[Discuss] 4K (or 5K) resolution for Linux desktop

[abreauj at gmail.com (John Abreau)]

I wouldn't bother with 4K or UHD for playing videos at this point. For desktop use, the extra resolution would be sweet, but on a TV less than 50 inches, I would expect the fonts to be too small to read. If you crank up the font size to compensate, then you essentially throw away most of the advantage of the higher resolution. 

Last time I researched the question, it seemed the GTX 950 video cards were the bare minimum for driving a 4k display. 

Note that I was unable to afford the hardware, so I have no first-hand experience with 4K displays.


On Jan 4, 2016, at 11:53 PM, "Rich Braun" <richb at pioneer.ci.net> wrote:

> For a bit over a year, Apple has been shipping its 5K iMac with a 27" retina
> display; last month they added their second-gen product in that line.
> 
> A couple weeks ago, I spotted the HP Envy model 34-a010 which has a 34"
> monitor (funny aspect ratio, 3440x1440) and an NVIDIA graphics chip which
> probably works out-of-the-box with Ubuntu and other distros. But at $1700 for
> either of these two products, Apple's got by far the better hardware specs.
> 
> What's happening in the graphics-display industry? Suddenly Linux on the
> desktop is losing the price competition, for probably the first time ever
> since I started using it in 1992.
> 
> There's an all-out price/specs war going on among the panel manufacturers, and
> there just doesn't seem to be a way I can plunk down $1500 to $2500 for a new
> Linux-based computer with turn-key 4K+ 120Hz graphics.
> 
> Should I bite the bullet and go Apple, or wait a while longer for Linux to
> catch up?
> 
> Have any of you built a DIY 4K display system that you're happy with, yet?
> Life's too short to spend a weekend fiddling with X11 display settings,
> swapping hardware, and returning stuff to Amazon.
> 
> -rich
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss