HDMI 2.2 interface finalised with 4K at 480 Hz and 12K at 120 Hz support, but you're going to need a new cable
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is the 480Hz support “just because”, or is there any kind of use case for it?
-
Yea, I always only share a window, so that I not have to change resolution or zoom while in meetings, very valid point
And as well for pricing, I agree (especially if you consider that you need more GPU power for more pixel), but if you are not too picky, you can get a 4k60 screen at sub 300$
1440 27” and 133% seems to me, like you have not much space to have multiple app beside each other?
I most likely sit more near the screen than most people, that may be the reason for my preferences
My work environment is chaotic enough for me to have to cycle through 4 different instances of VSCode, terminals and Firefox, while simultaneously doing tech support for windows issues. I’d have switched to Linux if it wasn’t for the last bit.
I work on a 14" Laptop with 1080p60 that is the second display, while i use the 27" 1440p as the main one. I use a USB C dongle to connect and can therefore can only get 60hz because the screen will flicker otherwise (though on Linux the dongle works even for 144hz, which is above the dongle rating of 120hz, but I digress).
I’m a bit constrained with the available space, so I use only my Laptop + screen for work and only the single screen for my personal rig, which is kind of a bummer. Will opt for a 4k ~120hz ~40-50" OLED TV for my next second “monitor” though
-
Is the 480Hz support “just because”, or is there any kind of use case for it?
I think It’s more like the bandwidth needed to support 12k at 120hz also allows for 4k at 480hz, soo… por que no los dos?
-
I think It’s more like the bandwidth needed to support 12k at 120hz also allows for 4k at 480hz, soo… por que no los dos?
yeah that’s what I was wondering. There doesn’t seem to be a widely agreed upon maximum human perception fps, but all the articles I’ve been able to find on it suggest it tops out way below 144Hz, and that these supposed pro gamers insisting on higher are like those wine connoisseurs who can’t tell a red from a white blindfold.
-
yeah that’s what I was wondering. There doesn’t seem to be a widely agreed upon maximum human perception fps, but all the articles I’ve been able to find on it suggest it tops out way below 144Hz, and that these supposed pro gamers insisting on higher are like those wine connoisseurs who can’t tell a red from a white blindfold.
It doesn’t top out below 144Hz. There are benefits with diminishing returns up to at least 1000Hz especially for sample-and-hold displays (like all modern LCD/OLED monitors). 240Hz looks noticeably smoother than 144Hz, and 360Hz looks noticeably smoother than 240Hz. Past that it’s probably pretty hard to tell unless you know what to look for, but there are a few specific effects that continue to be reduced. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
-
This post did not contain any content.
Great. What’s the max length? 6”?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Of course you need a new cable. You’re not getting massive upgrades in fidelity on your old crappy cable.
-
It doesn’t top out below 144Hz. There are benefits with diminishing returns up to at least 1000Hz especially for sample-and-hold displays (like all modern LCD/OLED monitors). 240Hz looks noticeably smoother than 144Hz, and 360Hz looks noticeably smoother than 240Hz. Past that it’s probably pretty hard to tell unless you know what to look for, but there are a few specific effects that continue to be reduced. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
Yea, I think the limits are going to top out around that 300Hz mark, it’s going to be really hard to convince people they can see or feel a difference between 300Hz and 480Hz. I have no preference between 240Hz and 300Hz already.
For computer monitors, I also wouldn’t be surprised if we top out at 4k for regular consumers, with a few niche 8k products available.
-
I need 4k to be happy, with 1080, you have giant windows in you OS (like most apps are only usable in fullscreen) even on 100% and still see single pixels so well…
Straight unusable for me, maybe on a phone with max 5” there 1080 is like a good middle ground (battery vs resolution vs not seeing single pixels)
Yeah, 1080p is fine on a small laptop screen, or a small TV on the other side of the room, but it’s unusable for desktop applications. Even 1440 is noticeably low res. I disagree about phones, though. I think 1080p is overkill and 720p is fine.
-
Of course you need a new cable. You’re not getting massive upgrades in fidelity on your old crappy cable.
But… but… it has gold-plated connectors
-
I need 4k to be happy, with 1080, you have giant windows in you OS (like most apps are only usable in fullscreen) even on 100% and still see single pixels so well…
Straight unusable for me, maybe on a phone with max 5” there 1080 is like a good middle ground (battery vs resolution vs not seeing single pixels)
You sound like you’ve never gamed at 240p
-
This post did not contain any content.
12K. brought to you by Hollywood Face Makeup and CGI alliance.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Remind me in like 6+ years when the standard is actually widely adopted. Many high-end OLED monitors today in the year 2025 still ship with fucking hdmi 2.0 and displayport 1.4.
-
You sound like you’ve never gamed at 240p
Jokes on you
my first game I ever played was on a 240 x 160 screen
(2.9”)
-
Yeah, 1080p is fine on a small laptop screen, or a small TV on the other side of the room, but it’s unusable for desktop applications. Even 1440 is noticeably low res. I disagree about phones, though. I think 1080p is overkill and 720p is fine.
I think, with phones, it is very important to factor the size of screen in
720p is fine, but with 7”+ phones, I think, one is happy about having similar DPI compared to the smaller 720p phones.