back
6 comments
This. I've been using multiple 1440p displays since 2010, and actually had a 2560x1600 LED back in 2004.

I'd do anything for 5K, 120Hz, Mini-LED or Micro-LED displays with 10-bit color and HDR. I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area.

They don't have to be cheap. I'll pay well. I just want them to exist. I've been waiting over a decade at this point!

my favourite thing about 5K is that you can do 2x scaling and still have plenty of space on your screen to display multiple windows (effectively 2560x1440)

but with a 4K screen, you have three options: 1. no scaling and tiny fonts (ugh), 2. fractional scaling (ugh), or 3. 2x scaling and settle for 1080p real estate (ugh)

IMO 5K > 1440p > 4K > 1080p

Can someone explain why scaling a 4K screen by 200% is better than a monitor with 1080p native resolution? Or in general why is it better to use a scaled-up high res screen instead of a natively lower res screen? Doesn't the scaling get rid of any gains of being higher res? I just can't find an answer to this simple question online.
Assuming your entire software stack supports it, the advantage is that stuff can get displayed with twice the resolution but at the same physical size. Your operating system probably already does this with fonts and vector graphics. It can also be done with faster images too if they are provided at 2x resolution.
With 2x scaling, fonts are really crisp. Regular 1080p gets there most of the way, but with 2x scaling on a super high res display, the difference is noticeable and it's hard to go back.

Have you ever switched from a high refresh rate screens to a 60 Hz screen and noticed a difference? I find this to be similar.

I've been waiting for basically the same thing in 3:2 or 16:10 although I'd settle for 4K, given real-world constraints. For what it's worth, that's a tremendous amount of bandwidth that even _new_ protocols such as HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0 don't support, except DP2.0 in it's maximum bandwidth mode that hasn't been implemented anywhere as far as I know. If you take your requirements down to 4K, then both HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 at UHBR10 can do it.
There’s the LG Ultrafine 5k monitor, but I suppose it doesn’t have HDR or 10-bit color?
Neither. It came out in 2014, with some revisions since. 8 years later, there's just not much else out there in 5K-land.

The products basically don't exist.

I can get some rather fantastic 1440p displays -- HDR, 165Hz, DCI-P3 color gamut, and excellent color reproduction (especially when calibrated) for as cheap as $260 on sale. Best thing imaginable? No, but amazing for the price, and objectively better in every measure than the 1440p displays that were $1000+ in 2010.

I'd pay $2000 -- perhaps even $2500 -- each (and I'd buy THREE), for a 5K display that met my requirements.

-- -----

Hardware Unboxed recently made a video complaining that the display market is too heavily driven by gamers wanting a specific, narrow feature set for a rock bottom price.

Display makers have delivered that. However they don't really make much of anything else as a result.

It's a nasty, difficult, low-margin business where almost no one is making money, hence why it's huge volumes of largely the same thing with no major shifts forward.

Seems like there have been advances, just not in pixel density beyond 160 PPI.

The bigger issue than low margins is the "4k" marketing and lack of large buyers other than Apple for 5k displays. I think early on in the 4k hype train, there was a bandwidth issue with Display port that required MST for 5k.

It’s fantastic, though. And it’s hard to live with less than 500 nits once you’ve used it. 5k is where it’s at.
So basically the Apple Pro Monitor but with 120Hz?

Unfortunately 200+PPI are extremely expensive. So 5K panel at 27"+ are partially speaking an Apple only SKUs.

> I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area.

Can you elaborate?

5/4 = 1.25

(5120 * 2880) / (3840 * 2160) = 1.77

Since they are both the same aspect ratio (16:9) you can also take the ratio of one linear dimension and square it to get the area ratio.

So:

(5120/3840)^2 = (2880/2160)^2 = 1.777

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution

4k is 4096 x 2160, 5k is 5120 x 2880

There's also a really helpful diagram on that page

It's cinematic 4k. 4k monitor is 3840 x 2160.
5:4 is only one dimension, but 5k screens have greater resolution in both dimensions. I make it roughly 66% more area:

(5120 × 2880) / (4096 × 2160) = 1.6666

It comes out to 77% if you use the SMPTE UHDTV standard of 4k, which is (2 * 1920) × (2 * 1080) = 3840 × 2160
Ah. I just checked, and that is indeed the resolution of the 4k monitor I'm currently using. So I would guess that standard is pretty common!
That’s also why 5K monitors are more than 2X the price of 4K ones at similar sizes. I have a 4K with those dimensions that I bought for $400, an LG 5K would cost at least $1200.
I think the price is more about where on the adoption curve those technologies are. 4k is pretty mainstream these days, older tech and produced in high volumes: ergo cheaper. 5k is still pretty new, mainly constrained to higher end products, and sales volumes are lower: ergo more expensive.
For macOS users like me, 4K on 27" is weird. Running it at 1x dpi would make everything too small, running it at 2x "retina" dpi would make everything too huge. And macOS can't do non-integer UI scaling nicely. Apple uses the term "5K" when describing its iMacs with 27" retina-1440p displays, but monitors with that resolution are very rare it seems.
It's not perfect, but it's far better than 1440p on 27" - which is either super tiny or super blurry for my eyes.

The way I'm running 4k 27" on Mac is setting scaling to 2x ("looks like 1080p) - which gives the crispest UI, and set scaling appropriately in a small set of applications so that they are not too huge. Just running the browser at 90% default scaling makes things pretty decent. And then maybe reducing the font size by 1pt on one or two text editors.

Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling. I'm sticking with 1440p for now as 4k at 1x for a desktop monitor is too small and 4k at 2x is sacrificing too much screen space, so I just do 1440p at 1x. 5k at 2x would be similar but with the advantages in text/etc sharpness.
>Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling.

Wayland does not have those issues and is very nice in my experience although I hear that screen sharing is still a work in progress.

I mean apps that talk directly to the Wayland protocol without XWayland in between, which includes Firefox, Chrome, graphical Emacs, all the Gnome apps.

Wayland doesn't solve fractional scaling. It doesn't support fractional scaling and instead renders surfaces at 2x and scales down, resulting in a fuzzy image with higher resource consumption. It's better than nothing, especially compared to the extremely backwards situation of XWayland apps, but it is very far from where it should be [1].

Even if Wayland were to support fractional scaling: Gtk doesn't support fractional scaling at the toolkit level - integer scaling only [2]. Although it's worth noting Qt and Electron could probably support fractional scaling today. The general philosophy being pushed on the Linux desktop is to do scaling like macOS, but unfortunately it combined that bad philosophy with a worse implementation.

Wayland is a blessing for the Linux desktop, but sadly the free desktop is still waiting to be dragged into the 21st century in many respects.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/lficfe/wayland_fractio...

[2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/i...

>Gtk doesn't support fractional scaling at the toolkit level - integer scaling only [2].

Your reference [2] is on the topic of Wayland, not GTK. Although the referenced page does contains 2 occurences of "GTK", after reading the context of those occurences, I am unable to find or infer anything in support of your assertion that GTK doesn't support fractional scaling.

Also, your reference [2] implies that there are two scaling factors. Specifically at the top of your ref [2] is a link to another page (issue #34), in which a participant, "Pekka Paalanen, Maintainer", writes,

>Fractional scaling is a whole another topic apart from UI scale. I want to mention it to avoid confusing the two. . . . This is different from UI scale, because it is effectively a fractional buffer scale, without changing the UI size.

The title of your ref [2] is "Add support for fractional scaling", which was written 9 months ago, at which time I was already using fractional scaling (what I mean by fractional scaling and the meaning that is relevant in the current thread of conversation) in released software (namely Gnome 40 on Fedora 34) -- which is another sign that you've incorporated information that is correct in one specific context, but you've erroneously applied it to a different context.

Skipping forward in your ref [2] by 3 sentences, we read, "The current Wayland protocol allows clients to scale their buffers by an integer scale factor" (emphasis mine).

But most of the elements -- particularly 99.9% of the text -- on a modern operating system are stored on the computer as mathematical descriptions of curves. The big exceptions to this are JPEG and PNG files (hence the interest in SVG). (Another exception is "bitmap" fonts, but IIUC the only people looking at bitmap fonts these years are techies who have specially configured their OS or their apps to use bitmap fonts.) These mathetical descriptions have no native resolution: they can be rendered cleanly at any scaling factor.

I use Gnome Settings to tell my computer how large I want things to be, then the text is rendered at that particular scaling factor. There is never any moment in which any framebuffer or rectangular region intended to be displayed on the screen is scaled (again excepting JPGs and PNGs). I know this because I have not been using a HiDPI monitor, so I can see the individual pixels in my monitor. There is no way for the text on my computer to look as good as it does if it were being rendered into a buffer, followed by that buffer's being scaled. I would be able to tell the difference. Unless you want to try to tell me that changing the text size in Terminal.app on a Mac to some size other than the default size causes text to be rendered into a buffer, then the buffer gets scaled before being shown to the user. Or when in Google Chrome, I use the "hamburger menu" to set the "Zoom" of a web site to something other than 100%, that web page is being rendered, then scaled.

Note that Google Chrome and Firefox do their own text rendering: they do not rely on the host OS to do it like most apps do. Consequently, exploring the Zoom setting in Chrome is a good way to experience what scaling on a pure-GTK3 Linux install is like, only that the scaling factor on Linux applies to everything on the screen (including the mouse cursor) whereas in Chrome it only applies to the viewport (minus the mouse cursor).

Again, IMO the people in your reference [2] are talking about a technical detail different from the detail you think they are. Maybe that detail is relevant when you have 2 monitors of different native resolutions and you drag a window from one monitor to another. But that is not the topic of conversation here. Here we are talking about users with a single monitor who because they didn't do enough research before buying the monitor, are faced with a choice of the text's being too big or too small. That can happen on MacOS, but will never happened on a pure-GTK3 Linux install. Pick whatever native resolution, monitor size or pixel density you want: the Linux install can be adjusted so that things are not too big and not too small. (And it takes only 2 seconds to switch sizes: any windows that are open when you switch automatically adapt.) Specifically, on a monitor with 1680 horizontal pixels, Gnome Settings is giving me the following choices for the scaling factor: 100%, 125%, 150%, 175%, 200%. My guess is that if my monitor had more horizontal pixels, I would get more choices.

System Preferences on a Mac (specifically the Display ("Displays"?) pane) also gives you some choices that make everything bigger or smaller, but if you don't choose the native resolution of the display, everything is very blurry -- which does not happen on a pure-GTK3 Linux install.

ADDED. you have to run the following command (once per install) to activate the "Scale" line in the Display pane of Gnome Settings:

  gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['scale-monitor-framebuffer']"
Well, it's all fine if it works for you, but there's no doubt that both Gtk and Wayland do not support fractional scaling at all: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/issues/4345.

> System Preferences on a Mac (specifically the Display ("Displays"?) pane) also gives you some choices that make everything bigger or smaller, but if you don't choose the native resolution of the display, everything is very blurry -- which does not happen on a pure-GTK3 Linux install.

It absolutely does. You may not see it, but Wayland and Gtk as of 2022 are not able to do technically anything else here than scaling. This is a known issue, and the reason why I linked that Wayland fractional scaling thing - it is not possible on regular desktop Linux (it is on Android/ChromeOS) to get adequately sized, rendered for size output on your 27" 4K screen or 13" 1080p screen.

I agree that 5K 27" monitors with 2x scaling would be perfect for macOS, but I still like 4K 27" with 2x scaling. It's only slightly larger if the monitor is placed at arm's length.
I just discovered the same dreadful thing with 27" 4K monitors, and found this site which explains what Macs are doing:

https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/

TLDR: use monitors that are around 110 or 220 PPI. The 27" 4K is right in the middle at 163 PPI.

I have a ~110 PPI monitor (the currently ever so popular 2560×1440 at 27"), and the first thing I'd change about this would be to have it be around 90-95 PPI like all the monitors I've had since the 90s. There's not a single website I use regularly that I wouldn't have zoomed in just a little bit because all the text is just a tiny bit too small to comfortably read (I spend far too much time in front of a monitor to have it any closer to me). The smaller pixel pitch in turn seems to offer no added value at all. (At home I have my old 1920×1200/24" display as a secondary, and all the default-sized content just seem to agree better with that combo.)

I'd gladly take a monitor like this at 2× the resolution of course (so 5K), but again, if I could choose, not at 27" but at 30".

For me even that is too much :-P. I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and i consider it too large.

At least when i upscale older (or very demanding) games from 640x480 or 1280x720 they look crisp enough instead of the blurry mess that was before a few years when this became possible outside of emulation.

But i bought it because of the VA panel, 165Hz refresh rate and flat surface since i couldn't find any smaller monitor with those characteristics. So if that next-best-thing-to-OLED tech is actually good, i'll most likely get one since i doubt i'll see a real OLED PC monitor in not-gargantuan sizes.

"Cooler Master also announced a 4K 160 Hz version of this monitor, the GP27-FUS. This device is also cheaper than other mini LED monitors. With similar specs to the GP27-FQS, save for a bump to HDMI 2.1, the monitor will cost $1,100 when it debuts alongside its lower-res sibling."
The price for a modest bump in specs feels absurd. There's plenty of really decent 1440p144 monitors, but you want FALD (full-array local dimming)? $300 just became $600+. Similarly a ~$600 nearly doubles in prices when you add FALD. This tech commands such an unreasonably vast premium, for not much added build cost.
2.7k for gaming is not particularly hamstrung.
and, for it's gaming target audience, much more hamstrung by being 60hz.