Dell 32" 8k Monitor
- Thread starter RobinHood
- Start date
![[FFF]Skellen](/data/avatars/m/0/86.jpg?1484290303){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 595
- Points
- 63
- Location
- South Coast Brighton & Hove
- Real Name
- Mos or Pete will do just fine...
- Steam ID
- ->FFF<-Sk3ll3n
- Origin ID
- RockNrolla1975
I read there is no point going beyond 5k as that is the point ( on a 27 inch monitor )
There is no improvement to the image quality .
I have not tried an 8k but I can say from 4 to 5k there is a minimal improvement but for the gpu horsepower requirements the price point would not be worth it to most gamers .
Personally I'd like to see a 75hz or beyond uhd panel before increasing the fidelity any further.
Just my 2p worth m8 but nice find
There is no improvement to the image quality .
I have not tried an 8k but I can say from 4 to 5k there is a minimal improvement but for the gpu horsepower requirements the price point would not be worth it to most gamers .
Personally I'd like to see a 75hz or beyond uhd panel before increasing the fidelity any further.
Just my 2p worth m8 but nice find
Yeah, I've not had any experience with higher refresh rate monitors, but I hear that's the big factor if you're a gamer and really desirable.
For me, I like the super sharpness on text when I'm typing and reading.
Most PC monitors are typically only about 110 ppi (pixels per inch), where each pixel is quite visible if you're doing normal desktop work.
For example a 27" WQHD at 2560x1440 is only 109 ppi
The retina screens in the Apple Laptops are 227 ppi, which is gorgeous for text, similar for the phones too.
This 32" 8k monitor is 280 ppi
If you type a screen resolution in here, you can adjust the screensize to see what pixel density you get.
https://www.sven.de/dpi/
A 4k monitor would need to be 20" to hit 220 ppi
At 27" it drops to 160 ppi
At 30" it drops to 147
At 32" it drops to 137
For me, I like the super sharpness on text when I'm typing and reading.
Most PC monitors are typically only about 110 ppi (pixels per inch), where each pixel is quite visible if you're doing normal desktop work.
For example a 27" WQHD at 2560x1440 is only 109 ppi
The retina screens in the Apple Laptops are 227 ppi, which is gorgeous for text, similar for the phones too.
This 32" 8k monitor is 280 ppi
If you type a screen resolution in here, you can adjust the screensize to see what pixel density you get.
https://www.sven.de/dpi/
A 4k monitor would need to be 20" to hit 220 ppi
At 27" it drops to 160 ppi
At 30" it drops to 147
At 32" it drops to 137
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 595
- Points
- 63
- Location
- South Coast Brighton & Hove
- Real Name
- Mos or Pete will do just fine...
- Steam ID
- ->FFF<-Sk3ll3n
- Origin ID
- RockNrolla1975
So the question begs Robin at what point in the ppi range is the human eye threshold , they maintain beyond 70 fps the human eye cannot differentiate on images any faster .
I agree & beyond that point the screen refresh rate plays a huge part in what we perceive as an fps performance increase (on powerful enough hardware ) is actually an improved MHz figure .
Not forgetting your fps & MHz should be equally matched for optimal performance
I'm curious to know ....
I agree & beyond that point the screen refresh rate plays a huge part in what we perceive as an fps performance increase (on powerful enough hardware ) is actually an improved MHz figure .
Not forgetting your fps & MHz should be equally matched for optimal performance
I'm curious to know ....
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 595
- Points
- 63
- Location
- South Coast Brighton & Hove
- Real Name
- Mos or Pete will do just fine...
- Steam ID
- ->FFF<-Sk3ll3n
- Origin ID
- RockNrolla1975
I'd say for PPI, I need at least 200+ for reading and typing productivity.
Or lets say double the standard 110, so 220 ppi.
Most websites now cater to high pixel density screens by using 2X images, so they're double the resolution the designer want's the image to be displayed at, then scaled down to fit in the box so they look sharp on high dpi screens. So 2 x 110 sounds about right.
I've just plugged in my 25" Dell WQHD (2560x1440) monitor and attached to to my Macbook to extend the screen.
First time I've used it in since the end of last summer, dear god does it look like crap after using only my 227 ppi Macbook screen and my 326 ppi iPhone all that time.
The thing is - it's a good monitor. It's not crap at all, but in comparison to the two screens I've been using day in and day out I would find it so hard to go back to it now for any text related tasks such as reading and writing. Gaming and video look great, but boy do websites look bad, it's weird.
The smallest 4k monitors I can find are 24", that's 183 ppi. A weird 1.66X increase, I wonder how that would look. I imagine it'll have some weird scaling issues in windows.
If I'm going for 2X then a 27" 5K would be perfect at 217 ppi.
Or if the next jump is up to 8K then 32" isn't bad at 280.
The monitor itself is getting big then though, so I'd probably prefer to have 8K 34" at 260 ppi - but have it curved. You really need it curved once you get to 32"+
I had a 40" flat 4k Philips monitor for a few months and it was awful. Way too big so I sold it.
So, my two ideal next monitors could be either of the following:
Or lets say double the standard 110, so 220 ppi.
Most websites now cater to high pixel density screens by using 2X images, so they're double the resolution the designer want's the image to be displayed at, then scaled down to fit in the box so they look sharp on high dpi screens. So 2 x 110 sounds about right.
I've just plugged in my 25" Dell WQHD (2560x1440) monitor and attached to to my Macbook to extend the screen.
First time I've used it in since the end of last summer, dear god does it look like crap after using only my 227 ppi Macbook screen and my 326 ppi iPhone all that time.
The thing is - it's a good monitor. It's not crap at all, but in comparison to the two screens I've been using day in and day out I would find it so hard to go back to it now for any text related tasks such as reading and writing. Gaming and video look great, but boy do websites look bad, it's weird.
The smallest 4k monitors I can find are 24", that's 183 ppi. A weird 1.66X increase, I wonder how that would look. I imagine it'll have some weird scaling issues in windows.
If I'm going for 2X then a 27" 5K would be perfect at 217 ppi.
Or if the next jump is up to 8K then 32" isn't bad at 280.
The monitor itself is getting big then though, so I'd probably prefer to have 8K 34" at 260 ppi - but have it curved. You really need it curved once you get to 32"+
I had a 40" flat 4k Philips monitor for a few months and it was awful. Way too big so I sold it.
So, my two ideal next monitors could be either of the following:
- 27" 5k at 217 ppi, with a high refresh rate of 75hz+
- 34" 8k at 260 ppi, curved, with a high refresh rate of 75hz+.