I think you need to try more screens. I thought the 27" 5Ks were perfect — unlike 4K 27" screens, I could no longer discern the pixels.

So why would I need higher res than that? I thought that but I was proven so wrong.

Through some weird work circumstances I got a chance to use the (ludicrously expensive) 6K 32" Apple XDR Pro Display. To my eyes, this looked exactly the same as the LG 27" 5K displays I had been using — and they do indeed have almost the same pixel density.

BUT THEN!!!!!!! I had to switch to Linux for some other work reasons, and ended up with the (old as hell) Dell UP3218K 31.5" 8K display.

For programming work, it is so much better and crisper than the LG 27" UltraFine 5K and the Apple 32" XDR Pro Display.

I cannot SEE the pixels on any of them, but the text looks DRAMATICALLY better on the 8K one. I can comfortably use smaller font sizes, and the regular same-sized text is so much crisper and more comfortable to read on the 8K.

I feel like this 8K display is one of the best computer things I ever got — it's like the display version of going from HDD to SSD — and not getting one years ago is the biggest computing mistake in my 25+ year career.

And I also say this as somebody who just this year got his first prescription for eyeglasses (my vision is deteriorating in middle age, but isn't so bad yet; I wear the glasses like half the time, and the dramatic difference with the high res screen applies with or without glasses).

NOTE: I don't notice any differences at all when viewing photos or videos — it is strictly about viewing text, for doing things like programming or reading email or web pages.

FURTHER NOTE: Although I strongly disagree with your comment here, I upvoted it anyway because I think it is a commonly-held opinion which I myself believed a variant of until my recent lived experience with the weird Dell proof-of-concept monitor, and I don't think it deserved the light-gray dimming. And also because I remember you recommending the metal band Annihilator several years ago on this website, the discography of which I then obtained and enjoyed. :)

40" diagonal seems a bit extreme.

I think my 27" 4k display is perfect. My dad has slightly worse eyes and prefers his 32" 4k display, which I find noticably grainier but perfectly serviceable.

48" 4k is equivalent to having a quad of 24" 1080ps.

Putting a trio of portrait 24" 1080ps gives you 42" of almost 4k (3240x1920 as opposed to 3240x2160).

I don't see whats extreme about this at all, its a better use of area than my trio of 24" 1080ps (in landscape) that I use now.

> Putting a trio of portrait 24" 1080ps gives you 42" of almost 4k (3240x1920 as opposed to 3240x2160).

As opposed to 3840 × 2160, no?

Yup, my bad, typo.

I didn't mean to imply that a 40" diagonal was necessarily excessive (if you have the space, go for it!), I was just disagreeing with the claim that you need a screen that big for 4k. I have a smaller 4k screen, and I think the pixel density is perfectly fine.

It's about pixel density vs efficient use of pixels.

If you have a 48" 4k, then you're running it at 100%/96 dpi, just as if you had a 24" 1080p or a 27" 1440p. Same density, just more pixels.

If I was ultrarich, a 48" 8k would be the best of both worlds. It would also murder game performance, but oh well.

I mean, if that's the density you like, then sure. I think 1080p at 24" looks pretty bad.

I have UI scaling disabled on my 27" 4k display and it looks fine to me.