- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
Are you talking about 8K or 4K? Not only can you game in 4K with a cheap card depending on the game the desktop and everything else just looks nicer.
Ether, 1440p is about the limit I draw before the extra fidelity is not worth the performance hit.
Your own budget is by definition your business but you can run some stuff in 4K on my desktop I bought in 2020 for $700. Not worth it “TO ME” requires no defense but it is pretty silly to say its a money sink with no reward when we are talking about PC gaming. You know where you game on a 24-32" screen 1 foot or 2 from your face. The study clearly says its not.
I have at one point of time made my living in hardware, I would not advise running in 4k or higher without good reason. You being able to run at 4k does not in anyway change the terrible value proposition of losing frames and latency for fidelity. I would not recommend anyone not wanting to go absolutely silly to run a 4 or 8k monitor. Run an multiscreen setup at lower resolution like a normal person. Don’t make your own preferences or sunk costs your position on tech in general.
Credentials like “made my living in hardware” are both non-specific and non-verifiable they mean nothing. I have 2 27" 4K 60hz monitors because last gen hardware just isn’t that expensive.
When not gaming this looks nicer than 2x FHD and I run it in either 1080 or 4K depending on the game depending on what settings need to be set to get a consistent 60 FPS. My hardware isn’t poverty level nor is it expensive. An entry level Mac would be more expensive.
Leaving aside gaming isn’t it obvious to you that 4K looks nicer in desktop use or are your eyes literally failing?
I have 2 collage diplomas and worked 10 years in the industry at IBM alone. Your not going to cow me or tell me I have no credentials, those accusations mean nothing. I don’t really get why you are so very aggressively pushing this nonsense, do you just love tech slop so much? Are you getting a kickback with every 4k monitor sold? Why of all the hills to die on it is this?
And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?
On the internet where you go by “Moonpoo” you in fact have no credentials because nobody can verify anything.
It is in a way hilarious to imagine that IBM is so broken that its employees can’t figure out how to make fonts not tiny on 4K. You must have been a manager.
Oh IBM is way more broken then that. But by making the fonts bigger so you can read them on a 4k monitor is not the augment you think it is for 4k…
But hey as long as everyone buys monitors for roughly 3x the price then its all good then, right? I think you are even losing the plot here on WHY people should buy 4K or higher monitors. There are fringe cases, of course, but the vast majority of time its just a fool and their money soon to be parted.
Basically every modern OS in existence including Linux supports proper scaling for higher resolution displays. You don’t just have to make the text bigger. Proper scaling is implemented. Integer scaling is best supported.
https://linux-hardware.org/?view=mon_resolution&colors=10
Let’s look at desktop users
4k = 13.7% of Linux users QHD = 12.4% 3440x1440 = 3.9%
30% of desktop users are using > FHD