Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. PC Gaming
  3. 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

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

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved PC Gaming
pcgaming
25 Posts 18 Posters 77 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P petter1@lemm.ee

    I personally prefer 4k 60 (of course, high hz is better)

    I ajust zoom level according screen size, on 32” 4k, I have it mostly around 125% zoom

    On my 14” i have, i think, 2550 which as well looks amazing and allows to be usable at 125% as well

    I adapt zoom level according on what I am doing, I like having options to go tiny icons and a lot of space or have it big if I am e.g. in a meeting and have to adjust screen distance to be normally visible by the webcam

    passepartout@feddit.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
    passepartout@feddit.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
    passepartout@feddit.org
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    I meant to say 1440p144 is as a sweet spot concerning price performance ratio imho. The rest of the hardware, especially the GPU have to be considered as well.

    Even on a 1440p 27" LCD I zoom in to about 133%, mostly for the viewing experience of the people I share my screen with.

    I’d love an OLED with the same specs, but they are still to expensive to potentially suffer from burn in some time.

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    4
    • passepartout@feddit.orgP passepartout@feddit.org

      I meant to say 1440p144 is as a sweet spot concerning price performance ratio imho. The rest of the hardware, especially the GPU have to be considered as well.

      Even on a 1440p 27" LCD I zoom in to about 133%, mostly for the viewing experience of the people I share my screen with.

      I’d love an OLED with the same specs, but they are still to expensive to potentially suffer from burn in some time.

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      petter1@lemm.ee
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      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 😄

      passepartout@feddit.orgP 1 Reply Last reply
      2
      • alessandro@lemmy.caA alessandro@lemmy.ca
        This post did not contain any content.
        S This user is from outside of this forum
        S This user is from outside of this forum
        skisnow@lemmy.ca
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        Is the 480Hz support “just because”, or is there any kind of use case for it?

        N 1 Reply Last reply
        9
        • P petter1@lemm.ee

          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 😄

          passepartout@feddit.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
          passepartout@feddit.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
          passepartout@feddit.org
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          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 🙂

          1 Reply Last reply
          1
          • S skisnow@lemmy.ca

            Is the 480Hz support “just because”, or is there any kind of use case for it?

            N This user is from outside of this forum
            N This user is from outside of this forum
            noride@lemmy.zip
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            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?

            S 1 Reply Last reply
            15
            • N noride@lemmy.zip

              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?

              S This user is from outside of this forum
              S This user is from outside of this forum
              skisnow@lemmy.ca
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              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.

              KogasaK 1 Reply Last reply
              2
              • S skisnow@lemmy.ca

                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.

                KogasaK This user is from outside of this forum
                KogasaK This user is from outside of this forum
                Kogasa
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                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/

                B 1 Reply Last reply
                10
                • alessandro@lemmy.caA alessandro@lemmy.ca
                  This post did not contain any content.
                  F This user is from outside of this forum
                  F This user is from outside of this forum
                  fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  Great. What’s the max length? 6”?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  10
                  • alessandro@lemmy.caA alessandro@lemmy.ca
                    This post did not contain any content.
                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                    some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    Of course you need a new cable. You’re not getting massive upgrades in fidelity on your old crappy cable.

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    9
                    • KogasaK Kogasa

                      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/

                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                      B This user is from outside of this forum
                      blamethepeacock@lemmy.ca
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      2
                      • P petter1@lemm.ee

                        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)

                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        moonlight
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        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.

                        P 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • S some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org

                          Of course you need a new cable. You’re not getting massive upgrades in fidelity on your old crappy cable.

                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                          mouldycat@feddit.uk
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #20

                          But… but… it has gold-plated connectors 😟

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          6
                          • P petter1@lemm.ee

                            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)

                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #21

                            You sound like you’ve never gamed at 240p

                            P 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • alessandro@lemmy.caA alessandro@lemmy.ca
                              This post did not contain any content.
                              F This user is from outside of this forum
                              F This user is from outside of this forum
                              fubarx@lemmy.world
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #22

                              12K. brought to you by Hollywood Face Makeup and CGI alliance.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              5
                              • alessandro@lemmy.caA alessandro@lemmy.ca
                                This post did not contain any content.
                                F This user is from outside of this forum
                                F This user is from outside of this forum
                                feelzgoodman420@eviltoast.org
                                wrote on last edited by feelzgoodman420@eviltoast.org
                                #23

                                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.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                9
                                • A alsimoneau@lemmy.ca

                                  You sound like you’ve never gamed at 240p

                                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                                  P This user is from outside of this forum
                                  petter1@lemm.ee
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #24

                                  Jokes on you 😁 my first game I ever played was on a 240 x 160 screen

                                  (2.9”)

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • M moonlight

                                    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.

                                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                                    petter1@lemm.ee
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #25

                                    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.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0

                                    Reply
                                    • Reply as topic
                                    Log in to reply
                                    • Oldest to Newest
                                    • Newest to Oldest
                                    • Most Votes


                                    • Login

                                    • Login or register to search.
                                    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                    • First post
                                      Last post