No they're shit. Think about it you're only getting 2.5MP, that's like 25% more than 1080p. Complete shit and it's common for application functionality/convenience to be limited by 1080 lines of resolution.
2560x1440 is 3.7MP and is the best price/performance value today.
>>52260158 strange, i have a strix 970 and i get a solid 60 with hair works on everything (unless its closeups in cut scenes where it will go to 40 at the least) i wouldnt think my i7 6700k would make much of a difference
>>52260774 Multi-monitor is a 2000s thing - big/high res monitors used to be expensive. I'm happy with a single 1440p or 2560x1600. Takes up most of my useful field of vision, lets me run two of pretty much anything side-by-side and I can alt+tab faster than I can turn my head.
for the price you could get a decent 2560x1440 monitor and not be fucked by the height being to low, the ppi being smaller than necessary or not being able to enjoy proper games support. its even possible to get three 1920x1080 monitors instead and have better productivity all around for the same price.
As it stands, the only worthwhile monitor classes worth getting are 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3440x1440 and 4K.
3440x1440 is okay if its 34" and above, you get a properly sized monitor for productivity and media/gaming and the necessary pixels to support a good ppi which makes it more worthwhile when sacrificing the 16:9 gaming and media support standard.
The main issue with 2560x1080 is that those monitors are way to small unless you have your face right in them, and the pixel count being way to low. There are of course the rare trend breakers like the gaming one Dell released which was 35" in size and featured proper 144hz refresh rate. But that one feels like you were using an old tv screen with the pixel density of a mp3 player instead. And the only game you can take real advantage of while having 21:9 aspect ratio and 144hz is the Battlefield games, and they don't even have that good 21:9 support despite being one of the graphical progressors in the market today.
>>52261649 There are several brands selling large format displays now. Its still rare, but its going to become more common now that its a proven niche market. Right now a 60hz 40" 2160p monitor will run you less than $800 that's already getting into the same kind of money you'd spend for a multi-display setup. Another couple of years and 40" 4k monitors will be common.
>tfw eyeing some cheap 21:9 monitors to replace my setup >conflicted if I should trust /g/ and aim for a new multimonitor setup or say fuck it and go straight for the ultrawide I don't have enough space on my desk to put 2 22" 16:9 monitors, wat do? Should I go for a 27" Ultrawide?
>>52261758 Yeah, I got mine for $700 a while back in a sale, but $750 is more common which is why i said "less than $800". I fully expect the price to drop in the next few years as 4k becomes more common and the hardware required to drive them gets cheaper.
The difference in user experience and workflow efficiency is really second to none. Even for gaming I don't think I've ever had a better display, though some games aren't really built to work on such a large display.
>>52261623 They are getting obsolete once 4K monitors with the same height comes down in price.
We saw the same thing happen to 1680x1050. 16:10 was good because it had the right sizes and pixel density (generally speaking) while 4:3 and 16:9 were still derping around with small sizes and pixelated screen resolutions.
>>52261819 >Should I go for a 27" Ultrawide? absolutely not, those 27" are really small once you see one for your self. go 34" minimum
>>52262112 Its true, at small sizes 16:9 has a major disadvantage in the height of the display, but once you start to go larger the advantage of 16:10 really just evaporates especially with the relative low cost of extremely large 16:9 displays.
Those 34" 1440p ultra-wide displays for instance, you can go to a 39-40" 2160p display for not much more and have a ton of extra vertical space.
>>52262586 The big advantage for an 8k screen is that it can handle 720p, 1080p, 1440p and 2160p with simple integer scaling. So as long as your graphics card and your monitor interface can handle it you shouldn't need to worry about your graphics card melting.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.