120Hz: 5K before 4K?

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Are we going to see 120 Hz 5K monitors before 120 Hz 4K monitors?

The reason I ask is that 5K monitors are stitched screens - they're two panels - and they already require two DP connections. But 4K monitors are single panel these days and work off a single DP connection. So 5K has more of the problems of 120 Hz solved than 4K.
 
The reason they they require two channels is due to limitations of the current version of DisplayPort, that likely won't be an issue in the next version. They're not "stitched" out of multiple panels. There is nothing stopping them from creating a two-channel 4K screen either so I'm pretty sure they'll just put out whatever they think will sell better, which will likely be 4K screens.
 
Well yes, but to change a 5K screen for 120 Hz, you just change the panels and TCons (?), whereas for 4K, you have to change the panel and the TCon, and change the electronics to cope with two DP inputs.
 
Firstly, a 5K monitor has a single LCD panel regardless of the input configuration.

Secondly, a 5K panel at 120 Hz would require two DP 1.3 inputs and associated electronics versus a 4K 120 Hz panel would require a single DP 1.3 input. Not sure why you would think the vastly more complicated and niche dual DP 1.3 input display would arrive first.
 
I had the distinct impression that MST had issues that made going to SST highly desirable.
 
I had the distinct impression that MST had issues that made going to SST highly desirable.

Well, it does. But, 5K need dual cable because it can't run 5K@60 on one so you can't put 5@120 on 2 cables. :)
 
Here is simple reason why not. There are 5 or so owners of 5K monitors. None of them play games.
 
Here is simple reason why not. There are 5 or so owners of 5K monitors. None of them play games.

What's silly is that I would TOTALLY buy a 50 inch 5K screen for desktop productivity. As they're sold now, the extra resolution is just used for ppi sharpness and doesn't actually give you more desktop space unless you want to use a microscope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
What's silly is that I would TOTALLY buy a 50 inch 5K screen for desktop productivity. As they're sold now, the extra resolution is just used for ppi sharpness and doesn't actually give you more desktop space unless you want to use a microscope.
But why equate resolution to workspace? Just buy more monitors in a giant multi-monitor configuration. Or buy a TV. Why would you want to improve resolution for anything OTHER than sharpness?
 
But why equate resolution to workspace? Just buy more monitors in a giant multi-monitor configuration. Or buy a TV. Why would you want to improve resolution for anything OTHER than sharpness?

I use a 4k monitor for 3D art design, i also have two 1080p monitors in portrait, and for productivity, I essentially have 6 1080p screens for productivity, or I can have 2x half 4k screens side-by-side with two 1080p screens, or I can have the extra space of one 4k window with two 1080p screens for productivity. Having one large, high-resolution screen gives lots of flexibility. Thats what having 6 physical screens can't offer...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Actually, 4k120Hz has already been done [H]ere:
4k120_perfect-jpg.15752
 
I use a 4k monitor for 3D art design, i also have two 1080p monitors in portrait, and for productivity, I essentially have 6 1080p screens for productivity, or I can have 2x half 4k screens side-by-side with two 1080p screens, or I can have the extra space of one 4k window with two 1080p screens for productivity. Having one large, high-resolution screen gives lots of flexibility. Thats what having 6 physical screens can't offer...
I've got to admit that these are strong points. Though I still think there's a market for people who don't need a tom of real estate to use super high density displays. To them, the greatly improved sharpness would probably be much appreciated.
 
Back
Top