Hacker News

points by drnick1 2 days ago | 0 comments

I think you will find that 4K is generally sufficient at 32". Text is sharp enough, and a high refresh rate is probably more important at that point. There is also the issue that not even a 5090 can push enough fps at resolutions higher than 4K in demanding games.

[–] Dylan16807 2 days ago

I have 4K at 32". It's pretty sharp but at 6K the pixels would be significantly less visible, and I could run it at an even 200% so that older programs don't have scaling issues.

And I don't need to run games at full resolution.

6K at 32" would be the same density as 5K at 27"

[–] drnick1 1 day ago

Good point, I am looking forward to the day OLED 6K is common. A higher resolution is always better after all. At the moment however I think 32" 4K is pretty much the sweet spot for a single monitor setup however. It's a decent pixel density and high refresh rate panels are avaible.

[–] skavi 2 days ago

4k stretched to 32 is awful. screen door very visible. honestly it’s not even quite enough for 27.

[–] spacedcowboy 2 days ago

Oh to be young again. I use a 43" Samsung TV at 4K. That works for me. The 32" 4K monitor next to it I run at 2560x1440, you know, so I can read it...

[–] drnick1 2 days ago

You need to increase UI scaling, not turn down the resolution. All modern desktops support this in some form. I would only lower the resolution if the GPU can't keep up in games after exhausting all other options such as AI upscaling.

[–] yreg 2 days ago

If you use a 27" 5K iMac its impossible to go to 32" at 4K. It looks terrible.

[–] drnick1 1 day ago

I guess you guys on Mac don't play games. There is no GPU that can provide a consistently good framerate at 5K in a recent game. And that Mac monitor is probably 60Hz, so it's not a clear win over 120Hz+ at a somewhat lower resolution.

[–] yreg 1 day ago

Yes, I have another computer with a low res monitor for games.