[PragmaticPulp]

8K is four times the pixels and therefore four times the bandwidth as a 4K monitor.

It took us a long time to go from 1080p to 4K. It has taken even longer for 4K at 120-144Hz to be practical.

It’s more likely that you’ll end up with intermediate steps to 5K, 6K, than getting 8K 120Hz.

The other limitation is lack of demand. You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it, and you need a powerful video card to drive it. The number of people who would buy such a monitor is very, very small.

[RetpolineDrama]

>You need a gigantic monitor for 8K to be worth it

I have a 4k 24" monitor that I can still see aliasing on with AA disabled.

8K 32" would give me more real estate and should, in theory, completely eliminate the need for AA.

[ilyt]

Which makes me wonder what's the point of the article's author, 4k vs 6k on 32 inch one is already far into diminishing returns, 8k on 32 inch is just numbers for numbers sake

[f001]

I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I use a 32” 4k 144hz monitor at 100% scaling just fine. I’d loooove to replace it with an 8k monitor with similar refresh rate to run at 200% scaling and keep the same amount of workspace I have now