michaelmrose
@michaelmrose@lemmy.world
- Comment on China solves 'century-old problem' with new analog chip that is 1,000 times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs 4 days ago:
You mean like all computers
- Comment on China solves 'century-old problem' with new analog chip that is 1,000 times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs 4 days ago:
Its funny that most posts including the one our are responding to are fully incoherent by people who not only didn’t read the article but are incapable of doing so
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
I think the point is that you don’t have to pay ANYTHING per month to play apps or games you already fully paid for online whereas not paying for playstation online means you lose that entire aspect of your own device whereas with a ps5 if you stop paying sony you can no longer even use netflix despite paying netflix your isp and sony for their hardware. They use the fact that they control your device to effectively blackmail you by making third party apps contingent on paying their blackmail.
- Comment on She is making a GREAT point 1 week ago:
So in this imaginary never ending orgy it would still make sense for the women to take the pill because if 99% of the men do the other 1% will somehow make every single women pregnant.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Would you like a meme with 8 or less characters and a 2nd grade reading level to calm you down?
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
I don’t think its a non-argument. If we are talking about PC gaming as a budget option the fact that you CAN have JUST a singular device isn’t obviated by the fact that some people have a separate general purpose PC any more than it is because some people still a $5000 GPU on a $15000 device.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Most recently I got a nice radeon 6600 with 8GB VRAM for 100 I guess.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Using a TV for general computing would be fairly broken due to font rendering and DPI. Comparing used anything is fraught because its filled with caveats and isn’t repeatable.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
I didn’t say they didn’t watch netflix or have internet.
PC gamers don’t pay a monthly fee connected to their gaming.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
350€ = 405 USD once you add in a mouse keyboard and monitor you are over 500 the figure I used. Decrease your figures further and it gets shittier fast.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Only a tiny minority of PC gamers pay monthly for anything.
You can’t upgrade the PS5, and the sale price of your 5-year-old unit is like $100.
Free games aren’t included in the 10 per month.
The cost of 18 per month to also have old games costs 1300 over 6 years.
The PC you can get for $200 will be awful to use or die within 3 years or both. It will be ridiculous to repair, so you will buy another 200 special hating the shit you bought both times.
Basically at the root a PC and a console are both good for about 6 years but the 700-1300 you pay for online is going to dwarf the buy up from acceptable PC to gaming PC+ hardware.
Cheap PC are the value option expensive pc are the quality option.
Consoles are kind of in between.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Let’s compare a 6 year price without games.
PC gaming
800 gaming PC 200 mid cycle update to GPU 3-5 years in
PS5
500 non-gaming PC because your ps5 isn’t a useful alternative 500 ps5 650 ps5 pro 4 years in 720 for PlayStation online basic at 10 per month
1000 vs 2370
Laughing at console gamers spending more than the cost of a basic computer on the privilege of using it online via your own internet which you also pay for
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Software and driver issues like clicking update? Waiting for a reboot?
The same one year warranty that your PC has?
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
That isn’t something normal people buy you can spend any amount on anything but its really fringe rich people shit.
- Comment on PC Master Race 1 week ago:
Yep so many amazing games for $5-20 on steam sales often not even that old
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
unless ash is curvy?
ooh burn
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Because if you draw things with very few pixels it tends to look blocky and unrealistic because the universe like your mom has curves. The more pixels you use the more realistically we can represent both real and virtual pictures. Cambridge says people can see up to 94 PPD. This means that 4K monitors on your desk are trivially within the range that people can distinguish but its dubious that 8K TVs are useful. The more you know!
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
If you can’t tell the difference your corrective eyewear may be insufficiently corrective. The people who can see can tell the difference between FHD and 4K
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
The study says that users can appreciate resolutions up to 94 pixels per degree. A FHD 27" monitor at 18" distance is 29 PPD. At 4K its 58. Users can appreciate the fact that a 4K display is much better.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Basically every modern OS in existence including Linux supports proper scaling for higher resolution displays. You don’t just have to make the text bigger. Proper scaling is implemented. Integer scaling is best supported.
linux-hardware.org/?view=mon_resolution&colors=10
Let’s look at desktop users
4k = 13.7% of Linux users QHD = 12.4% 3440x1440 = 3.9%
30% of desktop users are using > FHD
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
On the internet where you go by “Moonpoo” you in fact have no credentials because nobody can verify anything.
It is in a way hilarious to imagine that IBM is so broken that its employees can’t figure out how to make fonts not tiny on 4K. You must have been a manager.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Credentials like “made my living in hardware” are both non-specific and non-verifiable they mean nothing. I have 2 27" 4K 60hz monitors because last gen hardware just isn’t that expensive.
When not gaming this looks nicer than 2x FHD and I run it in either 1080 or 4K depending on the game depending on what settings need to be set to get a consistent 60 FPS. My hardware isn’t poverty level nor is it expensive. An entry level Mac would be more expensive.
Leaving aside gaming isn’t it obvious to you that 4K looks nicer in desktop use or are your eyes literally failing?
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
The article title is basically a lie intended to generate clicks by pretentious people far stupider than the people who did the actual research which is why the non morons who did the research called it “Resolution limit of the eye — how many pixels can we see?”
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Your own budget is by definition your business but you can run some stuff in 4K on my desktop I bought in 2020 for $700. Not worth it “TO ME” requires no defense but it is pretty silly to say its a money sink with no reward when we are talking about PC gaming. You know where you game on a 24-32" screen 1 foot or 2 from your face. The study clearly says its not.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
The study doesn’t actually claim that. The actual title is “Study Boldly Claims 4K And 8K TVs Aren’t Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes, But Is It True?” As with all articles that ask a question the answer is either NO or its complicated.
It says that we can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree or about 1080p on a 50" screen at 10 feet away.
This means that on a 27" monitor 18" away 1080p: 29 4K: 58 8K: 116
A 40" TV 8 feet away/50" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 93
A 70" TV 8 feet away
1080p: 54 4K: 109 8K: 218
A 90" TV 10 feet away
1080p: 53 4K: 106 8K: 212
Conclusion: 1080p is good for small TVs relatively far away. 4K makes sense for reasonably large or close TV Up to 8K makes sense for monitors.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Are you talking about 8K or 4K? Not only can you game in 4K with a cheap card depending on the game the desktop and everything else just looks nicer.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Basically you are in a study which calculated for you what people ought to be able to see and you insisted on redoing the calculation yourself incorrectly. The study says people factually can distinguish up to 94 pixels per degree. a 70" screen at a meter away is 24 PPD. You yourself could have easily eye balled 2 screens and come to the correct conclusion but are instead asserting nonsense.
Did you notice that FHD tvs larger than 40" literally don’t exist in stores? If people literally couldn’t see more than 24 PPD than at the more typical 10 feet viewing distance a 70" screen at 640x480 would be just as good as a 70" 1080p was at a meter away! For a 50" you could go down to 320x480! Still 24PPD
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Old people with bad eyesight watching their 50" 12 feet away in their big ass living room vs young people with good eyesight 5 feet away from their 65-70" playing a game might have inherently differing opinions.
12’ 50" FHD = 112 PPD
5’ 70" FHD = 36 PPD
The study basically says that FHD is about as good as you can get 10 feet away on a 50" screen all other things being equal. That doesn’t seem that unreasonable
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
They don’t need to this study does it for them. 94 pixels per degree is the top end of perceptible. On a 50" screen 10 feet away 1080p = 93. Closer than 10 feet or larger than 50 or some combination of both and its better to have a higher resolution.
For millennials home ownership has crashed but TVs are cheaper and cheaper. For the half of motherfuckers rocking their 70" tv that cost $600 in their shitty apartment where they sit 8 feet from the TV its pretty obvious 4K is better at 109 v 54
Also although the article points out that there are other features that matter as much as resolution these aren’t uncorrelated factors. 1080p TVs of any size in 2025 are normally bargain basement garbage that suck on all fronts.
- Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes 1 week ago:
Do you wear glasses?