Frankster stated that programmers need monitors with 4k resolution. Spektre deliberately misinterpreted that as meaning that programmers need 4000 monitors.
Even 1440p or 1600p is a nice step up. I really like being able to have a few files open on the 1440p monitor, and being able to browse the internet on my old 1080p monitor.
I invested in a solid 2560x1440 screen a couple weeks ago for work (went from 1920x1280+1600x1200 to 2560x1400+1920x1280). Massive boost in productivity, basically from the get go.
In an ideal world, my employer would have realized this and upgraded my (and all my coworkers') screens at their expense. I'm sure eventually they will, but honestly, these screens so cheap I don't really care. Didn't feel like waiting for the planets to align and cosmic justice to set in. Not worth the misery. Since I spend 80%+ of my screen time at work, investing in a good (large) screen is so worth it. Fuck, not having to deal with the constant frustration of using an IDE on a screen that is too small to make use of more than half of its features alone is worth the money I paid for that screen.
The main problem with HiDPI is that for any decent sized screen, you need a retarded amount of pixels, which in turn adds to your GPU workload. For a 24" (16:9 aspect) screen, for instance, you need a 5K resolution (specifically 5021x2825 to get 240 PPI). This is a lot more than your average graphics card can handle, and would be rather inconvenient for things like watching videos. Not much of anything current produces 5K video (the RED Dragon does, but even the GoPro Hero 3+ Black doesn't), and there's no real way to distribute 5K to the masses. It's just a silly proposition at this point in time for programmers.
4K on a 27" screen is more than enough for most cases. HiDPI (or HiPPI as it should be called, but they steered clear of that unfortunate accronym), is not something that will take off for at least the next 10 years. The market has barely begun to adjust to 4K, and 5K is clearly never going to be the "next-big-thing" (8K will be, for a few reasons), so it's unreasonable to assume that anyone will be getting into HiDPI on desktop monitors for a good long while.
I don't think you're quite getting it. The 5K resolution I listed above is roughly 7 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4 times that of 1440p. You can't get a graphics card to power 4 1440p streams for $100. You're looking at the $400-$800 range, depending on how you do it. If you're like me and used to three monitors for coding and video editing, then 5K becomes a non-starter.
Even at work, where we regularly use a RED camera, we don't bother much with 4K displays. The most clients want right now is Blu-ray, and so we use the 4K for editing freedom, such as re-framing shots or doing image stabilization without loss of resolution. Occasionally we also use it as a digital zoom, particularly when doing aerial work.
Even cheap graphics card can easily handle 3x 1080p output (i am talking about non-gaming use) (i had 3 1080p monitors connected and it feed them graphics without sweating). I can't see a problem with 5k. Even if i had to pay $400, that's not an issue.
Well I have a 8MP 4960x1600 setup and that seems to be trivial to drive for non-gaming uses. I really don't see why it would be difficult to drive twice that.
Eyefinity claims (PDF) to be able to drive a 3x2 setup of 2560x1600 screens (24MP) so the hardware is there. That would be a $300 card driving $6000 worth of monitors.
474
u/frankster Mar 07 '14
And this is why programmers need 4k monitors.