Because if you draw things with very few pixels it tends to look blocky and unrealistic because the universe like your mom has curves. The more pixels you use the more realistically we can represent both real and virtual pictures. Cambridge says people can see up to 94 PPD. This means that 4K monitors on your desk are trivially within the range that people can distinguish but its dubious that 8K TVs are useful. The more you know!
If you can’t tell the difference your corrective eyewear may be insufficiently corrective. The people who can see can tell the difference between FHD and 4K
The study says that users can appreciate resolutions up to 94 pixels per degree. A FHD 27" monitor at 18" distance is 29 PPD. At 4K its 58. Users can appreciate the fact that a 4K display is much better.
And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?
And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?
Couldn’t find the setting called scale on your windows desktop? Ok mr manager. Do you also call IT when your monitor is turned off to tell them your CPU is broken?
Basically every modern OS in existence including Linux supports proper scaling for higher resolution displays. You don’t just have to make the text bigger. Proper scaling is implemented. Integer scaling is best supported.
https://linux-hardware.org/?view=mon_resolution&colors=10
Let’s look at desktop users
4k = 13.7% of Linux users QHD = 12.4% 3440x1440 = 3.9%
30% of desktop users are using > FHD
On the internet where you go by “Moonpoo” you in fact have no credentials because nobody can verify anything.
It is in a way hilarious to imagine that IBM is so broken that its employees can’t figure out how to make fonts not tiny on 4K. You must have been a manager.
Credentials like “made my living in hardware” are both non-specific and non-verifiable they mean nothing. I have 2 27" 4K 60hz monitors because last gen hardware just isn’t that expensive.
When not gaming this looks nicer than 2x FHD and I run it in either 1080 or 4K depending on the game depending on what settings need to be set to get a consistent 60 FPS. My hardware isn’t poverty level nor is it expensive. An entry level Mac would be more expensive.
Leaving aside gaming isn’t it obvious to you that 4K looks nicer in desktop use or are your eyes literally failing?
The article title is basically a lie intended to generate clicks by pretentious people far stupider than the people who did the actual research which is why the non morons who did the research called it “Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?”
Your own budget is by definition your business but you can run some stuff in 4K on my desktop I bought in 2020 for $700. Not worth it “TO ME” requires no defense but it is pretty silly to say its a money sink with no reward when we are talking about PC gaming. You know where you game on a 24-32" screen 1 foot or 2 from your face. The study clearly says its not.
The study doesn’t actually claim that. The actual title is “Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren’t Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?” As with all articles that ask a question the answer is either NO or its complicated.
It says that we can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree or about 1080p on a 50" screen at 10 feet away.
This means that on a 27" monitor 18" away 1080p: 29 4K: 58 8K: 116
A 40" TV 8 feet away/50" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 93
A 70" TV 8 feet away
1080p: 54 4K: 109 8K: 218
A 90" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 53 4K: 106 8K: 212
Conclusion: 1080p is good for small TVs relatively far away. 4K makes sense for reasonably large or close TV Up to 8K makes sense for monitors.
Are you talking about 8K or 4K? Not only can you game in 4K with a cheap card depending on the game the desktop and everything else just looks nicer.
Basically you are in a study which calculated for you what people ought to be able to see and you insisted on redoing the calculation yourself incorrectly. The study says people factually can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree. a 70" screen at a meter away is 24 PPD. You yourself could have easily eye balled 2 screens and come to the correct conclusion but are instead asserting nonsense.
Did you notice that FHD tvs larger than 40" literally don’t exist in stores? If people literally couldn’t see more than 24 PPD than at the more typical 10 feet viewing distance a 70" screen at 640x480 would be just as good as a 70" 1080p was at a meter away! For a 50" you could go down to 320x480! Still 24PPD
Old people with bad eyesight watching their 50" 12 feet away in their big ass living room vs young people with good eyesight 5 feet away from their 65-70" playing a game might have inherently differing opinions.
12’ 50" FHD = 112 PPD
5’ 70" FHD = 36 PPD
The study basically says that FHD is about as good as you can get 10 feet away on a 50" screen all other things being equal. That doesn’t seem that unreasonable
They don’t need to this study does it for them. 94 pixels per degree is the top end of perceptible. On a 50" screen 10 feet away 1080p = 93. Closer than 10 feet or larger than 50 or some combination of both and its better to have a higher resolution.
For millennials home ownership has crashed but TVs are cheaper and cheaper. For the half of motherfuckers rocking their 70" tv that cost $600 in their shitty apartment where they sit 8 feet from the TV its pretty obvious 4K is better at 109 v 54
Also although the article points out that there are other features that matter as much as resolution these aren’t uncorrelated factors. 1080p TVs of any size in 2025 are normally bargain basement garbage that suck on all fronts.
Do you wear glasses?
Please note at 18-24" with a 27" screen 4K does not max out what the eye can see according to this very study. EG all the assholes who told you that 4K monitors are a waste are confirmed blind assholes.
ooh burn