• Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m surprised 4K monitor adoption is still under 4%, less than 1366x768 laptop resolution. I guess I was blinded by graphics card marketing, most can’t really afford to shell out for 4K yet.

        • Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s not that most people can’t pay for it, sure, a lot can’t. It’s also just that 4k doesn’t really make sense for gaming over 1440p on a 27inch screen.

          • arefx@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I mean it definitelyooks sharper even at that size but for the cost to performance hit it’s not currently worth it over 1440 for sure. Maybe in another 5-10 years 4k will be more worth it.

            • Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              It looks sharper when you’re staring at edges, it’s not really all that noticeable when playing a game and looking around at all. 4k will probably go mainstream, but not because it makes sense, more as a “fuck it why not”.

              • arefx@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                I have a 27" 2160p and 27" 1440p monitor side by side to each other and 4k looks much sharper all the time, let’s not be dishonest here.

                • Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Side to side yeah lmao. But with a normal ips monitor, with normal pixel response times, regular 120hz, you’ll barely notice it if you’re not actively looking for it or trying to compare. It’s not that complicated of a concept

  • Die4Ever@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Primary Display Resolution: 1920x1080 60.75% -0.72%

    Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution: 3840x1080 60.70% -0.36%

    maybe the “Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution” is excluding single monitor setups, so it would make sense that there is no 1920x1080 in there

    I don’t see any common single monitor resolutions in that list so they’re definitely excluding single monitor setups from that list, which is good

  • brb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think they are mixing up single monitor and multi monitor setups

    Primary Display Resolution 1920 x 1080 60.75%

    Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution 3840 x 1080 60.70%

  • Chais@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I run 3840x1080. Two 1080p screens next to each other. Seems hard to believe that no one runs a single 1080p display, but maybe that’s the case?

    • jaycifer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Probably can’t resolve monitors with distinct resolutions into one large one. How would a 2160p and a 1440p setup be displayed in this list?

      • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        That makes sense, but if 50% of setups are that way, shouldn’t the rest also only add up to 50%? There’s around 150% listed here

    • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Probably based on what the actual monitor resolutions are and not just the raw multi monitor result as you can create an almost endless variation of those when you start matching the resolution position based on the physical location of the monitors.
      E.g in a setup like this even if both would be 1920x1080, you’d end up with something random like 3840 x 1428.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Copied from another comment (not sure how to link)

      Top left: multi monitor resolution These numbers exclude single monitor setups.