this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
540 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
74799 readers
2662 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not exactly surprising, considering the TV’s and monitors are outpacing the contemt creators and gaming development.
A lot of gamers don’t even have GPU’s that can crank out 4K at the frame rates most monitors are capable of. So 8K won’t do much for you. And movies and regular TV? Man, I’m happy there’s 4K available.
A 4K screen will be more than most folks need right now, so buying an 8K at the moment is just wasted money. Like buying a Ferrari and only ever driving 25 mph.
Also to add to this. 8k sounds 2x as large as 4k. But that isn't true. 8k is four times the pixels of 4k, so can you imagine what kind of GPU or content stream you will need to make sense...
Also I think the improvements in HDR and brightness recently are more substantial than the update to 8K. At normal viewing TV distance you’d be hard pressed to see the individual pixels, even on a 1080p screen.
Even for PCs there isn’t much reason to go about 2k screens (1440p).
4k monitors in portrait orientation are amazing for productivity. It's a shame more people don't do this
What’s the benefit over 2k monitors in portrait?
Screen space.
I work in tech doing performance, memory management, and developer workflow tooling and automation for a large 3D Rendering/Creation tool.
Being able to throw a long setup doc, or a large class file on a 4k portrait monitor allows me to read things through with a ton of context and far less scrolling.
It's also useful for putting two window tiles that have related content, or one is a reference content.
I currently have a tie-fighter monitor setup (2x4k portrait on either side of a ultrawide) and will put comms and email/calendar on my left monitor, core work in the center, and overflow reference/research on the right.
It's less hectic for personal use, but I still use all the space.
This is why I often refer to 4K as UHD: The WCG and HDR being available to consumers is far more impactful than end users having a few more pixels.
(Also because I'm a snarky pedant, and consumer 4K UHD is only 3840 wide, while DCI4K is actually 4096)
But I need the surface brightness of the Sun in my living room! It adds so much depth to the characters and stories!
they will just use a shitty upscale algorithm.
You don't sell performance to people, you sell numbers.
It's just a race. Perhaps you don't need the biggest and newest available thing, but you also will subconsciously discard what's "less" than what you already have or what's normal as obsolete. This creates an engine for a race, where good faith players can't compete.
Like with web browsers, a hypertext networked system even with advanced formatting, executable content and sandboxing can be so simple, that there'd be hundreds of independent implementations. But if you always race the de-facto standards with the speed you the monopolist group can maintain, and good faith competitors can't, then you'll always be the "best".
The Matrix movie actually talks about that, with its "there's no spoon" moment. It's not a usual market game, it's a meta-market game. And most people don't understand the rules of the meta layer, being sitting ducks there.
Nobody can compete with the industry leaders on their field. And unlike with steel or gasoline or even embedded electronics production, there's no relativity in the field at all. But the new possible fields are endless. Everyone can discover new pastures here, because it's not discovery, it's conception. But since that's counterintuitive, and the network effects work on psychology too, most people are not trying.
It's a bit like military logic, there were Western "controlled escalation" doctrines, because slow gradual escalation works in favor of the side with most resources, thus the West, and the Soviet "scientific-technical revolution" doctrines, which despite sounding stupid is a correct name, when you're the second in the race, your best chance lies in being unpredictable, unreasonable and changing the rules. One of the reasons Soviet doctrines gained such a crappy reputation as compared to Western ones is that, well, they are kinda similar to preventively going all out guns-a-blazing before you are forced to fight by the enemy's rules, which requires willpower from those making the decisions (and also capability to, well, do anything scientific and technical, LOL), and which means you prepare for some sort of general battle (that be nuclear war, or short highly concentrated offensives, such stuff) at the expense of "aggressive negotiations" scenarios. So - in our time anyone trying to heal the Silicon Valley's effects is playing USSR and can only expect anything good from breaking rules.
Interesting post.