DisplayPort and 4K
etbe.coker.com.au
etbe.coker.com.au
Back then display port ran at 60fps, and hdmi ran at 30fps. My hardware has changed and moved on, but I still default to using a display port cable. It's rare to not find a graphics card without display port, and it's rare to find a monitor without one, so I've never had a reason to try HDMI. As far as I can tell it's a stubborn format that continue to fight to live on. Frankly, I don't really get why we still have HDMI today.
I am on 4k60 on 43". I spend most of my day in terminal (ubuntu, i3-regolith) - it's nice, but don't think I would be missing out much without it.
For example, on one of those, one can have a side-by-side diff with 120+ character lines and still have half of the screen width remaining for documentation or terminals.
I’m looking forward to see more 5k+ screens once those standards evolve
I also think there are just such economies of scale around 4k as well.
I really don't. Would anyone care to share their experience? Currently, I'm thinking that a vertical monitor would be an improvement for me, but I don't see a reason to get a screen that's several times denser.
If you're used to 24" 1080P, going to 32" 4K gets you 1.5x the DPI and 1.77x the screen area. For what's now a $300 monitor, that is a pretty significant improvement overall.
The DPI means my characters go from 9x18 pixels to 13x27, which is a big difference in text rendering fidelity and just feels a little nicer. And the additional screen real estate speaks for itself.
There's quite a few choices at that price point, though.
Some of the $300 ones are VA, though, which is OK.
I've been using this one. (Typing on it right now) Has a display port I wire my mac into when coding for work and run a Linux box on it when I'm playing. It is a nice panel, for what I paid. 32" @ 2650x1440 IPS. I've got it next to an older 30" 16:10 (2650x1600) and it is comparable.
I do wish I could get my hands on cheap 16:10 monitors. My old 24" dell is vertical, which really makes for a nice way to view the web.
The Linux desktop is dead.
Each and every of these applications is blurry as hell. My eyes hurt. True that the multi-monitor experience with mixed scaling factors per display under Wayland is better, that's why I am still suffering of that stockholm syndrom.
Gnome does better, I acknowledge that, but their opinionated UI decisions make me feel like a retard.
Arch running Gnome on Wayland just freaking works. Input is miles better. Output is miles better.
I run two 4k displays and the internal display is 1920x1080. Even dragging windows between the external and internal monitor, with different scaling factors works SO much better.
I'm on Linux, and as long as I have screen composition on in the NVidia Settings Panel and software vsync off, 4k60 is as smooth as butter and as sharp as 4k, much like OSX. It's nicer than Windows.
EDIT:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NVIDIA/Troubleshooting#...
That's helpful! :)
I'm running 3x 28" 4k@60 driven from nVidia using prop driver with an Openbox at the Window manager. It is working great. Super fast, super snappy, fonts look fantastic. Same goes for video. I have one monitor dedicated to code, one monitor monitor dedicated to logs ( 6-10 tmux windows ) and one monitor used as a general workspace.
Pity it seems to top out at 4 cores and 16GB RAM though. I might have to take a hard look at that series once it refreshes to i9...
How do you feel about the touchpad?
Though if you have the space (a very deep empty desk) to put your display like 6 feet away from your face, then the 32" might be a decent way to reduce eye strain.
I’m using a 27" screen with 4K which is ok. But I would definitely upgrade to 5k to get 200% scaling once display standards properly support it (Thunderbolt 3 will not be a permanent solution) and screens are affordable
I'll buy a 32" with no bezel when I can get it with a Thunderbolt 4 port, and my desk will be right about maxed out.
I had gotten the vague impression that Thunderbolt 3 is in line to be adopted more-or-less whole-cloth as USB4. Is that not accurate?
I haven't followed USB4 too much. I expect it to again have multiple "levels" like USB had before. And whether some or all of those will be high definition video capable it to be seen. For USB-C video was just a mere alternate mode which switched the meaning of the wires inside the cables to displayport. Doing video over the PCI Express subsystem of thunderbolt is a different story.
If 8k is supported, so is 5k, which is kinda getting mainstream.
From reading this[0] it looks like USB4 and TB3 will be broadly compatible, modulo the usual sort of tiresome licensing and compatibility BS our industry loves to burden us with. Pity.
Though the 4K monitor is sharper, specifically for the task of writing code, I actually prefer my home monitor.
I don’t use the full screen for editing (it’s too wide for that), but the edit window is in the middle and stuff that happens in the background (compiling etc.) sits in the virtual background, showing up in the border around the wait window. So I see immediately when things have stopped scrolling.
After using this configuration at work, I upgraded all my home setups as well.
The controller for this one isn't the best and is picky about inputs (I can't get the original Apple HDMI adaptor to work well even at 30hz, so use DisplayPort instead), but it does well enough for the price.
I use 1:1 pixel ratio and a tiling manager to manage the screen 720p subdivisions (3x3 = 9 of these) and will have editors or documentation arranged vertically in 2-3 of these subdivisions, terminals in individual subdivisions, and screen shares or video in 2x2 spaces (1440p) depending on what I'm up to. I have configured hotkeys which place windows in predefined positions in the grid and gotten pretty quick with the muscle memory of them. I aggressively organize windows into spaces, and use the Apple track pad + gestures to move spaces, this acts as a stack of second monitors that I don't have to move my head to see (but can change attention to with similar speed).
32" at arms length seems to be just right in terms of not feeling like I have to turn my head to change my area of attention, and the pixel density isn't too hard on my eyes without any scaling, but both of these are just on the edge (I wish I had slightly larger UI elements, and slightly less FOV occupied) but with these being at direct odds with each other, this device (and a more expensive one with the same resolution and dimensions I purchased for home use before this one at this price point was released) occupies a sweet spot (for me personally).
I still have 1 1080p screen attached (just for NVR viewing) and if I drag my IDEA (code editor) window from a vertical monitor to my 1080 then it takes up over 3/4ths of the width. Just to restate that a different way: I gave up less than 1/4th of my screen width but got ~3x the height (just for the 2 vertical screens).
My current setup looks like this with 1 & 3 being vertical, 2 being horizontal, and 4 being my old 1080p horizontal.
| | | 4 | | |
| 1 || 2 || 3 |
| | | |
The other benefit is that I can sit farther away from the screen (I make the font larger to compensate). Feels like it's better for the eyes not to have to focus up-close.
* More pixels -> more characters on screen.
* More characters on screen -> easier to glance between different parts of your code , open manuals, etc.
A 4K screen has 3840x2160 pixels. You could see that as either fitting 4 regular 1080p screens in a rectangular pattern, or just over 3 regular screens in vertical orientation (which is what you were considering).
Of course, if your current HD screen is only barely comfortable to you (likely), you will end up needing to buy a screen with larger dimensions (findable) to actually be able to utilize the screen to that extent.
Alternately, you could still go for that higher pixel density; in which case you end up with more readable characters. This does alleviate eye-strain!
Given enough pixels at your disposal (and a large enough screen), you can have the luxury of determining your own favorite trade-off between pixel density and amount-of-code-on-screen. You can do so on the fly, as tasks/whims/fatigue demand.
This is why -at least for now- I'd say you can never have enough pixels.
I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns somewhere, but I think we have a long way to go before we reach it.
Now, an ultrawide. That was truly a game changer in productivity for me.
Ditto. At one point I had 2x34'' Ultrawide side-by-side, but recently replaced with a single 49'' UW w/QHD.
With two 1920x1080 displays you can fit even more (or better 1920x1200). Also, what is the benefit of an ultrawide 2560x1440 compared to 2560x1440 or 2560x1600?
Depends on the UI you use. Gnome and tiling window managers should do it just fine. I prefer the macOS keybinds (including where full screen becomes a new desktop, combined with the "Magic Touchpad" gestures).
With regards to keybindings, one thing you can do is get ctrl/meta/alt in the same order as your Mac. Personally, I've swapped ctrl and meta on my MBP while I am using VirtualBox (with Kali) because that way when I'm in the VM I get local consistency. I usually SSH into the Kali machine from the MBP anyway.
Now, perhaps people are unwilling to wear glasses or contacts for very small vision distortions (understandable), but I do have poor vision, and I want even higher pixel density, because my glasses/contacts get me great vision (I get headaches if I don't correct to 40/20 or something).
We are reading paper books printed at 600 or 1200 dpi (though that often uses similar tricks to subpixel rendering), and nobody complains. As a matter of fact, people can tell a difference between 300 and 600 dpi, yet books are kept at, at most, an arms distance, so usually closer than most big displays today.
What's less pleasant is how unsharp all of the icons and images in apps that haven't provided high density images look.
Also, it's very interesting that things are so different in France with regard to display cables. I would've assumed that, since it's mostly the same manufacturers making everything around the world, they'd have more or less standard models across regions.
It’s just a question whether or not the GPU can generate that kind of signal and whether the monitor scaler chip is willing to deal with it.
In addition there are now several monitors offering usb-c connection for video+power+usb hub functionality (e.g. see the wirecutter recommended 4k monitors), which seems convenient.
My sense is that the 4K monitor is a bit nicer than the 1920x440, but nowhere near enough nicer for me to have ever felt motivated to replace the 10 year old monitor I already have at home. The real difference is between 2 monitors vs just the one.
I also briefly had a 15" laptop with a 4K monitor, and UGH NO CRANK THAT RESOLUTION DOWN RIGHT NOW. My take-away: Ignore the marketing fluff that focuses overmuch on resolutions; the resolution is not an end in and of itself. Pick a screen size, and then pick a resolution that gives you an appropriate DPI for that size.
Running a 4k monitor at 1920x1080 looks like crap. Running a 4k monitor with 200% UI scaling gets you the same dimensions but glorious smooth fonts.
ehhhhhh.....
> It works pretty well in Linux, but given the mess that is Linux UI toolkits, not all applications will scale properly.
Yep, exactly.
So, I have a game I want to run hitting the following properties:
- The game should only render 1920x1080. This keeps fps around 30.
- The game should cover my whole screen.
- Running the game should not resize all my other open windows.
All of these seem like stupid-obvious goals, but there doesn't seem to be a way to get them all. The game itself offers fullscreen (which automatically resizes my other open windows, when the game resolution is lower than the desktop resolution -- I don't understand this ridiculous anti-feature, but it doesn't seem to be configurable), and windowed mode where the window occupies a range of pixels equal to the game resolution (which is a really small window, and really hurts enjoyment of the game). I've tried sending win32 messages [well, SetWindowLong; I think "messages" are something different] to a 1920x1080 game window to expand its rectangle, but the game just starts rendering higher-resolution images for the bigger window -- even though it's configured for 1920x1080 -- dropping the frame rate.
Are you saying there's a way for me to scale this window to get the behavior I want? (Render a 1920x1080 image, then paint it over the 3840x2160 desktop.) What is it?
In that case, instead of physically changing your monitor's resolution when entering (true) fullscreen mode, the GPU should simply rescale the game output as required to match your regular resolution.
I'm so confused. Just missing a 1 and 1920x1440 is an actual monitor resolution I've never heard of? 1920x1080? 1920x1200? 2560x1440?
That means about 4K for 15 inches.
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-m...
4K adds a lot of screen-estate. Having a "normal" 27" 4k screen, I recently worked on a ultra-wide curved screen. It blew me away. I can so much recommend curved screens over regular 4k screens. All you applications can fit next to each other on eye height.
Back in the days, many moons ago, both displays and software typically had a fixed DPI (96 for Windows) and so a larger resolution was basically the same thing as a larger display. The two were interchangeable.
In the photography and print world (and everywhere else) the resolution is just the "level of detail" or "sharpness", completely independent of the size.
With Windows 10, Windows Server 2016, and recent-ish OSX the display resolution is finally decoupled from the display size. This is especially true at nice even resolutions such as precisely double or triple the legacy 96 DPI (200% or 300% scaling).
I've been using 4K monitors for over a decade, basically since they've been available and it always cracks me up to see some people run them at "100%" scaling with miniscule text. That's not the point. The point is that at 200% scaling text looks razor sharp, but is exactly the same size as it would be at 1920x1080.. You can clearly distinguish fonts that look virtually identical at 1920x1080. It's amazing, you have to try it yourself.
Caveat: If you need (or nearly need) prescription glasses, 4K or higher resolutions may not make much of a difference for you. In this case, you're likely better off having a bigger screen and/or a very big screen further away from you.
You can select your own trade-off.
Personally I won't be happy until we have a lot more pixels to provide a larger desktop surface. And then more pixels to make fonts razor-sharp.
For my use case, at some point a very high resolution VR viewer might actually be more practical (to be able to view a very large virtual desktop)
the only caveat is that it doesn't work properly if a program is on two monitors which have a different scaling factor (i.e. the scaling from one monitor is applied for the whole program)
I've found that on cheap laptops it helps to set the refresh to 40Hz in the name of stability- it makes the recover from suspend process more reliable for some reason.
Brb, finding out what my screen maxes out at.
60Hz is quite usable but if you are used to 120 or 144Hz you will notice it immediately.
60Hz is a good sweet spot, but as people say 120Hz is noticeably better. At least at 60Hz I can type at full speed, scroll at full speed, and my mouse accuracy when clicking on buttons is good enough.
There — there it is suggested that laggy console may slow down the entire main loop of our consciousness. Interesting!
I'm currently fighting this. The trouble is I guess they move people around a lot and I noticed everyone has the same monitor...
When using Windows or Linux I don't find much benefit in text rendering on a 4k display.
But as Mac OS X has no sub pixel rendering or grid fitting text looks terrible without a high ppi display.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476873
Also, apple has a tendency to support fancy features ONLY on its own hardware. I know apple retina displays allowed display scaling, but non-apple displays only let you set the absolute display resolution.
On my displays I could only get the list of resolutions for my monitor, even holding down alt with preferences.
Meanwhile apple displays showed this dialog:
https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare...
Maybe the latest OS allows it?
If you aren't able to configure it, you get just get microscopic text (unless you're using something like a 55" tv as your monitor)
The only mess is if you have mixed displays - and even that is mostly still problem only on Linux.
I could set the resoluion to something lower like 1080p, but what I wanted a high native resolution and then scaling of the icons and fonts.
If you option-click on the resolution options you may be able to manually override it.
The only problem with this approach is the mouse cursor stays tiny, and it doesn't have the OSX shake option to find it, though I rarely lose it so it isn't much of a problem.
Edit: code & text is 100% better on a 4K moknitor with proper scaling.
On the tv side, the benefits of displayport are less important since most users are not watching 4k 144hz content and hdmi is now capable of playing 4k at 60hz. So hdmi is not only pushed by the corporations but is also the most convenient option the users want since all of their other hardware uses hdmi and it works fine.
Honestly I think GPUs should drop the hdmi port entirely and ship with a displayport to hdmi cable which works fine because displayport gpus also support hdmi and dvi over the dp port.
For most consumers, plugging in just one cable that does everything is a lot more convenient.
Edit: sorry, didn't know DP can also stream audio, my bad
HDMI adding audio and DRM was the core of the proposal, plus a connector that was more consumer friendly.
Source: using DisplayPort with audio.
I also thought DisplayPort was for Video Only.
I recently bought a new monitor for my office and explicitly avoided a 4K monitor for this reason, it turns out there aren't that many 27" 1440p monitors nowadays. I ended up getting a Lenovo P27h (comes with USB-C) and it works great.
Huh? 1440p is the third most popular resolution on the Steam hardware survey[1], after 1080p and 1366x768.
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
Most computers do not have dedicated graphics, let alone 74% of them using NVIDIA GPUs
The real issue is with DEs and not Linux per-se. Gnome handles 4K (Hi-DPI) better than most other DEs I've tried but it's still pretty horrid with Hi-DPI and non Hi-DPI displays mixed.
My rule of thumb has been to try keep all displays at the same resolution. For desktop that's easy, for laptop; buy a laptop that's 4K (not always cost/battery effective), or turn off its display when using external (loss of screen real estate) or change the external monitor to 1080p (not ideal, loss of resolution).
1440p monitors are usually better at the same price point in some way. Maybe refresh rates... Maybe image quality... Well specced 4k displays still cost a decent amount.
Still I would say now is a decent type to leap into the ecosystem. The era of 1080p/1440p has already peaked.
Two main issues for me: I run Linux (4k support is simply _not_ there) and the input lag was very distracting. I tried a couple different 4k monitors, HP Z27 and LG 27UK850-W, and while the LG was slightly better, after a couple months I just couldn't bear it any longer.
I'm a full-time dev writing code mostly in Jetbrains IDEs. Hope this can spare somebody else the cost of trying 4k.
I run two HP Z32 4k monitors side by side in portrait mode. Running Debian Linux Buster. Connected to NUC8i7hvk. LXDE, sometimes KDE. Text is clear. Moving windows around is smooth as silk.
27" would be too small. 30" is about the right size for the resolution.
Plus I have five or six virtual desktops to task switch between various development projects.
In 2015 I was in CLion day in and day out and my gpu was only a laptop gpu with 2gb of vram, so it definitely maxed out my gpu then, but still was as smooth as butter. I had to worry about my computer heating up at the time.
Today I'm on a desktop with a 980. I'm sure it's inefficient, but doing anything in the desktop, like watching youtube in 4k60fps uses about 15% of the gpu according to nvidia-smi. With all my apps running, when I'm not training neural networks, my desktop + firefox takes between 1gb and 1.5gb of vram.
Important caveat: the display needs to actually be big enough for this to matter. I've got the 4k Dell XPS 13, but I run at a lower resolution, since I simply cannot perceive any difference.
See, HDR on one hand requires ten bits of color per channel. So bandwidth wise 4K @ 60Hz 10 bit fits DisplayPort 1.2 but not even HDMI 2.0 has enough. See the calculator https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/729232-guide-to-display...
But! HDR is more and some video standards have the necessary extensions but it can also be done from software but then only compatible software will be HDR. Check https://superuser.com/a/1335410/41259
> The HDR mode will automatically activate if the monitor receives a compatible signal, but the device only relies on a software-based implementation. When active, the HDR representation adds a nice touch of extra color pop and a seemingly deeper contrast range, although the monitor’s limitations will come into play here.
And this extra has been added to HDMI 2.0b (compared to HDMI 2.0a) and for this reason it is said HDMI 2.0b support 4k @ 60Hz HDR when it can't because it doesn't have enough bandwidth (well, it does for 4:2:0) and DisplayPort 1.2 is said to not support it when it does have enough bandwidth.
Oh joy.
I know there is DSC compression, but seriously who want a compress link especially when it is not true lossless.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Swift-PG27UQ-G-SYNC-Gaming-Monitor/dp...
Apple had to really hack around to get the Pro Display XDR to do 6k at 10-bit at 60Hz. They are using USB-C w/Thunderbolt for that and actually pushing two DisplayPort 1.4 signals down that cable. Clearly cludgy at best. Even then at 6k/10-bit/60Hz the other USB-C ports on the monitor can only work at USB 2.0 speeds because the link is so saturated.
6k/10-bit is a bit niche right now for sure, but I'd sure love to be able to daisy-chain my three 4k monitors which I can't do, and 120Hz is becoming very mainstream (although actually rendering 4k/120Hz is problematic on the graphics card side too).
My crappy Apple USB-C Multiport adapter simply refuses 60Hz 4K on an HDMI cable that works out of the box with Windows 10 on a GTX 1060. This is despite the fact that the product page says that this configuration with my particular Mac is supported (edit: it’s actually because I have an old adapter).
Then I use a cheap $8 USB-C to HDMI cable and it works fine on two MacBook Pro 15/16” computers (be careful here as a 2016 USB-C MacBook Pro 15” doesn’t support 4K 60Hz over HDMI but the identical-looking 2017 model and newer do).
Frustratingly, Apple doesn’t make a similar USB/power/video adapter for DisplayPort, just for HDMI. Nobody else seems to make one either unless you get into the world of expensive hubs.
For our older 2015 MacBook Pro, Thunderbolt 2/mini displayport to DisplayPort is the option.
What I’m getting at in a poorly organized fashion is that the world of single cable charge and display and device hub is definitely not here. There’s one display on the market that supports USB-C charging above 85W and it only works with newer Macs.
You can get basically the same display for $1000 less with an LG 27” 4K display and just use DisplayPort and HDMI with adapters. Saving yourself from plugging in a second thing isn’t worth $1000.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why the people who make displays with built in power supplies for USB-C charging didn’t just default it on the 100W maximum that the spec allows. What short-sighted design!
In any event, I think I don’t mind keeping that piece of hardware separate from my display, not just for reliability but for weight and bulk as well. I can easily hide a power brick under the table.
I use just a cheap USB-C - DP cable for this. Works fine. Of course no USB ports and can't charge with that, but not a huge issue since there are more ports.
My display has two HDMI and one DisplayPort, so I’ve allocated one HDMI for USB-C Macs, one HDMI for the desktop Windows PC, and one DisplayPort for Mini DisplayPort devices (2015 MacBook Pro).
In my opinion, buying a two-port MacBook Pro of any kind is a mistake for this very reason, although I guess more adapters can solve that problem...
I can't remember the exact terminology, but there are basically two types of adapters: active and passive. Passive adapters defer some of the work to software on the computer while active have everything needed built in.
All Apple adapters are passive and because of that when you try to use them with non-Apple computers that don't have the expected software/driver...they don't work.
It's been a while but I experienced this with mini-display port to DVI adapters. I don't know if it carriers over to other types as well.
A lot of other solutions especially if you need single cable operation and >65W or especially 96W charging for the 16” MacBook Pro are active hubs that cost well over $100.
But those are all cheaper and more flexible and cross platform than buying the 27” UltraFine display. My eyes can’t tell the difference between the UltraFine and the 4K 27” LG display that cost me $290.
Many graphics cards have these, but it's VERY unclearly marked on most things.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#DisplayPort_dual-m...
If you have a DP++ port, then it can basically act as an HDMI port with a passive adapter. If not... well, tough luck.
Don't know if it's the case for you: the older version of the adapter was limited to 30Hz @ 4K. Only the latest version supports 60Hz @ 4K.
I have both and unfortunately they look very similar. Only the fineprint gives a clue which is the newer version.
https://9to5mac.com/2019/08/08/new-apple-usb-c-digital-av-mu...
I asked myself the same question, and I guess it is either one of the following:
a) 65W is what the reasonably priced chipsets available on the market support, and it would take a lot of costly auxiliary parts to support 100W
b) its a heat management problem
A lot of video cards and some monitors will negotiate a DisplayPort link over HDMI ports and HDMI cables.
For instance, my Intel NUC has only a single HDMI port, but plug a HDMI to DisplayPort cable in, and it'll negotiate a DisplayPort 1.2 connection to my Dell U2711 at 2560x1440@60hz. Plug a HDMI to HDMI cable in, and plug into the HDMI port on the same monitor - no bueno, it's HDMI only and we're stuck at 1920x1200.
Another monitor, I forget the brand, was happy to negotiate DisplayPort over a HDMI port.
Introducing USB-C adapters into the mix and some adapters appear to support USB-C Alternate Mode to carry DisplayPort but only have HDMI connectors, others won't.
Then we run into potential issues where the video card's outputs may not have been wired into the USB-C controller. Though this afaict is mostly applicable to desktops with discrete GPUs.
Plenty of non-Apple products don’t support 4K 60Hz and plenty of non-Apple laptops require some kind of adapter to connect to a full size HDMI port, like the current XPS 13.
In fact, Apple switching to USB-C was moving from a proprietary connector (MagSafe) to an industry standard. So I’m struggling to figure out how that’s user-hostile. It’s better than all the business laptops with proprietary dock ports or the proprietary surface connector.
I guess it sucks that I was an early adopter and I got the early adapter but on the other hand 4K displays weren’t anywhere near affordable in 2016.
Yes it does. I use it every day. Might be your adapter.
One monitor is my ThinkPad's 14" WQHD display. The other two are 24" 4K displays.
One of those displays is horizontal, immediately above the ThinkPad display. The other is vertical, to the left, with the bottom of the monitor close to my standing desk. (Of course it could be on the right if that suits you better.)
Because I'm old enough that my eyes can not adjust their focus like a younger person's eyes, I make sure that all three monitors are at the same distance from my eyes. And I have a pair of single vision prescription glasses adjusted for that distance.
Since I also use the ThinkPad on its own, that determines the focus distance: about 20 inches. The external monitors are also at that distance from my eyes. Each of the three monitors is tilted at the appropriate angle so that the plane of the monitor is perpendicular to the view from my eye position. In other words, the "normal" at the center of each monitor points directly to my eyes.
I can't use big monitors like a 32", regardless of the resolution. The focus distance changes too much between the center of the monitor and its edges. But 24" is small enough that the entire monitor is in focus with my single vision glasses.
Did I mention single vision glasses?!
Unless you are young enough that your eyes can easily refocus, do yourself a favor and get these. Not a "reading" prescription - that is typically 16", much too close for typical computer use. Bring your laptop to your optometrist and get single vision lenses for that distance. It will probably be about 20". Then when you use external monitors, make sure they are also at that same distance.
Do not under any circumstances use progressive lenses for computer work! I have seen far too many people tilt their head back and lower their gaze into the bottom part of their progressives. This is a recipe for neck and eye strain. You will be amazed at the improvement that a good pair of single vision lenses give you.
Of course, the most recent eye doctor I'm going to can't get the distance right for the computer glasses, so I can't use the new glasses without leaning in. I even have my old pair for reference and I explained it (I thought) well and showed the distance... and they've tried 3 times and can't get it right. Super frustrating.
4k is not supported on many older models. Check your official specs. Most Macs has max 1440p@60hz output. 4k is only supported @ 30hz, which is no good for daily usage. And the main problem is, if you get a 4k monitor( to future proof your setup), and try to use it at 1440p, everything will be blurry and pixels will shift and distort.
Just get a native 1440p monitor.
If you have a never Mac, getting a 4k 27" monitor may still be a bad idea. Since 4k is too much for a 27" screen, you will need to use scaling in Mac options, and ideally set it to "looks like 1440p" But this will cause your mac to do 1.5 scaling and create a burden in your GPU and CPU. It will render everything doubled at 5k and try to scale it to 4k. If you're using a Macbook, your fans will never stop even on idle. This is even worse performance than getting a 5k monitor and using it native 2x scaled, which is easy on GPU.
One side note; there is no USB-C Hub that offer 4k@60hz output, technically not possible. You have to get a separate hdmi or dp adapter, or an expensive Thunderbolt 3 dock. But there are some usb-c to hdmi or dp adapters which also offers Power Delivery.
I've already wasted money and time figuring this out, so you don't have to :)
Eventually I just bought a ~2008 30" Cinema Display and have been incredibly happy with it.
To anyone planning to use a 30" CinemaDisplay , you will probably need a special Mini DP to Double Dvi active powered adapter. They are not very common so they are a bit expensive. Search for: Tripp Lite Mini DisplayPort to DVI Adapter Cable with Dual-Link Active USB Power MDP to DVI-D, 6 in. (P137-06N-DVI-DL)
MacBook > Thunderbolt dock > USB-C to Dual DisplayPort > 2x DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort > 2x Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI > 2x Cinema Displays
Ridiculous but effective.
I have a 2017 MacBook Pro that runs 4K-at-looks-like-1440p fine with no fan noise and without even turning on the dedicated GPU for normal web browser / code editor / document stuff.
From a pragmatic standpoint you'll need a gpu that supports display port 1.2 or hdmi 2.0 or thunderbold / usb-c, and at least 1GB of vram as many operating systems take up to roughly 900MB of vram to run a desktop at 4k. Firefox and Chrome can run fine on 100MB of vram (even Youtube at full 60fps at 100MB of vram is fine), but they really want around 500MB of vram to breath, so 2GB is a good safe minimum for having a lot of windows open at 4k.
The 2015 MBP has 2GB of vram and supports display port 1.2.
This is not correct: there is enough bandwidth for 4k@60hz, just not if you also want USB 3 speeds on the USB hub (which I have no need for: USB 2 is plenty fast enough). I am using a CalDigit USB-C hub with my 12" MacBook (which does not have Thunderbolt) with a special version of the firmware (you have to ask their customer support for a copy) that drops the USB ports down to USB 2 so I can connect to a 4k display at 60hz, and it works great.
Using 4K and 30Hz is like using your desktop through a VNC session, it's absolutely horrendous.
I have a 13” 2017 MBP & use a Razor Core X Chroma with an AMD Vega 64.
It makes an awesome 1 cable docking station - I have mouse, keyboard & external disks plugged into it, as well as the monitors and a Behringer external sound card (for midi and studio speakers).
Just 1 Thunderbolt cable into the MBP, which also provides power to it. Makes for a nice tidy desk too!
https://egpu.io has all the info you’d ever need on such setups (no affiliation BTW).
I had a dell UP3214Q monitor, and I got the bright idea to get a bluray player. The model I bought happened to support 4k ultrahd, so I hooked it up.
It looked pretty good... except ... wait, it was downscaling ultrahd to 1080p over HDMI.
So I tried making sure I had the right HDMI cables. Still 1080p.
Long story short -- nobody will tell you this straight out -- ultrahd bluray players require hdcp 2.2. strangely 1080p non-ultrahd disks upscaled to 4k.
hollywood sucks.
I tried a U3219Q (HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2) and everything worked. (except the monitor is not as high quality with a little less viewing angle and some LED bleed at the lower edges)
Avengers: End Game is the first movie to render for 4k and recorded with 4k in mind, and I am uncertain if any movies have come after it meeting that spec yet, so atm 4k bluray is sadly a gimmick anyways.
It felt more like reality tv than a cinematic movie, and I'm uncertain if it was the HDR or the 60hz.
Frankly, don't want to buy a GPU that will be outdated in a year, simply due to its connectivity.
Also, I'm not sure what spare parts bin the OP has, but if you don't have something that supports anything higher than FullHD/1080p, you've got some ANCIENT graphics cards.
For reference, here's one of the oldest graphics cards I could find on Newegg, the GTS 450. First released in Sept 2010... according to Nvidia it still supports an output resolution max of 2560x1600: https://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gts-450-oem-us
> Apparently some video cards that I currently run for 4K (which were all bought new within the last 2 years) are somewhere between a 2010 and 2013 level of technology.
Which I find unhelpful, because I can buy a new GeForce GT 710 circa 2014 from the local computer store today. (Dirt cheap, passively cooled, I assume that's the niche.) Buying new doesn't mean it's contemporary. A cursory Google suggests my old GeForce 960 (which first came out in 2015; also I'd consider it mid-range at best) supports HDMI 2.0.
Elsewhere it mentions a GT 630 which is ... from 2012. So yeah the 2012 era GPU bought two years ago is "somewhere between a 2010 and 2013 level of technology."
Why? I run DisplayPort over USB Type-C port on my Linux Laptop and it works quite well for 4K at 60Hz. DisplayPort over Type-C is a pretty common configuration on laptops. https://www.displayport.org/displayport-over-usb-c/
It’s a far cry from the trivial “just plug anything into anything with any cable and it’ll work” that we were promised.
It pretty much works exactly like that except for very edge cases near end of protocol capability. Things like 100W power supply and 4k/60Hz.
(Also I don't know who exactly promised you that any cable will work for high performance protocols.)
And it actually worked at 4k 60hz the first time I plugged everything together, just not since then. Irritating to say the least.
https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id...
But the motivating idea... Nreal glasses have a crisp 1080p stereo display, at 2 meters, with a laptop-like 50deg (5 held-out fists) field-of-view (vs this demo's 90-ish). Used as a viewport into a larger (and shallow 3D) desktop... I'm very much looking forward to trying that. One downside is that's still only 1080p visible without head motion... but the motion mapping can be variously aphysical.
[1] https://twitter.com/mncharity/status/1225091755667853318
I built this rig for machine learning and I spend a lot of hours coding every day. Any other setup gives me headaches and eye exhaustion, including Apple’s otherwise excellent Thunderbolt display (60fps). The high fps on the Alienware is the number one criteria i now use for buying a monitor or TV. It has made me more productive by far (feels like two monitors in one by real estate).
At 3440x1440x120Hz, you're only pushing ~14.5Gbit/s. DP1.2 or HDMI2.0 supports it fine, but that's it.
It's even worse than a 4k 60hz monitor. You literally cannot use anything besides HDMI2 or DP1.2 to drive the display.
https://battlepenguin.com/tech/4k-uhd-kvm-switches-the-start...
Since then I've switch to a UDH monitor and a TESmart HDMI KVM switch. It can do 60Hz with HDR on my Windows and PS4 and 60Hz/non-HDR on Linux with the amdgpu (open source) Radeon drivers. I had no issues at all with the full resolution an refresh rate, either directly connected or with that KVM.
Both Thunderbolt 2 and Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) would be fine for supporting 4k 60hz. Whether it's over HDMI or DisplayPort ultimately doesn't matter, it's the adapter that'll matter more.
Monitor <-- male DisplayPort* ---- male mini DisplayPort --> MacBook Pro
*I has to be DisplayPort 1.2 or newer (they are backward compatible)
My personal laptop is a mid-2015 MacBook Pro. For connectivity, I use both DisplayPort (DP) and mini-DisplayPort (mDP). DP goes to the 2019 MBP and mDP goes to the mid-2015 MBP.
I run everything from the latest MacOS to Windows 7 and 10 to multiple flavors of Linux via an unRAID box that pulls double duty as a media server. I've had very limited issues with driver support.
Very affordable and reliable solution.
I ended up trying out probably 4 different cables before I found one that was actually able to transmit the signal correctly over 25-30 feet. The cable that ended up working for me was a KableDirekt cable that I bought off Amazon. The beast of a cable is THICK. I also had a lot of luck with AmazonBasics HDMI cables for shorter runs.
The most important thing for 4K HDMI cables seems to be that they need to be well insulated and thick.
My testing was completely contrary to this. I bought around 10 cables that claimed to support various dp and HDMI specs, trying to achieve 4k@60 on my MacPro.. in the end only one cable actually succeeded, and the longer version of the same cable from the same manufacturer would not work, and even the "good" cable would flicker if the ambient temperature was too low.
Then try relocating the computer 50 ft away to put it in another room for noise reasons. Super super PITA.
But: it's possible.
I also don't want NVidia proprietary drivers due to bugs. They confuse something with monitors versus screens which breaks a lot of things. Nouveau works fine. Haven't tried AMD but I assume it's fine too.
Though I don't know if that's still a thing, or whether they were well supported on linux, or how well they deal / dealt displays of different resolution. Also I'm pretty sure it only worked over native DisplayPort, so you'd need active adapters to plug in non-DP displays.
https://www.displayport.org/cables/driving-multiple-displays...
?
The sales guy kept trying to sell me an HDMI cable, but I knew I could only do 30 Hz. Had to ask several times for USB type C to displayport
My next system will have thunderbolt and I'd like to run a 27" monitor at 5k
Not a lot of people seem to be aware of that, yet it's like not wearing glasses when you actually need some.
Both systems work good. Both monitors also worked with mini displayport on my 2015 Macbook at 60hz, which was kind of embarrassing when going to the newer macbook, because it was expensive for the apple adapter and I had to look around before I tried the uni adapter.
I spent quite a long time researching what cable to get as the standard does not really cover cables longer than around 5 meters, and most "legit" cables explicitly states that they can't provide 4k/60hz at lengths longer than 5 meters so you mainly have to go on customer reviews. The price does not necessarily indicate what the cable is actually capable of so getting something that works requires a lot of research... (+ YMMV)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort