Hacker News Reader

Comment by smolder | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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!).

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?

The gaps between the pixels tend to be smaller the higher the resolution - so even if you drive the display at a lower resolution, it can look better the same lower res display that has larger spacing between each subpixel.

Interesting, does this give you a noticeable benefit for text, or does this mostly apply to images or video?

User interfaces shouldn't load a GPU very much even at that resolution.

8K in a game will use tremendous amounts of power, but it's not pointless. It's like having antialiasing turned on. And high frame rates are important for motion because normal rendering only gives you a single point in time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com