I've got a new monitor!
-
So, some of you probably remember that I've smashed my old and trusty 27" Dell monitor against the floor (https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/23935/i-smashed-my-monitor/9).
Now I've got a new shiny 24" 4K monitor, the Dell P2415Q, yay! The monitor's size and distance from my eyes makes it a "Retina" one. I seriously don't understand how I even coped with anything less. My next laptop is going to be 4K or better! (There are rumors that the next Dell XPS 15 is going to be produced with a 5K display. If it comes out to be true, Dell gets my money.)
You can now place bets on when I'm going to accidentally smash this one. :)
-
@wft hey yes I do remember! I'm still using that smashed monitor as my desktop background!
-
-
@gąska I'm fan of big dense resolutions which are good for eyes, not "all real estate which makes it hard to concentrate on anything in particular".
I'd buy it even for more money if it was 21". Or 24" and 5K.
-
@wft I haven't seen any research on how higher resolution images being less stressful for eyes, so I'm going to assume you mean it's prettier. To which I reply, I couldn't care less, but whatever - everyone has their own thing they mindlessly burn money on.
-
While I just got a new 27" Dell monitor. On sale at Micro Center for $129, down from $199.
-
Who needs 4k when you can have a 240hz display?
I have neither.
-
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
24" 4K monitor
Are you running that with DPI scaling? If so, good luck.
-
@gąska said in I've got a new monitor!:
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
24" 4K
Why. Just why.
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
@gąska I'm fan of big dense resolutions which are good for eyes, not "all real estate which makes it hard to concentrate on anything in particular".
I'd buy it even for more money if it was 21". Or 24" and 5K.
I've got a 16" 4k. The pixels are so dense it can't even stand upright.
-
I refuse to scale. 96 dpi forever!
-
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
Dell P2415Q
maybe you can answer some Questions i've always had about the 4k PC monitors.... do you game?
I'm curious how the response performance is on those. I have a fairly high-end video card capable of doing 1920x1200 at max settings, but i wonder how that works on the 4k monitors.
Second part is the 4k monitor's update time itself, does it have ghosting issues from slow update?
-
I don't have any ghosting issues. Frankly, I don't game either.
My mobile Kepler does a pretty good job of 4K@60Hz. Including displaying video. And the UI updates are smooth, I see no slowdowns because there's a lot more pixels.
I see slight banding on some shades of gray close to white, it doesn't bother me too much.
-
@anotherusername said in I've got a new monitor!:
@wft hey yes I do remember! I'm still using that smashed monitor as my desktop background!
Same here.
-
Not 16:10. Might as well trash it
-
@jazzyjosh said in I've got a new monitor!:
Not 16:10. Might as well trash it
meh i like my dual 21x9s, especially since i'm driving them at 100Hz
let me tell you i've seen 4k, and it is pretty, but once you do 100, or 120, or even 144 Hz you never want to go back to 60, and consoles are forever ruined for you locked as they are to 30Hz
-
@accalia Interestingly, some Switch games are at 60.
For instance Xenoverse 2 normally is, in 1v1.
Odd that that is the console that does 60.
Though the new wolfenstein is, I hear, below 30...
-
@magus said in I've got a new monitor!:
@accalia Interestingly, some Switch games are at 60.
yes, though not always. AFAICT the console basically decides wether it's confident it cna do 60 or 30 depending on the game and the output resolution and picks 60 if it's confident it can maintain 60 and just drops to 30 if it can't. I'd have preferred addaptive framerate but that probably would ahve taken even more processing power than just picking 30 or 60 and picking the one of those that balances hight framerate with few dropped frames.
-
@accalia XV2 seems to be adaptive, but mostly stable.
-
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
The monitor's size and distance from my eyes makes it a "Retina" one. I seriously don't understand how I even coped with anything less.
Weird, I bought a Nexus 10 partly because of its 300ppi "retina" display, yet I never really noticed any big improvement.
The only time was when I downloaded some 4k videos in it to test it out. They looked considerably "sharper" and more realistic than normal, but for text and icons it wasn't noticeable.
-
Ha, I just brought home a second Dell U2415 today. 16:10 or bust! Now I've got two identical monitors instead of having a smaller 22" 1680x1050 one to the side and it just feels so weird...
-
@blek My strategy is a 16:9 120hz monitor next to a 60hz 16:10 monitor.
-
@magus said in I've got a new monitor!:
@accalia XV2 seems to be adaptive, but mostly stable.
/shrug
i'm just going off by observations with the games i play on the console. :-)
it could actually do adaptive and i just have games taht are either 30 or 60.
-
-
@wft said in I've got a new monitor!:
Are you running that with DPI scaling? If so, good luck.
I don't run Windows. At all.
What do you use? Mac? If so, how does DPI scaling work there?
I know that in the Linux world it's not much better than Windows. In fact, I'd say it's even worse since the DPI multiplier has to be an integer due to X11 limitations. Then again, this is partially mitigated by the fact that you can configure font sizes separately.
-
@deadfast said in I've got a new monitor!:
If so, how does DPI scaling work there?
The basic UI drawing library uses paradigms descended from Display PostScript, so changing the underlying DPI doesn't matter all that much, and it's only really with images that you notice. I also believe that the drawing strategy was always based on rendering on a virtual surface at high resolution and then downscaling that to the real display (so as to enable things like subpixel rendering) so things adapt pretty well there too. If you have very old apps, you see more artefacts as they run in a compatibility mode that uses a rather large number of real pixels per virtual pixel (giving very strange effects as the app tries to do subpixel rendering really badly) but rebuilding to support the newer displays is pretty easy. You also see some of that sort of thing when you've got a window mostly on a low DPI screen but partially on a high DPI screen, and I can't remember which app it was (and can't check now) but there was at least one that rendered part of its window quite differently on high DPI which was weird.
tl;dr: It mostly works pretty well.
-
@dkf said in I've got a new monitor!:
You also see some of that sort of thing when you've got a window mostly on a low DPI screen but partially on a high DPI screen, and I can't remember which app it was (and can't check now) but there was at least one that rendered part of its window quite differently on high DPI which was weird.
My newest Mac is from 2011. SandyBridge + Radeon HD5760. So your mileage may vary if you use something less ancient. In my case, when I move a window, the destination screen shows the window drawn translucently at the resolution of the destination screen, however, if I stop it midway, only the half of the window that's on the source screen is shown.
GNOME + Wayland gets it totally right: each half of the window is shown at the screen's native resolution. However, most apps that matter on a daily basis (Chrome, Sublime, Firefox, JetBrains IDEs) are not Wayland-native, and thus upscaled from bitmaps (read: ugly). That's why I'm using Xorg and scale=200% on all displays.
