[HN Gopher] Can Dell's 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?
___________________________________________________________________
Can Dell's 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?
Author : secure
Score : 54 points
Date : 2023-07-03 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (michael.stapelberg.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (michael.stapelberg.ch)
| tedunangst wrote:
| People are happy using DSC for a pixel perfect monitor? I'd never
| trust it for graphics work.
| mynonameaccount wrote:
| Dell cuts cost anywhere they can. Their power cable, keyboard,
| and mouse have the tiniest gauge wire I have ever seen and this
| is a $2500 system. Do not buy Dell.
| adamgamble wrote:
| Although I haven't used these monitors, my experience with high
| dpi on windows and Linux has been a nightmare compared to OSX.
| It's surprising me the non Mac world hasn't made this a bigger
| priority.
| smolder wrote:
| I'm actually not sure what your complaint is at this point.
| I've long been using 3 mixed dpi displays on windows 10 for
| gaming as well as normal desktop stuff. Any relatively modern
| software scales fine to high dpi. Some old software using old
| APIs has to be upscaled by the OS and is blurry, but that's
| stuff like... Winamp.
| ghusbands wrote:
| I guess you've not used VMWare, VirtualBox, DaVinci Resolve
| or most anything written in Java. There's more, but that's
| off the top of my head. There's plenty of software out there
| with unusably small text/displays even with just one display.
| hedora wrote:
| Modern Linux DPI support is a nightmare. It's a shame, since if
| you just run and old-school software stack (X11; minimal window
| manager; xrandr to adjust DPI if you hotplug a monitor), then
| it has much nicer font rendering than Mac OS.
|
| This is particularly frustrating since I've been using high DPI
| displays since the CRT days. Everything horribly regressed
| about a decade ago, and still isn't back to 1999 standards.
| nine_k wrote:
| IDK, high DPI worked fine for me under Linux. I just set the
| desired DPI in Xfce settings, and everything scales properly.
| (Except Firefox, which has its own DPI setting! But it works
| equally painlessly.)
|
| Where things go haywire is _mixed_ resolution. It 's best
| avoided :-\ Hence now I have a 28" 4k external screen which
| is exactly like four 14" FHD screens of my laptop, so the DPI
| stays strictly the same.
| clhodapp wrote:
| Mixed resolution can look great on X11 if you do it with
| super-sampling, especially if you're able to do it via
| integer downscaling.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| I actually think Windows does it better than OS X (and Gnome,
| Wayland, and anything that does not support true fractional
| scaling). OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it
| always look blurry.
| filoleg wrote:
| > OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always
| look blurry.
|
| I genuinely have zero idea what you are talking about. Typing
| this from my macbook connected to a 5k LG ultrawide monitor,
| and it is as crystal sharp as it can get. As opposed to my
| windows 10 desktop (connected to the same monitor) having
| some occasional application windows render fairly blurry and
| inconsistently (one of the main offenders of this is,
| ironically, task manager). And don't even get me started on
| font rendering in general.
| cosmotic wrote:
| When I used a 5k LG, on the lowest scaling above 100%, I
| would get shimmering effects when I moved windows. You
| could see the same art/glyph rendered differently depending
| on if it was on an even or odd line; move the window 1
| pixel and the text totally changed. If you only ever run at
| integer scaling, this wouldn't be apparent.
|
| Windows does a _Much_ better job with non-integer scaling
| because hairlines are 1px no matter what the scaling and
| text is rendered with pixel-hinting instead of macOS 's
| new, lame strategy of super sampling.
| namdnay wrote:
| Surprisingly, macs can't actually scale the UI like
| Windows. All you can do is simulate higher or lower
| resolutions. Which is fine if your DPI is sky-high, but a
| real pain in the arse if you're working with a QHD 24"for
| example, and just want everything to be a bit bigger
| xnyanta wrote:
| macOS will render at the next highest integer scale factor
| and then downscale to fit the resolution of your monitor
| instead of just rendering at the fractional scale in the
| first place
| duskwuff wrote:
| Does macOS support any scaling factors above 2x?
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| It's effectively supersampling. The resulting image looks
| excellent.
| [deleted]
| hocuspocus wrote:
| There are several scenarios where it clearly doesn't look
| that good, and where Windows objectively does a much
| better job.
|
| Most people (and companies) aren't willing to spend $1600
| on Apple's 5K monitor, so they get a good 27" UHD monitor
| instead, and they soon realize macOS either gives you
| pixel perfect rendering at a 2x scale factor which
| corresponds to a ridiculously small 1920x1080 viewport,
| or a blurry 2560x1440 equivalent.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| The 2560x1440 equivalent looks tack sharp on macOS. It
| renders at 5120x2880 and scales it down to native, as I
| said it's effectively supersampling. I used this for
| years and never experienced a blurry image. I now run a
| 5k2k monitor, also at a fractional scale and again it
| looks excellent.
| [deleted]
| mozman wrote:
| I had the LG 5k Ultra wide monitor and couldn't get used to
| it. I gave up and got the XDR display, expensive but worth
| it
| eikenberry wrote:
| I'd guess gaming is at least partially responsible. For
| anything more than 2k you need a high end/expensive video card,
| which just aren't that common. Just look at the steam stats
| right now.. 62% of users have 1080p.
| drcongo wrote:
| High DPI screens with Windows really show how bad the font
| rendering is.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| At high DPI the difference in font rendering between
| ClearType, Freetype and macOS diminish greatly, it's mostly a
| matter of taste, and at least Microsoft hasn't crippled low
| DPI rendering in recent Windows versions like Apple did with
| macOS.
| Matheus28 wrote:
| Slightly off topic but I can't wait until there's a 120 Hz 8K
| monitor. It's the only thing holding me back from upgrading from
| 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable
| bandwidth or absurd price tag...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| 8K is four times the pixels and therefore four times the
| bandwidth as a 4K monitor.
|
| It took us a long time to go from 1080p to 4K. It has taken
| even longer for 4K at 120-144Hz to be practical.
|
| It's more likely that you'll end up with intermediate steps to
| 5K, 6K, than getting 8K 120Hz.
|
| The other limitation is lack of demand. You need a gigantic
| monitor for 8K to be worth it, and you need a powerful video
| card to drive it. The number of people who would buy such a
| monitor is very, very small.
| smolder wrote:
| What is your actual use case apart from technology fetishism?
| bloggie wrote:
| In CAD/EDM tools higher resolution means more productivity,
| (to a point) as you can fit more useful information on the
| screen at a time - you can "zoom out" more and still keep a
| useful level of detail. Especially useful in schematic and
| pcb design where dense areas of interest can be spatially
| disparate. I don't like large screens and currently use 24"
| 4k screens which seem to be either unavailable or expensive,
| they were ~$350 in 2015 and don't seem to have any equivalent
| nowadays.
|
| The 120 Hz i don't understand however i am not a gamer.
| petepete wrote:
| Once you try a high refresh rate monitor, even for work,
| you just don't want to go back. Every movement and
| animation is buttery smooth.
|
| Try setting your refresh rate to 30hz for an hour.
| ajolly wrote:
| Agreed. I have a number of 4K 144 Hertz monitors, I'd
| like a 6 or 8K monitor but until they have it in high
| refresh create I'm not switching. I'm not much of a
| gamer, but when I do occasionally game it is
| significantly more fluid as well.
| dizhn wrote:
| I have 60, 144 and 165hz displays. I have to say I don't
| really see much of a difference. Around 30 hz yes. But
| not over 60. It's probably some sort of genetic vision
| difference thing.
| Retric wrote:
| People say this, but I've had people fail double blind
| tests for 120hz vs 90hz vs 60hz. I've yet to find anyone
| that can reliably tell 144hz vs 120hz.
|
| What people mostly notice is latency not refresh rate.
| skeaker wrote:
| Anecdotal, but my friends and I have passed such tests.
| YMMV
| Retric wrote:
| You mean double blind 144hz vs 120hz when latency isn't
| an issue?
|
| If you don't mind me asking how old are your friends?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I can't speak for him, but for me? Straight integer scaling
| of 4k and 1440p. I _loathe_ fractional scaling, and I cannot
| wait for the day that I can run an 8k display at > 90hz
| without compromise
| bryantraywick wrote:
| Literally a 3'x5-6' monitor that can render text as crisply
| and cleanly as print. That's all I want.
| Lio wrote:
| I guess you could look at the use-cases for 120Hz displays on
| MacBook Pros.
|
| It's useful for smoother scrolling amongst other things.
|
| I'd like a display that has parity to my laptop but is just
| bigger so I can fit more on it.
| practice9 wrote:
| MBP's 120hz display is a lifesaver for me.
|
| Previously, I actually often felt motion sickness when
| scrolling through code on small 60hz laptop screens. Had no
| problems with larger (> 23") desktop screens, though.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Perhaps parent is a gun shrimp or pigeon.
|
| I try not to be overly sapien-centric when making assumptions
| about my fellow HN readers.
| adolph wrote:
| An interesting part of the recent book An Immense World was
| its coverage of how mantis shrimp likely don't use
| photoreceptors like human's do.
|
| _Marshall now thinks that the mantis shrimp sees colors in
| a unique way. Rather than discriminating between millions
| of subtle shades, its eye actually does the opposite,
| collapsing all the varied hues of the spectrum into just
| 12._
|
| From Science: "A Different Form of Color Vision in Mantis
| Shrimp"
|
| _The mantis shrimps (stomatopods) can have up to 12
| photoreceptors, far more than needed for even extreme color
| acuity. Thoen et al. conducted paired color discrimination
| tests with stomatopods and found that their ability to
| discriminate among colors was surprisingly low. Instead,
| stomatopods appear to use a color identification approach
| that results from a temporal scan of an object across the
| 12 photoreceptor sensitivities. This entirely unique form
| of vision would allow for extremely rapid color recognition
| without the need to discriminate between wavelengths within
| a spectrum._
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I run the DELL G3223Q (144Hz 4K) and mine calibrated at ~98%
| DCI-P3 for reference. I'm quite happy with it.
|
| https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q
| malfist wrote:
| 8k@120Hz is going to need one heck of a video card
| densh wrote:
| I'd argue that AI driven super resolution like DLSS should be
| more than sufficient to upscale 4k to 8k with minimal
| performance loss and acceptable image quality even for
| gaming.
| smolder wrote:
| It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of
| pointless number crunching to render at that level of detail
| for anyone who has human eyes.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > It's venturing into cryptocurrency-space-heater levels of
| pointless number crunching to render at that level of
| detail for anyone who has human eyes.
|
| Depends on your monitor size.
|
| Might be a waste at 27", but if you want to use a 48"
| display, I can assure you that you'd notice the move from
| 4k -> 8k.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yeah, even driving the display at 4K, you start to notice
| the higher pixel fill factor for 8K displays above 48in.
| I love my 65in 8K Q900 - even though it mostly lives at
| 4k (120hz!).
| ajolly wrote:
| Can you explain this a bit more, I tried googling but I
| can't quite understand what you mean here by pixel fill
| factor and how it would differ between the resolutions?
| justahuman74 wrote:
| Not for tmux + firefox
| walrus01 wrote:
| Unless people are far more sensitive than I am, I don't see
| how >60Hz is needed for a desktop workstation environment.
| High frame rate is really only noticeable for very fast
| reaction time gaming.
|
| 4K 120Hz may be noticeable if editing ultra high frame rate
| video on a video editing workstation, but if you are a
| video production crew with a camera capable of recording at
| that framerate, you probably already know that.
| jonatron wrote:
| I can immediately tell just from moving the mouse a
| little. I wouldn't say it's needed either though.
| selectodude wrote:
| When I throw my iPhone into low power mode and it drops
| to a 60FPS cap, it is immediately noticeable.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| It's immediately noticeable when scrolling in a browser,
| dragging stuff around or just moving the mouse. If you
| haven't seen it in person, go to an Apple store and do a
| quick comparison between the Macbook Pro (120hz) and the
| Air (60hz), or iPad vs iPad Pro. They're always next to
| each other.
| smcleod wrote:
| 60Hz is really noticeable when you've been using 120Hz
| even for a few minutes. 120Hz feels a lot less tiring and
| work in a terminal, editor and websites is just a lot
| smoother.
| [deleted]
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Yeah, I'm a gamer and I _definitely_ notice the
| difference between 60 hz and 120+ hz.
|
| But for desktop productivity? I don't feel I gain
| anything from it. 60 hz is fine.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Many people are more sensitive than you are. I can easily
| tell the difference between 60 and 120 on both my phone
| and my desktop.
|
| Though response times also matter a lot for ghosting and
| such.
| [deleted]
| ricardobeat wrote:
| ARM macs can probably handle that, the M2 can do 10 8k video
| streams at once, 22 simultaneously on the Ultra, and people
| are running 4k 120hz on the M1 with a couple hacks.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Not in text mode. Hercules FTW
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not for productivity.
| wruza wrote:
| Not if you ignore overhyped (imo) rtx graphics and return
| back to gaming worlds, instead of smoke-and-neon-lights-in-
| mirrors pseudorealism.
| bryantraywick wrote:
| Absolutely. Mediocre resolution increases has been one of many
| disappointments for me when it comes to technology over the
| past 20 years. We had CRT monitors with better resolution than
| 1080p back in the late 90's early 2000's before LCD panels
| saddled us with 1080p resolution for 15 years. 4k is the bare
| minimum that should be available right now. I can't wait until
| I can have a 16k monitor at about 3'x5-6' on my desk. Maybe it
| will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.
| walrus01 wrote:
| I think you're going to be waiting a long time, even the
| geforce 4080 and 4090 don't support displayport 2.0.
|
| Additionally much of the demand for >60Hz is for gaming
| purposes, and there is nowhere near a powerful enough GPU
| anyone can afford that would be able to render games in high
| quality or extreme detail level at 8K above 60 FPS. Right now a
| GPU that costs $1500 USD can _maybe_ render a 4K game with
| extreme detail level at framerates that vary between 55 to 75
| fps.
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| The 3090 does support displayport 2.0, though. The 40 series
| are geared towards productivity use cases where people are
| fine with 60hz.
| rektide wrote:
| It's been pretty amazing how stagnant the monitor space is. I
| too am really craving an 8k@120 monitor, although there's a
| decent chance I'll balk at the price.
| zone411 wrote:
| I agree, but we got LG's 16:18 DualUp monitors a year ago.
| Having a 43'' monitor in the middle and these two on the
| sides creates a better setup than it was than what was
| previously possible.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| It's crazy how much of a regression there was in resolution
| and picture quality when we went from CRT to LCD displays. In
| the late 90's you could get a CRT that did 2048x1536 no sweat
| with great color and decent refresh rate. Then suddenly LCD
| displays became the standard and they looked awful. Low
| resolutions, terrible colors and bad viewing angles. The only
| real advantage they had was size. It took a decade or so to
| get back to decent resolutions and color reproduction.
| goosedragons wrote:
| How much did a 2048x1536 CRT monitor cost though? That's
| usually high and I bet it probably priced similar to what a
| 6K or 8K monitor is today.
| smcleod wrote:
| Not at all! Your common as milk Philips and ViewSonic
| 19-21" could do that easily!
| snovv_crash wrote:
| Also that CRT was probably 21" max, and weighed 20% of
| the human looking at it.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Great review. Are you returning the monitor? Also, have you kept
| the Kinesis 360 keyboard and did you get used to the plam pads?
| Personally, I'm using the palm pads of the Advantage 2.
| secure wrote:
| Yeah, I'm returning it.
|
| I kept the 360, but am currently using the Advantage 2 again. I
| never got used to the 360 palm pads.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Funnily, I was trying to buy the monitor as well last Friday
| in Austria, but was informed that the inventory nr on the
| website was wrong - so my order was cancelled. After your
| review, I guess I'll be waiting for the Samsung ViewFinity S9
| (5k).
|
| Re Kinesis: I have mixed feelings as well but in the meantime
| I got used to the 360 model. With the old palm pads, it feels
| more like the Advantage 2. I'm a bit sad that I didn't order
| the pro model. I really liked my Advantage 2 as well, but I
| can't go back to it as some electronic part seems to be
| damaged. It just seems to send random characters without
| touching the keyboard.
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| Why are you returning it? I am keeping mine because I don't
| know of anything better.
|
| Also, check out the MoErgo Glove80 keyboard.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I wonder what impact Apple's VR headset is going to have in, say,
| 10 years. Hopefully prices for their headsets as a complete unit
| will have dropped, and at that point, while I'm no optical
| scientist, we must be approaching the limits of eye clarity, no?
| So eventually VR headsets will offer effectively 360 degrees of
| "monitor" that can't be matched by any panel, and the only actual
| pixels they will need to produce are a postage stamp sized thing
| in front of your eyeball.
|
| I can imagine that a lot of personal computing is going to
| transform into some kind of "screen+lens+eyeball" as COGs for
| these kinds of headset displays are going to be lower than
| traditional monitor (or possibly even smartphone) displays.
| davidhyde wrote:
| Just give me a 2K monitor that turns on instantly, doesn't hunt
| for sources, consumes less than 20W of power and I'll be a happy
| guy. Bonus for having physical buttons to select explicit input
| sources without delays.
| coder543 wrote:
| I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic
| goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than
| these... I'm not sure.
|
| Also, it just seems strange that anyone is asking for a 1080p
| monitor in 2023 outside of Esports. Are you sure you want 1080p
| (2K) and not 1440p (2.5K)? It bothers me when people use 2K to
| refer to 1440p. 1080p is 2K[1].
|
| [0]: this chart has a few recent monitors and gives a general
| idea of how much power monitors consume:
| https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution is very clear
| on this subject, and I agree completely. 1080p is _much_ closer
| to 2000 horizontal pixels than 1440p.
| davidhyde wrote:
| Yeh, I meant 1440p. 16:10. Was not aware these were referred
| to as 2.5k, thanks! I actually have a 32" one so no scaling
| is required and I think it only takes about 30W so it doesn't
| feel like I'm sitting in front of a heater in summer.
| Honestly, anything below 50W is fine. My biggest gripe really
| is that it takes 7 seconds to turn on.
| coder543 wrote:
| It is kind of weird that I don't think I've ever seen any
| monitor reviewers report the monitor's time-to-wake.
|
| Certainly, one of the most impressive things about the M1
| laptops when they came out was that they woke _instantly_
| from sleep, including the screen.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| You ain't getting a modern monitor with less than 20W of power
| unless you want something very small and very dim with very low
| refresh rate.
| swader999 wrote:
| 6k is even way too much to spend.
| [deleted]
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Friends dont let friends buy Dell monitors.
| photonbeam wrote:
| What do friends let friends buy?
| dewey wrote:
| What's the issue with Dell monitors? I'm still using my Dell
| P2715Q (4k) from > 5 years ago every day and the only reason
| that would make me switch is that it doesn't support the latest
| HDMI connections any more.
| sedatk wrote:
| Yeah, until I got enamored by 144Hz, I'd exclusively buy Dell
| monitors because of their great price/performance.
| densh wrote:
| The comments regarding matte vs glossy and text sharpness
| resonates with me. It's really hard to use any non-Apple screens
| since their color is completely washed out and lifeless and text
| lacks crispness on all screens at a range of price points I've
| ever tried. What's even more puzzling is how a large number of
| people online seem to adamantly defend widely sold lower-dpi 32"
| 4k matte screens as a superior product. It's been over a decade
| since first retina products shipped and somehow 200 dpi+ desktop
| screens is still an extremely niche product.
| howinteresting wrote:
| The M1 MacBook Pro 14" shipped with a GtG response time of
| 58.4ms.
|
| The U3224KB featured in this review has a GtG response time of
| 5ms in fast mode, which is considered average but not great.
| Most high-end monitors manage GtG response times of around 1ms.
| With OLED it's closer to 0.5ms.
|
| 58.4ms is unacceptably bad.
| densh wrote:
| Sure, they are not fast response gaming screens, but I am
| specifically calling out reading all forms of text
| (web/email/documents/coding) as a main use case.
|
| OLED would be great if we could finally get 27" 5K. Currently
| all the gaming screens sit at around 1440p pixel density and
| are often coupled with non RGB pixel layout that causes color
| fringing on text: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-
| and-woled-fringing-...
| hedora wrote:
| You should be able to set the font anti-aliaser's subpixel
| order unless you're running a terrible operating system.
| howinteresting wrote:
| To be clear, a 58ms response time is so bad that it
| produces a ton of ghosting while just scrolling text.
| Apparently Apple screens have always been this bad and Mac
| users just live with it.
| dogleash wrote:
| > somehow 200 dpi+ desktop screens is still an extremely niche
| product.
|
| Resolution and color accuracy are subject to diminishing
| returns.
|
| I could be wearing my glasses right now. They're not a strong
| correction, but I could see slightly better. In fact, they're
| within arm's reach. Meh.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such
| dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able
| to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up
| Retina in macOS.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Most people buying high-end monitors prioritize high refresh
| rates over pixel densities.
| api wrote:
| Gamers do. For coding I prefer high contrast and clarity. I'm
| disappointed there haven't been any huge genuine OLED
| screens. MicroLED could be nice too.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Right, and most people buying high-end monitors are gamers.
| addisonl wrote:
| Interesting, I'd assume it's professionals in the
| video/photography/production space spending the serious
| money on high end displays. Where are you getting your
| data?
| Clamchop wrote:
| High refresh rates seem to have gotten quite cheap. In
| addition to refresh rates, the high end is concerned with
| HDR, resolution, color reproduction, curve, and width,
| depending on the professional segment being targeted.
|
| The products exist but they're not as numerous as I'd expect
| (certainly not outside of the Apple ecosystem), and it's an
| eye-watering leap as far as prices go, hundreds of dollars at
| one end and multiple thousands at the other with very little
| in between.
| sedatk wrote:
| My experience is that HDR is rarely worth it on a computer
| monitor because OLED is so rare. FALD or other non-OLED HDR
| displays don't get near a decent OLED TV's HDR performance.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Because people have switched to larger screens (32+ inch) that
| they place farther away, lowering the need for pixel density.
|
| I'm on a 4K 27" monitor. That's a PPI of 163. I don't feel it's
| dismal, and I sit relatively close to my monitor.
| wmf wrote:
| Apple defines 218 DPI as Retina BTW.
| hedora wrote:
| I think part of the reason is that high DPI support was
| completely broken under windows for at least a decade after it
| was working fine in MacOS and Linux (pre-wayland and the rise
| of "HiDPI support").
|
| Most PC's are targeting windows, and stuff would be
| unreasonably small if you plugged in a midrange monitor from
| the early 2000's. So, monitor manufacturers stopped offering
| monitors with reasonable DPI.
| mkozlows wrote:
| Because they're expensive. It's the same reason that phones
| have higher DPI than laptops/tablets do -- what's economical on
| a 6" screen isn't on a 13", and what's economical on 13" isn't
| on 27."
|
| (Why? Yields. A 6" phone screen is like 12 square inches. A 27"
| desktop monitor is over 300 square inches. If you have a 98%
| yield of phone screens without defects, that implies only one
| defect per ~600 square inches, which means that at a handwave
| level, you'd have a 50% yield of desktop monitors with that
| same tech. "We have to throw away half the screens we make as
| junk" is a lot worse than "we have to throw away 2% of them.")
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA.
|
| I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The
| display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than
| Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration
| with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090
| via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a
| breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows) and I don't think 8K
| with 1:2 scaling would give suitably sized OS components for me,
| so it would be fractional scaling either way.
|
| The startup time doesn't matter in practice because they still
| wake up from sleep instantaneously.
|
| The mini-DP IN port is annoying but Club3D makes a bi-directional
| adapter that makes it regular DisplayPort for about $20.
|
| I am fine with the camera defaulting to ON for Windows Hello to
| work in my 2 computer setup.
|
| My only serious complaint is the piss poor speakers and the
| fabric covering them.
|
| I would also prefer a glossy display, but in practice I just
| don't find it makes any difference. I arrange my office for no
| reflections anyhow, which results in an equivalent experience.
| Additionally, the Dell 6K has excellent blacks. It has much
| better blacks than any IPS panel I have used.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-03 23:00 UTC)