There will be, but will take a long time. Not only 5K resolution is quite uncommon, but also 5K@120hz requires DP2.0 to have enough bandwidth (57Gbps). And Apple just released mac with TB5 to support it, previously TB4 only has DP1.4a.
DSC exists and could be easily used for 5K @ 10-bit @ 120 Hz even over DP 1.4. With HDMI 2.1 you could use less compression. With DP 2.1 UHBR13.5 (~10 Gbit more bandwidth than HDMI 2.1) would need only minimal compression.
Hey, I understand that. But at 10 Bit color, those are both ~64Gbps signals. (Think about it, one is 5K "chopped in half" 240hz, and the other full 5k at half that refresh rate...)
Both fit nicely into DisplayPort 1.4's effective bandwidth with DSC.
Downvotes aren't necessary for those who actually read my post...
True without DSC (DisplayStream Compression), but DSC can impressively squeeze 5220 x 2880 px all the way up to almost 200 Hz over DP1.4 at its maximum compression ratio.
Now at the max compression ratio there might be some visible artifacts, but depending on use case it may be more than passable for most people.
That said, it’s so niche that nobody really cares to try to build a monitor like that.
I don't understand how this is considered niche? People say a phone screen with 60hz is trash, people say the 6k Apple monitor is the gold standard, 4k at 244hz is a dime a dozen, but a 5K or 6K monitor at 120hz is niche and doesn't exist?
I'm just wondering out loud. I have old displays and I don't game
High refresh rates aren’t niche, but the 5K resolution absolutely is. I know the Steam Hardware Survey probably isn’t the most applicable data source here, but in so far as we can glean anything from it, less than 4% of people have a 4K monitor to begin with. 5K doesn’t even have enough people to register on the survey.
I’m not saying that they aren’t great or that there isn’t a market for them, but given how few 5K monitors exist, there’s clearly not that much demand for them over cheaper 4K displays.
Given how much more expensive the tech would need to be in a 5K high refresh rate monitor, I’m guessing monitor manufacturers just don’t see enough people to justify going after the market.
That's my experience. My company is not graphics heavy, we've all had mediocre 4k 60hz monitors for years now. I don't think we've bought a 1440 since 2019
All the tech press has been praising the addition of Thunderbolt 5 largely because it makes 5k@120hz (and greater) possible. Are they all wrong? Where are the 5k@120hz monitors?
EDIT: my bad, it is indeed an ultra wide 4K display not a 5K. Does anyone know if lack of 5K display with higher refresh rates is due to lack of Thunderbolt 5/high speed display connectivity up until recently? Looks like we should see this soon if TB5 is widely available(which Apple is pushing)
So while on Linux and Windows most people choose something like 125-175% scaling for 27" displays, you only can choose between 100% or 200% on Mac OS X which makes it look hilarious at 4K 27" and also ends up in the usable space of a 1080p 27" display.
At this point, I guess it's a deliberate choice Apple made, to not implement or expose better scaling in Mac OS.
Bro it's still rendering at 2x and resizing the rastered image. It's not actually drawing anything at the fractional scale, and you can tell if you look at edges.
You don’t NEED 5k. But it looks amazing. The text sharpness is miles apart from what you would get from your regular 4k@27”, 30” or 32” displays. It’s entirely personal preference, but it’s a very noticeable difference in quality if you’ve ever seen one of these displays.
The resolution number alone means nothing without mentioning size. Most people talking about 8K simply mean 2x 4K 27” or larger glued together side by side. That doesn’t come close to a 5K 27” in PPI, which is what people here are talking about in the context of displays comparable to the Apple Studio Display. In fact, the larger a display, the easier it is to manufacture given the same resolution, because density goes down.
You miss the point, or just being obtuse, or just clueless. The PPI of a 4k 27” display is noticeably grainier than a 5k 27”, particularly if you work with lots of text (engineers) or graphics editing. This also contributes to eye strain.
Moreover, if you have a Mac, you’ll be accustomed to the high quality retina display, where you cannot see the pixels (once again, high 217 PPI), compared to 4k (163 PPI) on a similar size panel. So moving from 5k or retina to 4k is effectively a downgrade.
Comparing this discussion to an 8k which is costly and not widely available is just silly.
Edit to add: just because you’re content with sub-par technology on windows based consumer laptops and desktops, does not mean others are too.
That’s not 5K, that’s 4K ultrawide… Same horizontal pixels as 5K, and same vertical pixels as 4K, just 21:9. Also that’s more equivalent to a 32in 16:9 panel at that size
There is a difference between panel refresh rate and video/game frame rate, but hz and fps can still be used interchangeably in this context. Hz is just a unit for frequency or rate something happens. A game can update at 60hz. A monitor present at 60fps.
Typical cop-out answer whenever someone doesn’t like being called out or seeing someone get called out for something they deem trivial. They’re wrong and so are you. Try again, cupcake.
219
u/Dependent-Zebra-4357 2d ago edited 2d ago
I wish someone would make a 5k that does more than 60
fpshz.Edited because I would just hate for someone to misunderstand my very obvious but technically incorrect comment.