Discussion About Monitors- 24th. Feb


27 full hd can be the same as 24 full HD?

I want to discuss about 27" and 24" 1080p ppi. Can it really be the same? I know it was discussed a lot, but I found this site
You can measure the ppi of you screen just by putting resolution and size. But also says if your screen is retina or not. If not, it says the distance that you can perceive as retina. So, 24" can be perceived as retina at 95cm away and 27 at 107cm.
Higher PPI makes the image sharper, but distance also takes a rule in this. Considering this, if you sit 70cm away from a 24" full hd, you are 25cm away from the distance that it can be perceived as retina. And if you sit 80cm away from a 27 1080p you are 27cm away from it's retina point.
following this logic, shouldn't the sharpness be indistinguishable? At least, that's how it looks on paper. But I don't have a 24", much less a 27" to confirm the veracity of those arguments. So I want to ask anyone with both
To try this at home and put down here what you think about this logic, If 27 and 24 full hd can really be the same.
Some people even say that 32 full HD is fine, although they always use it at more than 100cm [39inch]



That’s all pretty much true. Only thing is there is definitely a diminishing return of comfort and visibility at a certain point. If you’re pushing your monitor too far away for the sake of “retina” you’ll end up halfway across the room and then that clarity becomes moot cause everything is tiny lol. A normal distance to sit away from your screen is prolly about 2ft (sorry for my American) which is more or less a whole arms length away. 27 1080 may or may not fit into that category depending on the person but the common pattern with size and res (1080p - 24 / 1440p - 27 / 4K 32) is almost always the safest bet for every situation.



input delay and 120hz

So I've got a series s and I'm going to get a monitor, the main games I play on the series s can get 160fps and 144 consistently. I want to know is it possible to get sub 1ms input delay (diffrent from response time) and if so with what monitor? Ik the xbox has delay and what not but I'd like to know which monitor can either get 120hz and be very low fps or be 165 and be 4ms or less delay. Any info is much appreciated.



  • Literally impossible as a Bluetooth/USB controller operates at 125Hz polling which would mean max delay between you pressing a button and the Xbox reading it is 8ms. Then at 165 FPS, that's 6ms guaranteed additional delay from the input->compute physics->render cycle from the game engine. Then after the frame is scanned by the monitor, it does it's own processing before making the panel actually move each of the 3 crystals per pixel (assuming LCD) into the correct orientation which can take roughly 8ms depending on the panel.

The best way you can improve input lag on an Xbox would be to get an OLED display which have near-instant pixel transition times. But you're not going to be able to do anything about the other parts of the chain.





is there anyway to use the ipad as a monitor for a xbox series s with an hdmi cable?

My plan is to make some brackets for my series s and connect my ipad to it to make a portable gaming system, but I'm having trouble finding information on using my ipad as a monitor. I'd prefer to use an hdmi cable if possible.



Download Xbox app and log into your account and you can use Xbox remote play to play Xbox on your iPad. I do it all the time


Not hdmi, but if you connect your Xbox using wired Ethernet and then get a usb-c Ethernet dongle for your iPad you can stream it in quite high quality (I played halo infinite single player on mine and had no issues)




 Mac mini M2 and monitor

Hi guys, probably asked a lot, but can’t find a straight forward answer regarding mac mini and 4K@144Hz over thunderbolt port. I have a Gigabyte m28u monitor, which is 4K and 144hz and have displayport 1.4 as well as usb type c port. My question is, can I achieve 4K@144Hz using thunderbolt 4 cable (usb type c to type c) or do I need to use usb type c to displayport 1.4 cable or it doesn’t matter? Thank you.



I have a Gigabyte M32U. My M2 mini runs it at 4k and 144hz. I use this cable from Best Buy. I also use the M32U's built in KVM to share the monitor and USB devices with a gaming PC running Windows 11, the Win 11 box using the M32U's display port. There are a couple of oddities but overall it works well.


 dual monitor for laptop




Highest refresh rate with a 1080p monitor?

I have a 240hz 1080p monitor I plan on using with a M2 Mac mini. What would be the highest refresh rate I could get when connecting via thunderbolt?



240hz. The mini supports DSC (last years M1 was the first mini to do so) and supports Dp1.4. It can run 1080p240, 1080p360/390 just fine.





I have a question. So I order an portable monitor and it takes usb-c for video.

I have a question. So I order an portable monitor and it takes usb-c for video. And I have an 2015 Mac mini. So I was wondering if I got a Thunderbolt 2 cable and then get the adapter to usb-c. Would y’all think it will power the monitor? Because with usb-c to usb-c it does. So I want to do if it can do both power the monitor and displace it also



Thunderbolt 2 is data-only so the monitor will need a separate power source.





Question in regards to a portable monitor

If I used the steam Deck to power a 1080p 60 hz portable monitor with the usb c cable, how much would that affect battery life?


I’d look at portable monitors that use hdmi. And get a usb c dongle that can still take power and pass through signal via hdmi. Depending k the game your battery life will be desperately short.




Do tablets/laptops/portable monitors exist with screens that aren't super brittle?

So ... given the fast pace of evolution of technology, I think it's fair to say that there isn't and couldn't be a tablet / laptop / LCD monitor that is BIFL (because it's reasonable to expect that the technology will become deprecated or out of date within the average human lifetime).
As a second-best, however, I'd really like to own a tablet, laptop, or portable monitor that has a screen that's tough enough that I don't have to worry about it cracking from fairly trivial use or pressure. Otherwise, I can't really understand why things like portable monitors are that useful (I just had one break after three uses and what I thought was pretty careful backpack transportation while it remained in its case).
Perhaps brittleness is something inherent to current LCD monitor technology. Or perhaps there's a manufacturer which has created a tabled buffered around its frame with non removable cushioning that should render it fairly impervious to accidental drops or pressure from adjoining objects (as in when stowed in a backpack). Either way, I'd be interested in spending more in a product that was at least a little bit tougher.
Any products of this nature out there?


I'm guessing there are one of two explanations:
      1.I'm extrapolating from two cases that happened in quick succession (a Samsung Galaxy tablet that didn't survive a trip in a backpack). And a portable monitor that had about two uses and was sitting on my bookshelf for the past two years. I checked it yesterday to discover that the screen had been cracked. This could be just bad luck.
  1. Another credible explanation is that cheap tablets (the Samsung was < $150 and the portable monitor was a budget one also) ... truly have inferior screens that break more easily.
Otherwise both these gadgets had the same treatment more or less: within cases and within the laptop sleeve of a not overly stuffed backpack. I thought (I accept that I may be mistaken) that that was within the parameters of proper handling/care.
I'm discovering the world of ruggedized tablets. They cost a lot more but between the shockproofing and the (apparently) gorilla glass screens ... I'm wondering if this might be the kind of product I was looking for.



I have been using smartphones since they 1990s and iPads ever since they came to market. In all these years with all these different devices I only cracked screens twice.
Both devices at the time were already well out of their extended warranty period. I cracked an iPhone screen when it slipped out of my hand while leaving my car - it didn’t have a case, the screen cracked, the phone worked without issues, I had the screen replaced the next day. The iPad was a large iPad Pro and Someone threw it. It was expected to be broken by the impact.
If you treat iPhones and iPads in a reasonable manner they are tougher then anyone could expect them to be, particularly iPhones. I am always amazed by how tough they are when I see sone people who have dropped them dozens of times.
I am sure comparable Samsung devices are similar.
If you are worried about breaking them, don’t get the large screen variants and definitely keep them in a sturdy case.


 dual monitor for laptop




What's the real standard?: Thunderbolt hub vs USB-C Hub for laptops

Edit: I meant to title this as Thunderbolt docks vs USB-C Hubs.
I have quite a lot of Thunderbolt 3 docks (won a good bundle via eBay) and bought a handful of USB-C hubs over time.
I don't speak for all Thunderbolt docks, but the similarities on Office-like ones are very comparable to USB-C hubs: USB A ports, USB-C port, power delivery, Ethernet, and etc.. It recently dawned on me that the differences between the two are very small:
  1. Thunderbolt 3: can run multiple monitors at once (two 4k 60hz at most, one 8k); audio jack output; incredibly faster transfer speeds (but so many particular and expensive requirements: M.2 NVMe, NVMe M.2 enclosure that supports TB, TB cable)
  1. USB-C hub: universal amongst most USB-C and power delivery devices, the most it can do is one 4k 60hz out plus other ports.
With all that said, what do people feel are the biggest differences or advantages between the USB-C hubs and Thunderbolt docks?
I'm almost thinking that USB-C hubs are a better due to the fact that it's more universal for nearly any device with a USB-C port with power delivery. They're also much smaller than a TB dock, making it a much portable item to bring around.
With TB needing so many requirements to take advantage of TB3 transfer speeds, and the fact that most common devices still run on USB 3.0, makes it a difficult sell. I think the fact that TB3 is not "the standard" makes it incompatible with most devices around. USB-C 3.x is more commonly used than TB3.
The only thing I hate with USB-C hubs is that they have such a short cord. It's nearly ridiculous to use with devices like a Surface Pro and alike.
Does anyone else feel this way about TB docks vs USB-C hubs? With USB4 and TB4 on the field, can anyone else predict what will be the standard?



I prefer thunderbolt at this time because it's common enough to find on a decent laptop, and it's more of a standard than something marketed as a USB C hub.
If I buy a thunderbolt 4 dock I know exactly what it's going to do.
I bought a travel USB c hub and went to use it with a portable monitor the other day, but oops, the the USB c port on the hub doesn't support video output, so that hub didn't work for my use case.
USB-C could be anything, but you can't tell without additional research or trying it out.
I hope USB4 is more standardized on what things can do, but Im not holding my breath. Flexibility is a good thing, but it it can make things difficult to know what to buy. Thunderbolt takes a lot of the guesswork out....but you probably pay more for it in most cases and lack of AMD support kinda sucks preventing it from being a true standard.



Feel? There's no feeling here.
Let's start with the history. Usually a laptop dock meant a device with a proprietary bottom (or sometimes side) connector and many standard connectors on its back. These typically were almost passive devices: the functionality was passed from the dense proprietary connector and the dock merely wired these into standard connectors like USB, VGA, DVI, Ethernet and such. A few very simple ICs were present to for example facilitate switching between a VGA or a DVI output but these were completely transparent to the user. A USB hub had a bit more active role where it would "split" the USB signal into four, crudely speaking. Some more advanced models would integrate one or more USB-to-something device, like an USB-to-Ethernet adapter or USB-to-audio or USB-to-SD reader. These two categories got merged when USB C emerged and the phrases meant typically the same device: a USB hub described above with various integrated devices and one or more display outputs. If these were DisplayPort then it was just old-style-dock rewiring, if it was HDMI then an appropriate LSPcon was added after the DisplayPort. Thunderbolt muddied the waters (much) further but this is getting long enough.
The USB4 specification was the first to actually standardize these kind of hubs. So nowadays:
  1. The marketing phrase "USB4 hub" or "Thunderbolt 4 hub" almost always means a real USB4 hub.
  1. The marketing word dock can mean either a USB4 hub or an USB4 endpoint device.
You can find more about USB4 hubs in the [USB4 System Overview] . A popular endpoint silicon central to many docks is the Via VL830. All in all, comparing hubs to docks is an exercise in futility because docks is not a standardized category.
Second, there's no such thing as "better" or "worse" as long as the specification is kept and quality assurance is satisfactory. You have a set of devices you want to connect to a certain host (or multiple hosts, sometimes), have certain power needs and other miscellanous factors like cord length. After all such criteria is enumerated, the deciding factors become support and price.







Hinterlassen Sie einen Kommentar

Bitte beachten Sie, dass Kommentare vor der Veröffentlichung freigegeben werden müssen

Diese Website ist durch reCAPTCHA geschützt und es gelten die allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen und Datenschutzbestimmungen von Google.