (PA27JCV) and 6K 32" (PA32QCV) monitors sit. Asus seemed
| to be one of the few manufacturers that understand a 27"
| monitor should be 5K (217ppi), not 4K (163ppi). 4K will show
| you pixels at most common distances. But if you follow that
| same 217ppi up to 8K, that leads to 40.5" not 32".
|
| My wife has a triple vertical PA27JCV setup and it's amazing.
| I've been able to borrow it for short stints, and it's nearly
| everything I've ever wanted from a productivity monitor setup.
| numpy-thagoras wrote:
| Yeah I currently daily drive a 43" monitor and it has been a
| life changer since I got it in 2022.
|
| I'm still happy with it, would kill for an 8K 43" 120hz
| monitor but that's still a ways away.
| zakki wrote:
| What is the right size for 4K monitor and the distance from
| our eyes? I have Skyworth monitor at 27" already. If I set
| macos resolution at 4K, the default font is too small. My
| distance with the monitor is around 16,5".
| Kerrick wrote:
| My personal preference is 24" nominal for 4K (a 23.8" 4K
| display has 185ppi), running at @2x (1080p equivalent),
| because I keep my monitors a bit further back on my desk
| than others do. I run a triple Dell P2415Q setup. It was
| great when I started, but as more websites assume 1080 CSS
| pixels of width means I want tablet mode, its utility has
| decayed. Because of that I've gone from 3 vertical to 1
| horizontal flanked by 2 vertical. These aren't made
| anymore, and for years nobody else was making monitors at
| this density. It seems they've become popular again since
| COVID, and ViewSonic even released the VP2488-4K this year,
| complete with Thunderbolt 4 and DCI-P3. Asus's offering at
| this size & resolution is the PA24US.
|
| Another great option is 22" nominal (a 21.5" 4K display has
| 204ppi), also running at @2x. This is better if you keep
| the monitor closer to the keyboard side of your desk, or if
| your desk is not very deep. These are hard to find, and
| even when you do they're likely to be a portable monitor.
| Asus has a page for a PQ22UC but I can't tell if it is no
| longer available, or no longer sold in the US.
| pugz wrote:
| I recently (a couple of weeks ago) got the 6K version of this
| screen, the Asus PA32QCV. It has the same pixel density as my
| MacBook Pro, so the UI looks great. To be honest, it's enough
| screen real estate that I now operate with my laptop in clam
| shell mode.
|
| My only complaint is that the KVM leaves a bit to be desired.
| One input can be Thunderbolt, but the other has to be
| HDMI/DisplayPort. That means I need to use a USB-C cable for
| real KVM when switching between my two laptops. I'd like two
| cables, but four cables isn't the end of the world.
| Cyphus wrote:
| You can scale the UI according to your preferences, but the
| real problem is that if your monitor's ppi is not close to the
| macOS sweet spot of 220ppi (or an integer multiple thereof)
| you're going to have aliasing issues with text and other high
| contrast elements.
|
| https://griffindavidson.com/blog/mac-displays.html has a good
| rundown.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Why does it have blinders?
| andrewstuart2 wrote:
| To prevent glare and reflections usually. Similar to how a lens
| hood functions.
| jerjerjer wrote:
| Seems to be a strange setup for a marketing photo.
| tombert wrote:
| I swore a blood oath that I would never buy an Asus product ever
| again, after three terrible laptops from them in a row, but holy
| hell do I kind of want this monitor.
|
| My main "monitor" right now is an 85" 8K TV, that I absolutely
| love, but it would be nice to have something smaller for my
| upstairs desk.
| ssivark wrote:
| What are the cons of having a large TV as a monitor? I've been
| considering something like this recently, and I wonder why is
| this not more common.
| jmarcher wrote:
| For me, on macOS, the main thing is that the subpixel layout
| is rarely the classic RGB (side by side) that macOS only
| supports for text antialiasing.
|
| If I were to use a TV, it would be an OLED. That being said,
| the subpixel layout is not great:
| https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-
| fringing-...
| bestham wrote:
| IIRC Apple dropped sub pixel antialiasing in Mojave or
| Sonoma (I hate these names). It makes no sense when Macs
| are meant to be used with retina class displays.
| ahoka wrote:
| A.K.A. workaround for a software limitation with
| hardware. Mac font rendering just sucks.
| monkpit wrote:
| Usually refresh rate and sometimes feature set. And it's
| meant to be viewed from further away. I'm sure someone else
| could elaborate but that's the gist.
| tombert wrote:
| I'm sure there are reasons with regards to games and stuff,
| but I don't really use this TV for anything but writing code
| and Slack and Google Meet. Latency doesn't matter that much
| for just writing code.
|
| I really don't know why it's not more common. If you get a
| Samsung TV it even has a dedicated "PC Mode".
| baq wrote:
| "PC Mode" or "Gaming mode" or whatever is necessary - I can
| tell any other mode easily just by moving the mouse, the
| few frames of lag kill me inside. Fortunately all tvs made
| in this decade should have one.
| zf00002 wrote:
| A bunch of the mech eng at my work have switched from 2
| monitors to big tvs for doing their CAD stuff.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Lots of us HAVE tried using a TV as a primary monitor, I
| did for years.
|
| Then I bought a real display and realized oh my god there's
| a reason they cost so much more.
|
| "Game mode" has no set meaning or standard, and in lots of
| cases can make things _worse_. On my TV, it made the
| display blurry in a way I never even noticed until I fixed
| it. It 's like it was doing N64 style anti-aliasing. I
| actually had to use a different mode, and that may have had
| significant latency that I never realized.
|
| Displays are tricky, because it can be hard to notice how
| good or bad one is without a comparison, which you can't do
| in the store because they cheat display modes and display
| content, and nobody is willing to buy six displays and run
| tests every time they want to buy a new display.
| terribleperson wrote:
| If you play video games, display latency. Most modern TVs
| offer a way to reduce display latency, but it usually comes
| at the cost of various features or some impact to visual
| quality. Gaming monitors offer much better display latencies
| without compromising their listed capabilities.
|
| Televisions are also more prone to updates that can break
| things and often have user hostile 'smart' software.
|
| Still, televisions can make a decent monitor and are
| definitely cheaper per inch.
| xeonax wrote:
| I have been using a 43 inch TV as a monitor, since last 10
| years, currently on a LG. You get lot of screen-space, as
| well as you can sit away from desk and still use it. Just
| increase the zoom.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Someone mentioned the latencies for gaming, but also I had a
| 4K TV as a monitor briefly that had horrible latency for
| typing, even. Enough of a delay between hitting a key and the
| terminal printing to throw off my cadence.
|
| Only electronic device I've ever returned.
|
| Also they tend to have stronger than necessary backlights. It
| might be possible to calibrate around this issue, but the
| thing is designed to be viewed from the other side of a room.
| You are at the mercy of however low they decided to let it
| go.
| ycombinete wrote:
| You could probably circumvent this by putting the display
| into Gaming Mode, which most TVs have. It removes all the
| extra processing that TVs add to make the image "nicer".
| These processes add a hell of a lot of latency, which is
| obviously just fine for watching TV, but horrible for
| gaming or using as a pc monitor.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It was a while ago (5 years?), so I can't say for
| certain, but I'm pretty sure I was aware of game mode at
| the time and played with the options enough to convince
| myself that it wasn't there.
| xnx wrote:
| > horrible latency for typing
|
| Was this the case even after enabling the TVs "game mode"
| that disables a lot of the latency inducing image
| processing (e.g. frame interpolation).
| sim7c00 wrote:
| game mode is a scam. it breaks display quality on most
| TVs. and still doesn't respond as fast as a PC monitor
| with <1ms latencies.... it might drop itself to 2 or 3
| which is still 2x or 3x atleast slower.
|
| you can think 'but thats inhumanly fast, you wont notice
| it' but in reality, this is _very_ noticeable in games
| like counter-strike where hand-eye coordination, speed
| and pinpoint accuracy are key. if you play such games a
| lot then you will feel it if the latency goes above 1ms.
| eurleif wrote:
| Where are you finding monitors with <1ms input lag? The
| lowest measured here is 1.7ms:
| https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag
| sim7c00 wrote:
| false advertisements :D
| theshackleford wrote:
| Most people lack an understanding of displays and
| therefore what they are quoting and are in fact quoting
| the vendors claimed pixel response time as the input lag.
|
| It's gotta be the most commonly mixed up things I've seen
| in the last twenty years as an enthusiast.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| well atleast i didn't misunderstand my own lack of
| understanding :D ... -
|
| the part of feeling the difference in response times,
| that's true though, but I must say, the experience is a
| bit dated ^^ i see more high resolution monitors have
| generally quite slow response times.
|
| <1ms was from CRT times :D which was my main counter-
| striker days. I do find noticable 'lag' still on TV vs.
| monitor though but i've only tested on HD (1080p) - own
| only 1 4k monitor and my own age-induced-latency by now
| far exceeds my display's latency :D
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They measure in a particular way that includes half a
| frame of unavoidable lag. There are reasons to do it that
| way, but it's not objectively the "right" way to do it.
|
| Rtings basically gives you a number that represents
| average lag without screen tearing. If you measure at the
| top of your screen and/or tolerate tearing then the
| numbers get significantly smaller, and a lot of screens
| can in fact beat 1ms.
| 112233 wrote:
| For me it's eye fatigue. When you put large 4k TV far enough
| it's same view angle as a 27" desk monitor, you're almost
| 1.5m away from it.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| high latency on TVs make it bad for games etc. as anyhting
| thats sensitive on IO timings can feel a bit off. even 5ms
| compared to 1 or 2ms response times is noticable by a lot in
| hand-eye coordination across io -> monitor.
| puzzlingcaptcha wrote:
| It sort of depends on what you perceive as 'high'. Many TVs
| have a special low-latency "game" display mode. My LG OLED
| does, and it's a 2021 model. But OLED in general (in a PC
| monitor as well) is going to have higher latency than IPS
| for example, regardless of input delay.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| OLED suffers from burn-in, so you'll start seeing your
| IDE or desktop after a while, all the time.
|
| I have a couple of budget vertical Samsung TVs in my
| monitor stacks.
|
| The quality isn't good enough for photo work, but they're
| more than fine for text.
| tombert wrote:
| I have a MiSTer Laggy thing to measure TV latency. In my
| bedroom Vizio LCD thing, in Game Mode, is between
| 18-24ms, a bit more than a frame of latency (assuming
| 60fps).
|
| I don't play a lot of fast paced games and I am not good
| enough at any of them to where a frame of latency would
| drastically affect my performance in any game, and I
| don't think two frames of latency is really noticeable
| when typing in Vim or something.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > But OLED in general (in a PC monitor as well) is going
| to have higher latency than IPS for example, regardless
| of input delay.
|
| I hope you mean lower? An OLED pixel updates roughly
| instantly while liquid crystals take time to shift, with
| IPS in particular trading away speed for quality.
| dahauns wrote:
| In the context of this thread that's a non-issue. Good TVs
| have been in the ~5ms@120Hz/<10ms@60Hz world for some time
| now. If you're in the market for a 4K-or-higher display,
| you won't find much better, even among specialized monitors
| (as those usually won't be able to drive higher Hz with
| lower lag with full 4k+ resolution anyway).
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Depending on the specific TV, small details like text
| rendering can be god-awful.
|
| A bunch of TVs don't actually support 4:4:4 chroma
| subsampling, and at 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 text is bordering on
| unreadable.
|
| And a bunch of OLEDs have weird sub-pixel layouts that break
| ClearType. This isn't the end of the world, but you end up
| needing to tweak the OS text rendering to clean up the
| result.
| 8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote:
| What would you pick for your next laptop if you had to buy one?
|
| I had an Asus laptop, but the frequent security firmware
| updates for one of the Dell laptop that I had makes me think it
| might make a good candidate in terms of keeping up with
| security updates.
|
| Not sure for the current latest models for Asus/Dell/HP/etc.,
| but I liked the fact that disassembly manuals are provided for
| older Dell and HP. I can hardly find disassembly manuals for
| Asus when I have to do maintenance such as swapping out thermal
| paste/pads and clearing out the heatsink fins.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I'm only one data point, but I also swear that I would never
| buy an Asus laptop again. If you are fine with the operating
| system, a MacBook Pro is the best in my opinion. It's not
| even close.
|
| Otherwise I had okay Dell or Lenovo laptops. Avoid HP, even
| the high end Zbook ones. A framework might be worth a try if
| you have a lot of money.
| simulator5g wrote:
| You can also run Asahi Linux or Windows for ARM on Macs
| sspiff wrote:
| I run Asahi Linux as a daily. Support is imperfect and
| for a daily driver you can probably forget about using
| anything newer than an M2 at the moment. On my M2,
| missing features include USB-C video out and microphone
| support. Windows on ARM is worse and has zero drivers for
| Mac hardware as far as I know.
| sspiff wrote:
| I have used a ZBook G1a for the past few months because it
| is the only laptop with AMD's Ryzen 395+, and while not
| thinkpad or XPS/Precision tier, the laptop has been
| perfectly fine.
| xarope wrote:
| I've been toying with getting one of these with 128GB of
| RAM. What's your opinion (especially since you have
| compared it to thinkpad/xps)?
| tombert wrote:
| I am a pretty huge fan of Thinkpads. I bought mine a year ago
| and love it.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| My girlfriend's 2 year old Asus Zenbook had easy to find
| repair manuals and was pretty repairable. Though consumer
| laptop naming conventions make googling for it error prone.
|
| The main problem was parts. She had a fan that was defective
| and noisy, and the Asus parts store didn't have it in stock,
| and there was _one_ on ebay for $30.
|
| But the replacement was easy, the construction was solid, and
| there have been no issues since.
|
| >Asus when I have to do maintenance such as swapping out
| thermal paste/pads and clearing out the heatsink fins.
|
| If you have to do this more than once or twice over a ten
| year lifespan of a laptop, you probably should invest in air
| cleaning systems. Mid range consumer laptops are way less
| thermally constrained than they used to be. Ryzen CPUs are
| essential for that, though I think Intel now has usable cool
| laptop CPUs
| mnw21cam wrote:
| I have a fantastic Asus laptop that is 8 years old now and
| (after an easy battery replacement) easily does everything I
| want from it and feels nice and solid. I was so impressed that
| I recommended Asus to someone else, and what they got was
| pretty awful.
|
| So basically, YMMV. They make good stuff, and they make awful
| stuff.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| This is a direct competitor to the Apple Pro Display XDR.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if it comes in at a similar price point.
|
| The sustained 1,000 nit HDR and Dolby Vision support suggest
| their target market is very specifically film color grading.
| rainbaby wrote:
| it's already on sale in the Chinese market for about 70,000
| CNY, so the price is likely around 9,000-10,000 USD.
| metaphor wrote:
| 8K HDR implies that DSC becomes unavoidable...but DSC's "visually
| lossless" criteria relies on the human eye and is statistically
| subjective at face value.
|
| Any domain experts know how that actually squares in practice
| against automated colorimeter calibration?
| altairprime wrote:
| 8K 60fps 4:4:4 8bpp uncompressed requires a 96gbit HDMI cable,
| which is labeled Ultra96 in HDMI 2.2 afaik:
| https://www.hdmi.org/download/savefile?filekey=Marketing/HDM...
|
| DisplayPort over USB4@4x2/TB5 at 120Gbps would be required for
| uncompressed 12bpp.
| metaphor wrote:
| Apologies for not tracking; the monitor in question is spec'd
| with HDMI 2.1 and TB4 I/O.
| altairprime wrote:
| Apologies _never_ expected when it comes to USB and HDMI
| naming and spec stuff. I have to look them up every time.
|
| But, that's 8K DSC or.. 24fps maybe? then. Weird
| oversight/compromise for such a pro color-focused monitor,
| perhaps Asus reused their legacy monitor platform. "8K HDR"
| at 24fps could be a niche for theater movie mastering,
| perhaps?
| amarshall wrote:
| DisplayPort 2.1 (which the monitor supports) provides
| sufficient bandwidth for 7680x4320@60 Hz 10-bit without DSC
| when using UHBR20. The press release unfortunately doesn't
| clarify whether the monitor supports UHBR20 or only the lower
| UHBR10 or UHBR13.5 speeds. Of course, the GPU must also support
| that (Nvidia RTX 5000 only at the moment, as I believe AMD RX
| 9000 is only UHBR13.5).
| a-french-anon wrote:
| I believe you're right regarding AMD's lack of UHBR20 on its
| cards. Fingers crossed for their next gen!
| jsheard wrote:
| AMDs current workstation cards _do_ support UHBR20, just
| not their consumer cards, even though it 's the same
| silicon. Artificial segmentation on GPUs is nothing new but
| segmenting on display bandwidth is a strange move,
| especially when the market leader isn't doing that.
| efficax wrote:
| realistically what's the point of all those pixels at 32 inches?
| 5k at 27 inches seems more than enough.
| metaphor wrote:
| Apparently, ASUS believes there's an addressable market willing
| to pay a premium for +26.5% color-calibrated ppi in larger form
| factor.
| efficax wrote:
| i'm not suggesting there's no market, i'm just trying to
| understand why it exists
| jeswin wrote:
| If you need 5k at 27 inches, you need more at 32". But if
| you're saying that 32" are excessive, I think it's a personal
| preference. I would never go back to a smaller monitor (from
| 32) personally - especially as you grow older.
| byyoung3 wrote:
| How much
| polaris421 wrote:
| This looks amazing for creators -- 8K, HDR, and auto calibration
| in one screen!
| veridianCrest wrote:
| The specs look impressive, especially the 8K HDR and built-in
| color calibration. It'll be interesting to see how it performs
| compared to Apple's Pro Display XDR in real workflows.
| ec109685 wrote:
| I don't get marketing people. The only link in the press release
| is to adobe's creative cloud. Why isn't there two taps to buy the
| monitor with Apple Pay and have it shipped when it's available?
|
| > The redemption period ends August 31, 2026. For full details,
| visit https://www.asus.com/content/asus-offers-adobe-creative-
| clou....
|
| Well, the monitor is EUR8,999, so maybe it'd be more than two
| taps for me:
|
| > The monitor is scheduled to be available by October 2025 and
| will costs EUR8,999 in Europe (including VAT)
| gigatexal wrote:
| Too rich for me. Also I don't need a creative cloud sub. But
| I'm the wrong customer for such a monitor.
|
| I'll wait till 8k becomes more of the norm for say 1-1.5k
| nine_k wrote:
| Human eye resolution is about 1 arcminute. The comfortable
| field of view is about 60deg, or 3600 arcmimutes. A 4K
| display should mostly suffice %)
| gigatexal wrote:
| But I run double on Mac so an 8k is 4k.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Naw, not at 32".
|
| 32" 4K isn't much better than pre-Retina iPhone, even after
| accounting for viewing distance between say, ~18" for
| phone, and 2-3 feet for desktop.
|
| I agree for many people, I might even go so far as to say
| "normies", this sort of thing doesn't matter. But after
| many years of poking at this, I strongly believe it's not
| because their eyes can't see the difference, it's because
| they don't understand the question we're asking (i.e. about
| overall quality rather than detail density, and when you
| try explaining detail density, they think you're asking if
| a monitor "looks real" which sounds ~impossible)
|
| This whole thing is disappointing because all I've wanted
| for a decade is 27" 5K to be mainstream and ubiqituous,
| that hits a sweet spot - surprisingly, only slightly less
| PPI than this, but a much more reasonable price. They of
| course exist, its just, consistently fringe and Mac-
| focused, presumably due to vagaries of HDMI.
| nine_k wrote:
| All good points!
|
| 5K requires a lot of bandwidth; some 5K monitors required
| two HDMI connections, and Thunderbolt was Mac-specific
| and generally costly.
| Rizz wrote:
| Human foveala, the central part of your vision, has on
| average about one cone every 30 arcseconds, but resolution
| of 20 arcseconds is still quite common because the variety
| in cone density is quite high. So someone with good vision,
| maybe someone who would naturally be inclined to work in
| graphics, would need over 430ppi at 2 feet, or 290 at 3
| feet. This screen seems to be perfect for someone with good
| vision at 3 feet, if you place the screen closer you would
| need even higher resolution.
| pjerem wrote:
| Buy a 9kEUR monitor and get free 3 months for a cloud
| subscription. What a deal !
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| If you're not careful, that adobe creative cloud sub will
| cost you more than the monitor when you try to cancel
| qaq wrote:
| 6K 32" ProArt model PA32QCV might be more practical for YN crowd
| at 1299 USD VS 8-9K USD PA32KCX will run you
| retrac98 wrote:
| An aside - this monitor is proving surprisingly difficult to
| buy in the UK. Everywhere I look it seems to be unavailable or
| out of stock, and I've been checking regularly.
|
| Relatedly, I also don't understand why a half-trillion dollar
| company makes it so hard to give them my money. There's no
| option to order ASUS directly on the UK site. I'm forced to
| check lots of smaller resellers or Amazon.
| qaq wrote:
| Was same in US till maybe 2-3 weeks ago. Maybe they are
| slowly rolling out to various markets
| brzz wrote:
| Struggling with the exact same issue myself. If you do find a
| place to buy it, please let me know
| ErneX wrote:
| Same in Spain, I got tired of looking for it.
| zokier wrote:
| I'd imagine for most people the HDR perf difference is more
| noticeable than the resolution. This new monitor can do 1200
| nits peak with local dimming, PA32QCV can only do 600 nits peak
| with no local dimming. Also Dolby Vision.
| qaq wrote:
| I'd imagine most people can't spend 9,000 USD on a monitor
| WilcoKruijer wrote:
| I've been enjoying the PA32QCV in the last couple months. It's
| definitely not perfect, but the 220 PPI at 32 inch is just
| amazing to code on.
| tom_alexander wrote:
| 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 DisplayPort, leaving only
| a single USB2.0 connection remaining for all my other
| peripherals to share[0][1].
|
| [0]
| https://media.startech.com/cms/products/gallery_large/dk30c2...
|
| [1] https://i.imgur.com/iGs0LbH.jpeg
| Aurornis wrote:
| I also wish it had something newer, but for that price I'd
| gladly deal with a second cable for high speed USB devices or
| the purchase of a dock to handle breakout duties.
| simoncion wrote:
| > 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!
| lwhsiao wrote:
| I second this, I recently switched [1] and have been delighted
| by the crisp fonts.
|
| [1]: https://luke.hsiao.dev/blog/pa32qcv/
| bob1029 wrote:
| I tried a 32" 4k for a while but the form factor never worked for
| me. 8k seems absurd after working with that monitor.
|
| 27" 1440p is much easier to drive and live with day to day. I can
| still edit 4k+ content on this display. It's not like I'm missing
| critical detail going from 4k=>qhd. I can spot check areas by
| zooming in. There's a lot of arguments for not having to run
| 4k/8k displays all day every day. The power savings can be
| substantial. I am still gaming on a 5700xt because I don't need
| to push that many pixels. As long as I stay away from 4K I can
| probably use this GPU for another 5 years.
| zokier wrote:
| 32" 4k is pretty much the worst of all worlds configuration. It
| is just dense enough that traditional 100% scale is not great,
| but not dense enough to get that super smooth hidpi effect
| either. I'd argue that for desktop monitors around 200 ppi is
| sweet spot, so 5k for 27" or 6k for 32".
|
| This 8k is bit overkill, but I suppose makes some sense to use
| a standard resolution instead of some random number.
| stephenr wrote:
| Can confirm. I use a Dell 6K 32", and it's frankly amazing. I
| still use an older Dell 4K 24" (rotated 90o) off to one side
| for email/slack/music but I just use the single 32" for ~90%
| of what I do.
| jon-wood wrote:
| These things aren't for use in an office setting where you're
| fiddling with a web browser, Excel, or writing software.
| They're for situations where colour calibration matters, so
| either designing for print, or working on video.
|
| Particularly for the people doing video an 8k display is
| great - that means you can have full resolution 4k video on
| screen with space around it for a user interface, or you can
| have a display with the 8k source material on it if the film
| was shot at that resolution.
| baq wrote:
| I HATE (yes, all caps) Apple for very actively discouraging
| 1440p as a useful resolution (as in, it is literally, not
| figuratively, painful to use out of the box). I'm a happy
| customer of BetterDisplay just to make it bearable, but it's
| still not as sharp as any other OS.
| bartvk wrote:
| There's two instances where 32" is helpful. First for Xcode and
| Android Studio, where you write some UI code and the
| phone/tablet preview on the right, in both horizontal and
| vertical orientation.
|
| And second for doing writing and research, because recently I
| had to get a certificate for which I had to write a portfolio
| of old-fashioned essays. 32" but even 40" is extremely helpful
| for this. Basically I kept my screen organized in three columns
| with the word processor on the left, and two PDFs in the middle
| and on the right.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| 42" 4k 100%
|
| I don't want to ever go back but I got this 2020 Dell for 200.
| I don't want to pay 800-1400 if I ever have to replace it
| piker wrote:
| The problem with using this kind of monitor for any work that
| others will view on their own monitors is that your perception of
| what looks good will be way off. For example, it's clear that a
| lot of the Rust UI framework developers have been working on Macs
| for the last few years. The font rendering on many of those look
| bad once you plug them into a more normal DPI monitor. If they
| hadn't been using Macs with Retina displays they would have
| noticed.
| stephenr wrote:
| Conversely if you only use a ~110 DPI display you won't know
| how bad it looks on a ~220 DPI display.
|
| The solution here is wide device testing, not artificially
| limiting individual developers to the lowest common denominator
| of shitty displays.
| mrbungie wrote:
| Yeah sure, as long as you have a lot of resources for testing
| widely.
|
| Still, if you were to make an analogy you should target for a
| few devices that represent the "average", just as its done
| for (most) pop music production.
| stephenr wrote:
| > 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.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| 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.
| gr4vityWall wrote:
| I believe there are a lot of people using 1080p monitors
| because they bought it a while ago and they're still
| working fine. There's also a lot of lower-end 1080p
| monitors still being sold today.
|
| > One is hard-put to buy a developer-power laptop with a
| sub-2K display these days, even in the Windows world
|
| I personally see a lot of 1080p screens on new gaming
| laptops too. Lots of people get those for work from what
| I see with my peers. When I sold my RTX 3060 laptop with
| a 1080p screen, most buyers wanted it for professional
| work, according to them.
|
| > I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews
| commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from
|
| If anything, this is exactly the place where I'd expect a
| bunch of people to be rocking an older Thinkpad. :)
| leguminous wrote:
| If you look at the Steam hardware survey, most users (as
| in, > 50%) are still using 1080p or below.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-
| Softw...
| swiftcoder wrote:
| I don't think this is contra to my original point. Nearly
| 50% of all users are running at greater-than 1080p
| resolutions, and presumably power users are
| overrepresented in the latter category (and certainly,
| it's not just the ~2.5% of Mac users pushing the average
| up)
| gr4vityWall wrote:
| FWIW, I didn't mean to reply to you in an argumentative
| way. Just proposing an answer to this:
|
| > I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews
| commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from
|
| I still see 1080p fairly often on new setups/laptops,
| basically, although 1440p and 4K are becoming more common
| on higher-end desktops. Then again, 1440p at 27" or 32"
| isn't really high dpi.
| noir_lord wrote:
| In part though that's not because all those users can't
| afford >1080p because some of them can it's that insanely
| high refresh rate monitors and esports players often use
| 1080p at >300Hz - even the ones without still use 1080p
| because driving up the frame rate drives down the input
| latency.
|
| Whether it matters is a bigger issue, 30 to 60Hz I notice
| a huge difference, 60 to 144Hz@4K I can't tell _but_ I 'm
| old and don't play esports games.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Writing this on 1280x1024 because it still works fine
|
| The 5:4 aspect ratio is weird, especially in this era of
| everything 16:9, but it's a second monitor so usually
| only has one thing open
| eertami wrote:
| 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.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| I'm running a 32" display at 4k, which works out to about
| the same at 79cm. Apparently a bunch of people sit really
| close to their monitors :)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That's a common misconception. That acuity calculation is
| based on knowing nothing about the image; imagine
| applying it to arbitrary noise. When you have things like
| _lines_ and _edges_ your eyes can pick out differences an
| order of magnitude finer.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity
| wmf wrote:
| Retina still isn't available for large monitors like 38"
| and above.
| MBCook wrote:
| Absolutely everyone in my company uses 1080p monitors
| unless they got their own. That's just "normal".
|
| It's horrible.
| toast0 wrote:
| Sure, but Macs are around 10% of general desktop
| computing. To a first approximation, they don't count.
| User communities vary widely. If you target macs, then a
| high DPI screen is a must for testing. Otherwise, I
| dunno; ~ 100 DPI screens are way less expensive than ~
| 200 DPI screens, so I'd expect that installed base is
| significantly higher for standard DPI. But there's
| probably enough high DPI users that it's worth giving it
| a look.
|
| To address a question elsewhere, personally, I don't see
| the benefit to pushing 4x the pixels when ~ 100 DPI works
| fine for me. My eyes aren't what they were 20 years ago,
| and it's just extra expense at every level.
| MBCook wrote:
| I can't tell you how often I see this. Brand new designs or
| logos in 2024 or 2025 that look abysmal on a retina monitor
| because no one bothered to check.
|
| Stands out like a sore thumb.
| nine_k wrote:
| As a designer, one should keep a couple of cheap, low-res
| monitors reset to the factory defaults for proofing what many
| users are going to see.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| this exactly. same ppl do for sound, listen in the car, over
| shity headphones etc. - that's just quality control not the
| fault of any piece of equipment.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Yes this is universal in pro mixing setups, having filters
| or even actual physical hardware to provide the sound of
| stock earbuds, a crappy Bluetooth speaker, sound system in
| a minivan, etc.
| edb_123 wrote:
| Well, of course it's a good idea to double check with
| various output methods. But if a mix sounds good on studio
| monitors with a flattest possible frequency response
| (preferably even calibrated with an internal DSP) in an
| acoustically treated room, there's a very high probability
| it will sound good on almost anything out there. At least
| that's my experience.
| spookie wrote:
| I would reccomend one to take a look at the usual
| frequency response of cheap drivers or the inherent flaws
| of the consumer tech over time and compare it with the
| evolution of pop music.
|
| Audio engineers are for sure taking all this into
| account, and more (:
| eb0la wrote:
| I must confess I felt a lot of lust looking at the self color
| calibration feature.
|
| It is _extremely_ useful if your work ends up in paper. For
| photography (edit: film and broadcast, too) would be great.
|
| My use case are comics and illustration, so a self-color-
| correcting cintiq or tablet would be _great_ for me.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| I like having a color calibrated monitor but at the end of
| the day it's about trusting my scopes too. Audio
| unfortunately has this perception element that for some
| reason doesn't seem as big of an issue with video. We have
| dB/loudness standards for a reason, but different stuff
| just sounds louder or softer no matter what.
|
| If it looks good on a mac laptop screen/imac and the scopes
| look right, it's good for 99%+ of viewers. You can
| basically just edit visually off any Mac laptop from the
| last 10 years and you'll probably be happy tbh.
| scns wrote:
| > If it looks good on a mac laptop screen/imac and the
| scopes look right, it's good for 99%+ of viewers.
|
| Light grey text on a white background looks good on a
| Mac, but pretty much unreadable for most users.
| zerkten wrote:
| This is probably one of the few things I think works better
| in an office environment. There was older equipment hanging
| around with space to set it up in a corner so people could
| sit down and just go. When mobile came along there would be
| sustainable lending program for devices.
|
| With more people being remote, this either doesn't happen, or
| is much more limited. Support teams have to repro issues or
| walk through scenarios across web, iOS, and Android.
| Sometimes they only have their own device. Better places will
| have some kind of program to get them refurb devices. Most
| times though people have to move the customer to someone who
| has an iPhone or whatever.
| SeasonalEnnui wrote:
| Yes! I'm glad to see this pointed out - when working on UIs, I
| regularly move them between 3 monitors with varying resolution
| & DPI. 4k @ 200%, 2K at 125%, and 2K at 100%. This reveals not
| only design issues but application stack issues with DPI
| support.
| ponector wrote:
| Also, it's not only about the screen resolution. Developers
| uses powerful macs and users have old windows - the usability
| is different, but devs usually don't care. Works fine on my
| machine!
|
| Had reported many issues where to reproduce they needed to
| enable 10x throttling in the browser. Or use a Windows machine.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Developers uses powerful macs and users have old windows -
| the usability is different, but devs usually don 't care.
| Works fine on my machine!_
|
| Part of what QA testing should be about: performance
| regressions.
| branko_d wrote:
| This is not even a regression - it has always been there,
| unnoticed!
| throw0101d wrote:
| If it has always been there, then your QA process has
| always sucked and missed it.
| ponector wrote:
| Usually it is not a priority, especially for enterprise
| software. It's ok if UI is lagging, page finish loading in
| 10 seconds, etc. Simply because there is usually no other
| choice, people have to use whatever is bought/developed.
| guhcampos wrote:
| 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 to extend this to society in general.
|
| Rich people with nice things often alienate themselves from the
| reality of the majority of people in the World.
| jonhohle wrote:
| I tend to use older hardware and feel like I'm constantly
| fighting this battle. It's amazing thr hardware we have and I
| have to wait for dozens of seconds to start an app or load a
| web page.
| bombcar wrote:
| Sometimes I run "old software" on the latest hardware it
| could support (think Windows 2000 on 2010s machines) and it
| is amazing how much it flies.
| dangus wrote:
| I would like to ask why even fight the battle?
|
| Philosophically I am with you, e-waste and consumerism are
| bad, but pragmatically it is not worth punishing yourself
| from a dollars and cents standpoint.
|
| You can jump on Amazon and buy a mini PC in the $300 range
| that's got an 8 core 16 thread AMD 6800H CPU, 16GB RAM,
| 500GB SSD, basically a well above-average machine, with
| upgradable RAM and storage. $240 if you buy it on
| AliExpress.
|
| You can grab a MacBook Air M2 for around $500.
|
| Why suffer with slow hardware? Assuming that using a
| computer is at least somewhat important to your workflow.
| bombcar wrote:
| You need two "classes" of developers; which may be the exact
| same people - those who are on the fastest, biggest hardware
| money can buy - but you also need some time running on nearly
| the worst hardware you can find.
| zerkten wrote:
| You can nerf network performance in the browser devtools or
| underprovision a VM relatively easily on these machines.
| People sometimes choose not to and others are ignorant. Most
| of the time, it's just the case that they are dealing with
| too many things that are vague making it difficult to
| prioritize seemingly less important things.
|
| A number of times I've had to have a framing discussion with
| a dev that eventually gets to me asking "what kind of
| computer do your (grand)parents use? How might X perform
| there" around some customer complaint. Other times, I've
| heard devs comment negatively after the holidays when they've
| tried their product on a family computer.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > Other times, I've heard devs comment negatively after the
| holidays when they've tried their product on a family
| computer.
|
| I worked for a popular company and went to visit family
| during the winter holidays. I couldn't believe how many
| commercials there were for said company's hot consumer
| product (I haven't had cable or over-air television since
| well before streaming was a thing, so this was a new
| experience in the previous five years).
|
| I concluded that if I had cable and didn't work for the
| company, I'd hate them due to the bajillion loud ads. My
| family didn't seem to notice. They tuned out all the
| commercials, as did a friend when I was at his place around
| a similar time
|
| All it takes is a change in perspective to see something in
| an entirely new light.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I've never had TV, and have used ad blockers as long as
| they've been a thing. (Until 1 1/3 years ago I even
| lived in a rural area where the closest billboard of
| _any_ description was 40km away, and the second-closest
| 100km away.) On very odd occasions, I would get exposed
| to a television, and what I find uncomfortable at the
| best of times (notably: how do they cut so frequently!?)
| becomes a _wretched_ experience as soon as it gets to
| ads, which it does with mindboggling frequency. I'm
| confident that if I tried actually _watching_ that
| frenetic, oversaturated, noisy mess on someone's
| gigantic, far-too-bright TV, I would be sick to the
| stomach and head within a few minutes.
| kijin wrote:
| Chrome devtools allow you to simulate low network and CPU
| performance, but I'm not aware of any setting that gives
| you pixelated text and washed-out colors. Maybe that will
| make a useful plugin, if you can accurately reproduce what
| Microsoft ClearType does at 96dpi!
| Normal_gaussian wrote:
| More to the point; colour and font rendering are typically
| "perception" questions and very hard to measure in a
| deployed system without introducing a significant out of
| band element.
|
| Network performance can be trivially measured in your
| users; and most latency/performance/bandwidth issues can be
| identified clearly.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I wish we could have this as a permanent sticky for this
| website. It's out of control, especially with web stuff.
|
| Spotify's webapp, for example, won't even work on my old
| computer, whereas YouTube and other things that you'd think
| would be more resource intensive work without any issue
| whatsoever.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| > 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 on fiber because we're in a
| special permitting corridor and AT&T can basically do
| whatever they want with their fiber using an on old
| discontinued sewer run as their conduit.
|
| I stick to the 1/1 and get 1.25 for "free" since we're so
| over-provisioned. The fastest Xfinity provides in the same
| area as my AirBnB is an unreliable 230/20 which means my
| "free" excess bandwidth is higher than what many people near
| me can pay for.
|
| I expect as a result of all this, developers on very fast
| connections end up having enough layers of corporate VPN,
| poorly optimized pipelines, a lot of dependency on external
| servers, etc that by the time you're connected to work your
| 1/1 connection is about 300/300 (at least mine is) so the
| expectation is silently set that very fast internet will
| exist for on-Corp survival and that the off-corp experience
| is what others have.
| ericd wrote:
| 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.
| kijin wrote:
| 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.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Yup. That isn't helping them either. My corporate VPN,
| along with being rather bandwidth limited, is super
| laggy.
| npteljes wrote:
| I agree, but developers don't have freedom over the product.
| Product managers are the ones who have a say, and even then,
| they are in a strict hierarchy, often ending at
| "shareholders". So, many of the wrongs come from the system
| itself. It's either systemic change (at least an upgrade), or
| no meaningful change.
| rangestransform wrote:
| At a "rich world" company that wants to make money, it's
| completely rational to not give a shit about "poor world"
| people that won't make you much money (relatively speaking)
| anyways. It basically only makes sense to milk the top leg of
| the K-shaped economy.
|
| Conversely, it opens up a niche for "poor world" people to
| develop local solutions for local challenges, like mobile
| payments in India and some of Africa.
| pmbanugo wrote:
| +1000
| sz4kerto wrote:
| This is exactly how sound studios do mixing. They don't just
| use top-end monitors -- they generally also listen on low-end
| speakers that color sound in a way that's representative to
| what people have at home (hello, Yamaha NS-10).
| Intermernet wrote:
| People used to buy NS-10s because they knew professional
| studios used them. They were then underwhelmed when they
| sounded worse than the hifi speakers they had at home.
|
| Many audio engineers live by the mantra "if it sounds good on
| NS-10s, it'll sound good on anything".
|
| We need such a touchstone for software engineers.
| noir_lord wrote:
| It'd be moving touchstone is the problems, speakers in the
| consumer space don't evolve as fast as computing tech in
| the user space.
|
| You could get somewhat close by looking at what was a
| middle of the road consumer laptop from Dell/HP/Lenovo 5
| years ago and buying one of those though.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| This is just as valid for mobile app and website development.
|
| When all you use for testing is Browserstack, local emulators
| and whatnot and only the latest iPhone and Samsung S-series
| flagship, your Thing will be unusable for wide parts of the
| population.
|
| Always, always use at the very least the oldest iPhone Apple
| still supports, the cheapest and oldest (!) Samsung A-series
| models still being sold in retail stores as "new", and at least
| one Huawei and Xiaomi device. And then, don't test your Thing
| only on wifi backed by your Gbit Wifi 7 router and uplink.
| Disable wifi and limit mobile data to 2G or whatever is the
| lowest your phone provider supports.
|
| And then, have someone from QA visit the countryside with long
| stretches of no service at all or serious degradation (think
| packet loss rates of 60% or more, latencies of 2 seconds+). If
| your app survives this with minimal loss of functionality, you
| did good.
|
| A bunch of issues will only crop up in real world testing.
| Stuff like instead of keeping a single socket to the mothership
| open, using fresh from scratch SSL connections for each
| interactions is the main bummer... latency really really eats
| such bottlenecks alive. Forgotten async handling leading to
| non-responsiveness of the main application. You won't catch
| that, not even with Chrome's network inspector - you won't feel
| the sheer rage of the end user having a pressing need and be
| let down by your Thing - even if you're not responsible for
| their shitty phone service, they will associate the bad service
| with your app.
|
| Oh, and also test out getting interrupted while using your
| Thing on the cheap-ass phones. Whatsapp and FB Messenger calls,
| for example - these gobble so much RAM that your app or browser
| will get killed by OOM or battery saver, and when the user has
| their interruption finished, if you didn't do it right your
| Thing's local state will have gotten corrupted or removed,
| leading the user having to start from scratch!
| bn-l wrote:
| This was (is?) the issue with zed and maybe the cause also.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The problem with using this kind of monitor for any work that
| others will view on their own monitors is that your perception
| of what looks good will be way off.
|
| That's not the problem of using this monitor for creating the
| work, that's the problem of not _also_ using a more typical
| monitor (or, better, an array covering the common use cases,
| but which is practical depends on whether you are talking about
| a solo creator or a bigger team) for validating the work.
|
| Just as with software, developers benefit from a more powerful
| machine for developing, but the product benefits from also
| being tested on machines more like the typical end-user setup.
| freejazz wrote:
| >The problem with using this kind of monitor for any work that
| others will view on their own monitors is that your perception
| of what looks good will be way off.
|
| Really? It's not a problem for photo retouchers, for whom a
| monitor like this is basically designed for.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| I make a point of keeping my secondary monitor a "normal" DPI
| 2560x1440 display precisely to avoid this kind of problem. The
| loss of legibility has little impact on secondary monitor use
| cases, and I can easily spot-check my UI and UI graphics work
| by simply dragging the window over.
|
| High quality normal DPI monitors are so cheap these days that
| even if multi-monitor isn't one's cup of tea there's not really
| a good reason to not have one (except maybe space restrictions,
| in which case a cheap ~16" 1080p/1200p portable monitor from
| Amazon will serve the purpose nicely).
| martinald wrote:
| 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 get 8K TVs for <$1000 now. And an Quest 3 headset has 2
| displays at far higher PPI for $600.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| as a gamer 8k makes me sweat because i can't imagine what kind
| of hardware you'd need to run a game :O probably great for
| text-based work, though!
| pornel wrote:
| You don't really need 8K for gaming, but upscaling and frame
| generation have made game rendering resolution and display
| resolution almost independent.
| jsheard wrote:
| And if all else fails, 8K means you can fall back to 4K,
| 1440p or 1080p with perfect integer scaling.
| layer8 wrote:
| Except that the hardware doesn't necessarily offer
| perfect integer scaling. Oftentimes, it only provides
| blurry interpolation that looks less sharp than a
| corresponding native-resolution display.
| jsheard wrote:
| The monitor may or may not offer perfect scaling, but at
| least on Windows the GPU drivers can do it on their side
| so the monitor receives a native resolution signal that's
| already pixel doubled correctly.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Most modern games already have built-in scaling options.
| You can set the game to run at your screen's native
| resolution but have it do the rendering at a different
| scale factor. Good games can even render the HUD at
| native resolution and the graphics at a scaled
| resolution.
|
| Modern OSes also scale fine.
|
| It's really not an issue.
| layer8 wrote:
| Games are not what I had in mind. Last time I checked,
| most graphics drivers didn't support true integer scaling
| (i.e. nearest-neighbor, no interpolation).
| jsheard wrote:
| > most graphics drivers didn't support true integer
| scaling
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-
| Help/vLatest/en...
|
| https://www.amd.com/en/resources/support-
| articles/faqs/DH3-0...
|
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/
| 000...
|
| I don't know what the situation is on Mac and Linux, but
| all of the Windows drivers offer it.
| Aurornis wrote:
| With very high PPI displays the gamma corrected
| interpolation scaling is far better than nearest neighbor
| scaling.
|
| The idea is to make the pixels so small that your eyes
| aren't resolving individual pixels anyway. Interpolation
| appears correct to your eyes because you're viewing it
| through a low-pass filter (the physical limit of your
| eyes) anyway.
|
| Reverting to nearest neighbor at high PPI would introduce
| new artifacts because the aliasing effects would create
| unpleasant and unnatural frequencies in the image.
|
| Most modern GPU drivers (nVidia in particular) will do
| fixed multiple scaling if that's what you want. Nearest
| neighbor is not good though.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Once you get into the high pixel densities you stop running
| everything at native resolution. You have enough pixel
| density that scaling the output doesn't produce significant
| visible artifacts.
|
| With 8K small pixels you could pick a number of resolutions
| up to 4K or higher and you wouldn't even notice that the
| final product was scaled on your monitor.
|
| People with Macs with retina displays have been doing this
| for years. It's really nice once you realize how flexible it
| is.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| i'm actually going to do the reverse move, was gaming on a
| 4K display, but going to downgrade to 3440x1440 to get more
| performance. but of course the gaming displays i find
| apparently aren't ideal for working, because text looks
| worse. add to that that the internet seems to be split if
| wide-monitors are the best thing ever or actually horrible.
| why is it all so complicated, man.
| zamadatix wrote:
| My only gripe is nearly all common "ultrawide" models
| should really be thought of as "ultrashort" in that they
| don't offer more width, just less height.
|
| E.g. a 21:9 ultrawide variant of 4k should really be
| 5040x2160. Instead they are nearly all 3840x1600. That
| may well be cost/price optimal for certain folks, I'm not
| saying it's bad for the product itself to exist, but
| nobody was looking at a 1600p monitor thinking "man, I
| wish they'd make a wider variant!" they started with 4k
| and decided it would be nice if it were permanently
| shortened.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| yeah, that really confused me as well. the whole 4K, 2K,
| 2.5K, ultrawide, ultrahigh, microwide, 8K shit just gets
| confusing, especially because it's neither accurate nor
| standardized.
| tstrimple wrote:
| I think they are calling those 5k2k monitors. I'm quite
| happy with my 45" LG 5k2k OLED monitor. Much more usable
| than the 32:9 monitors after seeing both in person.
| simoncion wrote:
| If the game offers it [0], set the output resolution to
| 4K, and the render resolution to something smaller. A
| multiplier of ~0.66 is roughly 1440p output, and 0.5 is
| 1080p.
|
| If the game doesn't offer that, then I've found that the
| HUD/UI uglification isn't too bad when one sets the
| output resolution to 1440p.
|
| If Windows is getting in the way of doing this, and most
| or all of your games have been purchased through Steam,
| give Linux a try. I've heard good things about the Fedora
| variant known as Bazzite, but have never, ever tried it
| myself. [1]
|
| [0] And _shockingly_ few do! There 's all sorts of
| automagic "AI" upscaling shit with mystery-meat knobs to
| turn, but precious few bog-standard "render everything
| _but_ the HUD and UI with this many fewer pixels "
| options.
|
| [1] I've been using Gentoo for decades and (sadly) see no
| reason to switch. I _strongly disrecommend_ Gentoo as a
| first Linux distro for most folks, and especially for
| folks who primarily want to try out Linux for video
| gaming.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > set the output resolution to 4K, and the render
| resolution to something smaller
|
| doesn't that make everything blurry? that's the gripe i
| have with circa post-2020 PC gaming, barely any pc can
| run a AAA or AA game in native resolution and instead has
| to use artificial upscaling and whatnot. haven't
| specifically tried it.
|
| also can't test it anymore, as my gaming monitor is now
| our TV (48 inch OLED gaming TV, what a blast it was). now
| using my "old" 32in 2560x1440 IPS display, really miss
| OLED :( which is why i want to buy a new monitor. but i
| can't decide if i should take a 27in one (seems to be the
| 16:9 standard right now, but seems so small to me) or a
| ultrawide one. i switch games very frequently and also
| sometimes like to play old(er) games, so a bit scared of
| the "ultrawides are cool if your game supports
| it"-vibe...
|
| > I've heard good things about the Fedora variant known
| as Bazzite
|
| haha, this message was written on Bazzite, so i got that
| part covered :D switched about a month ago, funny to get
| the recommendation now.
| simoncion wrote:
| > doesn't that make everything blurry?
|
| My experience for the 3D parts of a great many games that
| my 5700 XT can't reasonably run at panel-native
| resolution is that the game's art style is to blur up the
| picture with all sorts of postprocessing (and sometimes
| (especially with UE5 games) with the ever-more-popular
| "it looks so bad it makes you wonder if the renderer is
| totally busted unless you leave TAA on" rendering
| technique). Sometimes this blurring ends up looking
| absolutely great, and other times it's just lazy,
| obnoxious, and awful.
|
| So, not that I notice? For the games that permit it, the
| HUD and menus stay nice and sharp, and the 3D stuff
| that's going to be all smudged up no matter what you do
| just renders at a higher frame rate.
|
| For games that don't have independent 2D and 3D render
| resolutions, I find 1440p to be quite tolerable, and
| (weirdly) 1080p to be much less tolerable... despite the
| fact that you'd expect it to fit nicely on the panel. I
| guess I'm expecting a much more crisp picture with
| integer scaling than I get? Or maybe this is like what
| some games did way back when where they totally change
| the font and render style of the UI once they get past
| some specific breakpoint. [0] I haven't looked closely at
| what's going on, so I don't have any even vaguely-
| reasonable explanation for it.
|
| > [ultrawide monitors]
|
| I like the comment someone else made somewhere that
| described them as "ultrashort" monitors. Personally, even
| if I was willing to move my head around enough to scan
| the whole damn monitor, I'm unwilling to lose so much
| vertical resolution. But as always, one should definitely
| choose what one likes.
|
| Personally, I find a 32" 3840 pixel wide monitor to be
| good. It's really great for doing work on, and perfectly
| acceptable for playing video games.
|
| > [Linux]
|
| Gratz on moving to Linux for gaming. Hope you don't have
| much trouble with it, and any trouble you have is either
| caused by super-invasive kernel-level anticheat that will
| never, ever work on Linux, or is trouble that's easy
| and/or fun to resolve.
|
| [0] One such game that sticks out in my memory is the OG
| Deus Ex game. At 1024x768, the font for the in-game UI
| switched from what -at lower resolutions- seemed a lot
| like a bitmapped font to what seemed a lot like a proper
| vector font. The difference was _dramatic_.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > Sometimes this blurring ends up looking absolutely
| great, and other times it's just lazy, obnoxious, and
| awful
|
| yeah, maybe i should give this way of setting the
| graphics a try. should try to find a game which looks
| great with it.
|
| > I find a 32" 3840 pixel wide monitor to be good
|
| just looked them up, surprised that they're quite a bit
| more expensive (800+ vs 600-750 for an ultrawide), but i
| guess the panels are more expensive due to the higher
| resolution. but your comment now makes me think what path
| i want to go. gotta read up on some opinions :D
|
| > Hope you don't have much trouble with it
|
| luckily i work on and with unix systems, so the new
| things are just the those related to gaming. but bazzite
| really has been very nice so far :) and as you say, the
| only times i had to boot up the windows on a separate
| disk are when i wanted to play games which don't run on
| linux at all, especially the kernel-level anticheat
| slopware.
|
| but enough is enough. i've kept using windows at home
| just because of gaming, but i'm sick of M$. can't spend
| the whole day making fun of windows and then go home and
| game on it, feels dirty.
| Paianni wrote:
| The Asus PA27JCV is rather less than $2k...
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > 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.
|
| It's mostly because the improvement over 4k is marginal. In
| fact, even from 1920x1080 it's not so big of a deal, which is
| why people keep buying such monitors in 2025.
|
| A the worse is that the higher spending consumer segment of PC
| parts, the gamers, can't really use high resolution display at
| their full potential because it puts such a burden on the GPU
| (DLSS helps, but the results is even smaller of an improvement
| over 1920x1080 than regular 4k is)
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Because the vast majority of Monitor Sales-Volume are (public)
| tenders from companies buying huge volume, and those companies
| still mostly look for monitors <4K (without fancy specs and
| without i.e. USB-C).
|
| If 4K reaches mass-market for those, the specs will shift down
| and there will be room in the (much smaller) Premium-Tier
| monitor segment
|
| Heck, even if you just want USB-C and an integrated webcam on
| an average display, the price-hike compared to one without it
| is crazy, because everything except those basic office-monitors
| is still niche-production...
| layer8 wrote:
| The likelihood of dead pixels increases quadratically with
| resolution, hence panel yield drops correspondingly. In
| addition, the target audience who has hardware (GPUs) that can
| drive those resolutions is smaller.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > and potentially 8k at 32"
|
| What's your actual use-case for this? I run a 32" 4K, and I
| have to stick my nose within a foot (~30cm) of the display to
| actually spot individual pixels. Maybe my eyesight isn't what
| it used to be
|
| I'd kill for a 40" 5k or 6k to be available - that's
| significantly more usable desktop real estate, and I still
| wouldn't be able to see the pixels.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I'd kill for a 40" 5k or 6k to be available
|
| There are a number of 40" 5K _wide_ monitors on the market.
| They have the same vertical resolution as a 4K but with more
| horizontal pixels.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Yeah. I guess that's the way. I'm not wild about such a
| wide aspect ratio, and all the head-turning or chair-
| swivelling it implies.
| ak217 wrote:
| Pixels are very noticeable at 32" 4K. If you don't notice
| them, your eyes still do - they try to focus on blurry lines,
| causing eye strain. You might not notice, but it adds up over
| the years.
|
| 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.
|
| Subjectively, the other problem with 32" 4K (a very popular
| and affordable size now) is that the optimal scaling is a
| fractional multiple of the underlying resolution (on MacOS -
| bizarrely I think Windows and Linux both know how to do this
| better than MacOS). Which again causes blur and a small
| performance hit.
|
| I myself still use an old 43" 4K monitor as my main one, but
| I know it's not great for my eyes and I'd like to upgrade. My
| ideal would be a 40" or 42" 8K. A 6K at that size would not
| be enough.
|
| I am very excited about this 32" 6K Asus ProArt that came out
| earlier this year: https://www.asus.com/displays-
| desktops/monitors/proart/proar... - it finally gets Retina-
| grade resolution at a more reasonable price point. I will
| probably switch to two of these side-by-side once I can get
| them below $1K.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > 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" monitor, if your eyeballs are 36" away from the
| monitor's surface, you are well beyond the limit of normal
| visual acuity (and the monitor still fills a massive 42
| degrees of your field of view).
| ak217 wrote:
| 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 distance
| for their laptops, and just over half for desktops.
|
| > the 210 PPI figure often quoted is for smartphone
| displays
|
| The 210 PPI figure is a minimum, it was used as marketing
| when Apple first started offering Retina displays.
| Apple's modern iPhone displays have far higher PPI.
| Apple's own marketing was challenged by critics who noted
| that visual acuity may top out closer to 200 ppd.
|
| Perhaps Retina doesn't matter to _you_ - that 's OK. But
| for most of us, 32" 4K is nowhere near the limit of our
| vision, and by staring at these monitors all day, we are
| slowly degrading it.
| simoncion wrote:
| > Nobody I know uses 32" monitors at 36" away.
|
| I suppose it's still true that nobody you know uses
| monitors of that size three feet away, but I'm very
| definitely one of those people.
|
| Why on earth would you put the monitor so close to your
| face that you have to turn your head to see all of it?
| That'd be obnoxious as all hell.
|
| > ...by staring at these monitors all day, we are slowly
| degrading it.
|
| No, that's age. As you age, the tissues that make up your
| eye and the muscles that control it fail more and more to
| get rebuilt correctly. I think the colloquial term for
| this is that they "wear out". It sucks shit, but we're
| currently too bad at bioengineering to really stop it.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > 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 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
| ak217 wrote:
| I actually have two more monitors, one on each side of my
| main one, in portrait mode :) And yes, I turn my head
| when I want to see them.
|
| I'm glad the low resolution monitors work for you. I just
| don't want people to proclaim that everything about
| displays is solved - it's not. There are meaningful,
| physiologically relevant improvements to be made. It's
| been over a decade since 4k60 became the standard. A lot
| of younger people would really benefit from mass produced
| 6k120 monitors.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > 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.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > You move your eyes, not your head. Plus or minus 20
| degrees is a trivial amount of eye movement.
|
| Maybe this varies a lot between humans, because I'm
| trying the experiment, and any closer than 24 inches
| requires physically moving my head to comfortably read
| text in the corner of the 32" display.
|
| Even at 36" it's fatiguing to focus on a corner of the
| display solely through eye-movement for more than a few
| seconds.
|
| > Your requirement to comfortably see everything with
| minimal eye/head movement is atypical
|
| I don't think it's by any means an uncommon requirement.
| Movie-watchers want to be able to see the whole screen at
| once (with the exception of some intentionally-over-the-
| top IMAX theatres), gamers want to be able to see their
| radar/heath/ammo/etc in the corners of the screen. I'd
| like to be able to notice notifications arriving in the
| corner of the screen.
| eertami wrote:
| > 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.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| This is the only large true monitor I know of. It used to be
| branded by Acer, but now it is branded through Viewsonic. We
| have a bunch at work and everyone loves them. $570 for 43" 4K
|
| https://www.viewsonic.com/us/vx4381-4k-43-4k-uhd-monitor-
| wit...
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Me and a friend were just chatting how annoying it is
| monitors stalled out at 4K._
|
| There's been a bit of a 'renaissance' of 5K@27" in the last
| ~year:
|
| > _In just the past few months, we 've taken a look at the ASUS
| ProArt Display 5K, the BenQ PD2730S, and the Alogic Clarity 5K
| Touch with its unique touchscreen capabilities, and most
| recently I've been testing out another new option, the $950
| ViewSonic VP2788-5K, to see how it stacks up._
|
| * https://www.macrumors.com/review/viewsonic-
| vp2788-5k-display...
|
| There are 15 monitors discussed in this video:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EINM4EysdbI
|
| The ASUS ProArt PA27JCV is USD 800 (a lot less than $2k):
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojwowaY3Ccw
| znpy wrote:
| Ah yes. It's the same with memory... 8gb/16gb is incredibly
| common, even though 16gb memory was a thing in like 2008
| already. It's only with high end machines that you get 64/128gb
| memory, which should be much more common in my opinion.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Multiple reasons.
|
| The first one being yield - yes you can get 8K screens, but the
| larger they get, the more difficult it is to cut a panel with
| an acceptably low rate of dead/stuck pixels out of a giant
| piece of glass. Dead pixels are one thing and bad enough, but
| stuck-bright pixels ruin the entire panel because they will be
| noticeable in any dark-ish movie or game scene. That makes them
| really darn expensive.
|
| The second reason is the processing power required to render
| the video signal to the screen, aka display controllers. Even
| if you "just" take regular 8 bit RGB - each frame takes up 33
| million pixels, so 796.262.400 bits. Per frame. Per second?
| Even at just 30 FPS, you're talking about 23.887.872.000 bits
| per second - 23 gigabits/s. It takes an awful, awful lot of
| processing power just to shuffle that data from the link SerDes
| around to all the control lines and to make sure they all
| switch their individual pixels at the very same time.
|
| The third is transferring all the data. Even if you use
| compression and sub-sampling, you still need to compress and
| sub-sample the framebuffer on the GPU side, transfer up to 48
| GBit/s (HDMI 2.3) or 77 GBit/s (DP 2.1) of data, and then
| uncompress it on the display side. If it's HDCP-encrypted, you
| need to account for that as well - encrypting and decrypting at
| such line speeds used to be unthinkable even two decades ago.
| The fact that the physical transfer layer is capable of
| delivering such data rates over many meters of copper cable of
| varying quality is nothing short of amazing anyway.
|
| And the fourth is generating all the data. You need absurdly
| high definition textures, which requires lots of VRAM, lots of
| regular RAM, lots of disk I/O, lots of disk storage (your
| average AAA game is well beyond 100GB of data at-rest for a
| reason!), and then render power to actually render the scene.
| 8K has 16x (!) the pixels of regular FullHD (1080p).
|
| What's stopping further progress? Other than yield and simple
| physics (similar to microchips, the finer the structures get
| the more difficult and expensive it is to make them), the most
| pressing issue is human visual acuity - even a human with very
| good vision can only make useful sense of about 74 of the
| theoretical 576 megapixels [1]. As we already established, 8K
| is at 33-ish megapixels, so the usual quadratic increase would
| already be far too detailed for 99.999% of humans to perceive.
|
| Yes, you could go for intermediate sizes. 5K, 6K, weird aspect
| ratios, whatever - but as soon as you go there, you'll run into
| issues with video content because it can't be up- or downscaled
| to such intermediates without a perceptible loss in quality
| and, again, a lot of processing power.
|
| [1] https://clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html
| zamadatix wrote:
| ~half of these reasons state sub $2000 8k TVs shouldn't
| exist, but they do.
| Aurornis wrote:
| The individual pixels on a 60 inch 8K TV are the same size
| as the pixels on a 30 inch 4K computer monitor. Most 8K TVs
| are even bigger than that, so their individual pixels are
| already easier to manufacture than your average 4K monitor
| or laptop screen.
|
| You can't compare large TVs to medium size computer
| monitors.
| simoncion wrote:
| > You can't compare large TVs to medium size computer
| monitors.
|
| When half of those four reasons don't require having a PC
| attached to the display, and three fourths of the four
| have nothing to do about the panel manufacturing process,
| you totally can.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > And the fourth is generating all the data. You need
| absurdly high definition textures, which requires lots of
| VRAM, lots of regular RAM, lots of disk I/O, lots of disk
| storage (your average AAA game is well beyond 100GB of data
| at-rest for a reason!), and then render power to actually
| render the scene. 8K has 16x (!) the pixels of regular FullHD
| (1080p).
|
| You don't need to scale everything up to match the monitor.
| There are already benefits to higher resolution with the same
| textures for any object that isn't directly next to the
| player.
|
| This isn't a problem at all. We wouldn't have to run games at
| 4K.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > You can get 8K TVs for <$1000 now.
|
| 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 relatively large unit
| area.
|
| However, the demand side is also not there. There are already a
| number of 5K, 6K, and 8K monitors on the market. They're just
| not selling well. Between difficult software support for
| scaling legacy apps, compatibility issues with different
| graphics cards and cables, and the fact that normal monitors
| are good enough, the really high resolution monitors don't sell
| well. That doesn't incentivize more.
|
| If we get to a place where we could reliably plug a 6K monitor
| into any medium to high end laptop or desktop and it just
| works, there might be more. Until then, making a high res
| monitor is just asking for an extremely high return rate.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| >> You can get 8K TVs for <$1000 now.
|
| >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.
| dmayle wrote:
| I've been using an 8k 65" TV as a monitor for four years
| now. When I bought it, you could buy the Samsung QN700B 55"
| 8k, but at the time it was 50% more than the 65" I bought
| (TCL).
|
| I wish the 55" 8k TVs still existed (or that the announced
| 55" 8k monitors were ever shipped). I make do with 65", but
| it's just a tad too large. I would never switch back to 4k,
| however.
| r0b05 wrote:
| What is the model number and how has the experience been?
|
| I've mostly read that TV's don't make great monitors. I
| have a TLC Mini LED TV which is great as a TV though.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| What do you watch on an 8K TV?
|
| There's no _content_
|
| Average bitrate from anything not a Bluray for even HD is
| not good, so you do not benefit from more pixels anyway.
| Sure, you are decompressing and displaying 8K worth of
| pixels, but the actual resolution of your content is more
| like 1080p anyway, especially in color space.
|
| Normally, games are the place where arbitrarily high
| pixel counts could shine, because you could literally
| ensure that every pixel is calculated and make real use
| of it, but that's actually stupidly hard at 4k and above,
| so nvidia just told people to eat smeary and AI garbage
| instead, throwing away the entire point of having a beefy
| GPU.
|
| I was even skeptical of 1440p at higher refresh rates,
| but bought a nice monitor with those specs anyway and was
| happily surprised with the improvement, but it's obvious
| diminishing returns.
| murkt wrote:
| What standard does reliably work to drive 8K at 60 Hz and
| how expensive cables are?
|
| How far away do you sit from it? Does it sit on top of
| your desk? What do you put on all this space, how do you
| handle it?
|
| I don't think you're maximizing one browser window over
| all 33 million pixels
| nicoburns wrote:
| > There are already a number of 5K, 6K, and 8K monitors on
| the market. They're just not selling well. Between difficult
| software support for scaling legacy apps, compatibility
| issues with different graphics cards and cables, and the fact
| that normal monitors are good enough, the really high
| resolution monitors don't sell well.
|
| They're available, but they never seem to have become a mass-
| market product at mass-market prices. The cheapest 5k monitor
| is at least double the price of the cheapest 4k monitor. And
| it was more like 4x until recently.
|
| You're probably right that we're starting to hit the point
| where people don't care though.
| ebbi wrote:
| One of the best things I've done for my setup is convert old 5k
| iMacs to work as external display.
|
| Only downside are the massive borders by todays standards, but
| it still has the Apple aesthetics, the 5k resolution is
| beautiful for my use cases (spreadsheets, documents, photo
| editing), and has HDMI inputs so I can play PS5 on it.
| prpl wrote:
| 30 or 32" 5k is what I'd love - maybe 6k at 32
| inatreecrown2 wrote:
| i long for a "Eizo" like quality monitor, 15 or 17 inch, with
| "retina" ppi count.
|
| am i the only one who thinks that this would make sense?
| precompute wrote:
| Hey, I think that's a great idea, too. 4K panels on phones
| (tiny!) exist for some absurd reason. But somehow there are no
| 22" 4K monitors. I think they probably don't sell well.
| Probably the same reason why all monitors are 16:9.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| At one point there was the ASUS ProArt PQ22UC, but I don't
| think that panel was produced after that stopped selling.
|
| If you go slightly bigger, there are the ASUS ProArt PA24US,
| Japannext JN-IPS2380UHDR-C65W-HSP, ViewSonic VP2488-4K, AG
| Neovo EM2451, and the UPerfect UColor T3.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| There are a few displays like that, although quality will
| differ on your criteria of course. Many of them are marketed as
| "portable monitors", some specced for gaming, others for
| artists, some built to be cheap.
|
| ASUS ProArt PA169CDV, UPerfect 184T01, Lipa AX-60 (and AX-60T),
| UPerfect UFilm A17, UPerfect UGame J5, and two portable screens
| by Verbatim, just to name a few.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Nice monitor, but its target demographic is pretty small, and its
| price makes Eizo look cheap.
|
| I've done a lot of color-calibrated work, and, for the most part,
| don't like working in a calibrated system. I prefer good ol'
| sRGB.
|
| A calibrated system is a "least common denominator" system, where
| the _least_ capable element dictates what all the others do. So
| you could have one of these monitors, but, if your printer has a
| limited gamut, all your images will look like mud, anyway, and
| printer technology is still pretty stagnant. There was a big
| burst of improvement in inkjets, but there hasn't been much
| progress in a long time. Same with scanners. I have a 12-year-old
| HP flatbed that is still quite valid.
|
| A lot of folks get twisted over a 60Hz refresh rate, but that's
| not something I worry about. I'm old, and don't game much. I also
| watch entertainment on my TV; not my monitor. 60Hz is fine, for
| me. Lots of room is my priority.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Where do you go for wide gamut prints? How do commercial
| printers compare to consumer printers in this regard?
|
| I'm working on a few wide gamut art pieces, and so far the test
| prints have been less than stellar. Disclaimer - I'm an amateur
| in this field.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Inkjets are the best bang for the buck. I had good luck with
| higher-end Epson printers (with good gloss/matte photo
| paper). The ink is much better at remaining viable for a long
| time, and no longer freaks out, whenever the relative
| humidity goes up.
|
| With inkjets, though, you need to keep using them. Otherwise,
| the ink clogs.
|
| Expensive process printers have wide gamuts. Laser printers
| basically suck. Xerox used to make decent color laser
| printers, but they had an odd "waxy" ink. Not sure if they
| still do it.
|
| I don't think anyone does dye-sub printers, anymore. They
| used to be good.
| hoangtrannn wrote:
| Is there a good 5k monitor at 27" that does not burn the wallet?
| It's worth mentioning that it should be also very reliable
| because these monitors seem to have issue after awhile,
| especially burn-in.
| def- wrote:
| ASUS ProArt PA27JCV
| ebbi wrote:
| If you're not too worried about warranty etc, you could buy an
| old 5k iMac and convert that to work as an external display.
| I've converted a dozen now - highly recommend! If you aim for a
| 2017+ year model, you'll have a pretty reliable display. The
| 2015 models tend to have issues with red banding on the edges
| which gets super annoying when using a text editor with white
| UI.
| e40 wrote:
| I've had a few ProArt monitors and they aren't very high quality,
| IME. I had high-pitched whine and blinking off/on issues, on
| several Mac models, from iMac to Air to Studio. Yes, I tried a
| variety of cables. The Apple Studio monitor, while insanely
| priced, has been flawless for me, sitting next to a ProArt.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I've often gone into an expensive display purchase with
| hesitation but then never regret it as, years later, when
| machines have moved in and out of my workspace, the display is
| still there.
| e40 wrote:
| And something I forgot to mention, the color response of the
| ProArt is very odd and off. I didn't realize it when I had 2
| ProArts, but when it was sitting next to the Studio display,
| it was obvious.
|
| I suspect the ProArt can be calibrated, but when I do photo
| editing, I just use the Studio.
| omnibrain wrote:
| Sadly it's just 16:9. Not even 16:10.
|
| I now run 2 3:2 Displays (BenQ RD280U) at home (more in the
| office, but I never go there) and love my vertical real estate.
| (No, portrait mode won't work out)
| Flockster wrote:
| Thank you for this suggestion!
|
| For Laptops 16:10 (and with the framework and surface even
| 15:10/3:2) is already quite common, while in the desktop market
| 16:9 and these ultrawides are dominant.
|
| With 16:9 the whitespace on websites even with Tabs on the side
| is simply to high ;)
| BloodOrb2 wrote:
| ASUS warranties are useless now. Don't buy. See Gamers Nexus vids
| for more details.
| qqxufo wrote:
| 8K doesn't create new design problems; it removes the blur that
| used to hide them. A quick checklist that keeps UIs sane across
| DPI:
|
| Design at 1x first and preview at 100% OS scaling on a non-retina
| display.
|
| Prefer SVG/CSS for icons/illustrations; avoid shipping @2x PNG
| backgrounds.
|
| Use the system font stack; if you need web fonts, cap to two
| weights, subset with unicode-range, and font-display: swap.
|
| Keep layer/effect counts low to avoid GPU over-compositing;
| rasterize heavy shadows.
|
| Make images responsive (srcset/sizes) and lock aspect ratios to
| prevent reflow.
|
| Budget third-party JS; measure on WebPageTest/Lighthouse, not
| just a dev box.
|
| Do these and 8K stops being scary; most "looks bad on non-retina"
| is self-inflicted.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| > preview at 100% OS scaling on a non-retina display.
|
| Yeah, I feel like anyone who is serious enough to purchase a
| display like this ought to have a secondary display connected
| just for previewing their work on a "cheap" consumer device. It
| should be always available so that it only takes a few seconds
| to preview changes in the "worst-case" scenario by dragging a
| window over. It's why (good) phone devs test their apps on
| multi-year old devices.
|
| This is why people working in pro-audio test mixes in lots of
| environments. Sure, it sounds great in a treated studio. How
| does it sound in the car? How about on headphones? What about
| on the built-in speaker on your phone? You want to hear the mix
| in the widest and most compromising scenarios to truly
| understand how well it holds up. Very few people have top-of-
| the-line hardware and most of your audience presumably don't.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I once bought an Asus ProArt Display and I boxed it up and sent
| it back inside of 20 minutes. They have fans, a fact that is not
| mentioned anywhere in their sales materials.
| cubefox wrote:
| I wonder why local dimming zones remain so limited in LCDs. This
| one has 4032, which corresponds to a background LED resolution of
| only 84x48. That's about 90x90 (over 8000) colored LCD pixels per
| white background LED.
|
| This is far too coarse to accurately resolve fine differences in
| HDR brightness, e.g. from lamps, car lights, street lights,
| specular highlights etc.
|
| Perhaps the background LEDs are still relatively costly? Or
| customers just don't care enough to justify putting in
| significantly more? Which is unfortunate, since although OLED
| monitors have perfect fine HDR contrast, the overall achievable
| screen brightness is quite low compared to LED LCDs.
|
| Which makes both technologies suboptimal for HDR content, for
| different reasons.
| evadne wrote:
| Is it not November already? :p
| godzillabrennus wrote:
| ASUS customer support is the worst in the industry. Cool display,
| but keep the box. They returned me broken stuff again after an
| RMA on a ProArt Creator WiFi board. I've learned after years of
| buying ASUS that if something goes wrong, you might as well buy
| another and send this one back to the retailer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-05 23:01 UTC)