you don't need 4k and you certainly dont need 8k.

[eniko@mastodon.gamedev.place]

you don't need 4k and you certainly dont need 8k. if you tell me you can tell the difference i will simply not believe you

[aprazeth@mstdn.social]

@eniko

Are we talking resolution or RAM/ROM sizes here?

[0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange]

@eniko I don’t need 8k but I do need retina-class resolution or I can’t read antialiased text (or text that is designed to be antialiased but isn’t — only bitmap fonts)

[dotstdy@mastodon.social]

@eniko 4k is good for text and graphics, not really so important for games / video. 8k is kinda silly

[jernej__s@infosec.exchange]

@eniko I can absolutely tell the difference between 1440p and 4k (assuming 27″ displays); between 4k and 5k the difference is mostly unnoticeable, but 5k is slightly better for running old stuff, because it's integer-scaled at 200%, so not blurry.

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@eniko so putting aside that it is highly dependent on relative distance between the viewer and screen, and the size of the screen, my dissenting opinion is that 4k and 8k are both bad because we don't have cute pixel art icons anymore because of ever increasing screen resolutions. however, if screen resolutions keep going up eventually it'll be good again because then we can have crisp resolution independent pixel art icons without weird aliasing or quantizing artifacts

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@eniko this statement needs a qualification in terms of screen size. 4K on a 15" is just scarce of 300dpi, and for text it really does matter: not in the sense that you can fit more in the same screen estate, but in the sense that the legibility is better (yes, the benefits are higher at smaller font sizes, but standard-to-larger sizes also benefit).

A 27" 4K monitor has approximately the same DPI as a FullHD 15.4. Decent, but not particularly good, unless viewed from a significant distance.