I never got into the ultra wide thing. Where the 8K monitors at?? We've been stuck on 4K for ten years!

seiferteric 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have a Samsung neo g9 57" which is like 1/2 an 8k monitor (or 2 4k monitors side-by-side) which is sweet since I use picture-by-picture mode to have my work computer on one side and my personal computer on the other side.

	▲	ghshephard 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have the SAMSUNG 49" Odyssey Neo G9 G95NA - but despite spending literally dozens of hours - I was never able to get text to work clearly on it - either Mac or PC - tried both the DisplayPort, HDMI - tried all the (many) HDMI cables I had at home, and a couple expensive Monoprice cables, firmware updates, monitor resets, every setting I could figure - no luck. Text is just ... fuzzy in a way that it isn't with any other monitor I've ever owned - kind of a deal breaker when I spend all day in tmux.

▲

hhh 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

they’ve been around for a few years, as well as 5K and 6K

▲

masklinn 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Sadly they're not super common which makes them expensive, and I don't think I've seen any that wasn't 16:9. The world has decided to go with refresh rates rather than resolution.

▲

jorvi 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is the right choice because our eyes cannot resolve that kind of DPI at that distance.

Past 2880p on most desk monitor viewing distances or past 1080p on most TV viewing distances, you hit steeply diminishing returns. Please, please let's use our processing power and signal bandwidth for color and refresh rate, not resolution.

This is also why I think every console game should have a 720p handheld 'performance' and 1080p living room 'performance' mode. We don't need 1080p on handhelds or 2160p in the living room. Unless you're using relatively enormous screens for either purpose.

▲

Kon5ole 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>Which is the right choice

No damn it, it's not!

Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now, it's enough.

Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years. Enough already!

Millions of office workers are working all day reading text on screens optimized for playing games at low resolutions. It's just sad.

Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on screens can be as crisp as on paper.

Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and it should be.

▲

dworks 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I've recently gone from 60hz to 240hz to 480hz. Refresh rate in games is not just about what it looks like. It completely changes game mechanics, like movement, recoil etc. It is such a big difference between 60hz and 240hz that you're not really playing the same game. There are things you can do at 240hz that are impossible at 60hz. At 480hz, there's also so much more time to react, so you really don't need fast reflexes to take advantage of it.

▲

thfuran 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So much more time? The difference in frame time between 480 hz and 240 is 2 ms.

	▲	dworks an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Right, that should be imperceptible. The 240hz monitor was also 15" while the 480hz monitor is 27". I'm sure that contributes as well. My subjective experience is that I now just have a lot of more time to react.