Im looking to buy a new monitor. Is 4K for PC monitors stupid?

>>52533542
if you have a titan go for it

just get a 1440p monitor

OP here

>>52533569
What is a titan? I am mostly a programmer. I do not game on PC. Just watch videos on Netflix or YouTube

>4k tvs and monitors

Is there even anything capable of 4K?
>cable boxes can't
>consoles can't
>HDMI apparently can't
what's left? Just computers?
And what can do 4K? Just games?

Can youtube do 4K? It should, for ebin gaming videos.

What do you do? What do you want 4k for?

Windows scaling is still ass. So it's not good for general use

Gaming at 4k requires expensive SLI setups

Very little streaming content is available at 4k, and the bitrate is still ass and will be for the foreseeable future

I'm not telling you not to get 4k. Just keep this in mind

OP here

>>52533634
Actually I work most of the time on Ubuntu...

>>52533624
Youtube can sort of do 4k, as can Netflix.

>>52533624
Youtube can indeed do 4K streaming. Not that it matters because youtube will compress the video to hell and back

I'm looking for a "gaming monitor" (ie, very very low input delay, and response time of like 1ms, maybe 5 I guess) under $100.

I don't care how big it is, and the resolution should be at least 720p. Also it takes HDMI.

I'd look myself but they don't advertise input delay, just response time.

Is there a website I can plug all these things into?

I don't care if the colors are slightly wrong because I'm partially color blind anyway.

>>52533665
If you use Ubuntu then a 4k monitor will be great for you! Most if not all GTK and QT programs scale fine when I use them in hidpi mode. Icons and fonts look very sharp.

But I would wait for a 4k monitor with display port 1.3 to come out. That's what I'm still waiting for.

i (used to) post 4k (UHD 3840 x 2160 60fps) to youtube, but recently a bunch of subscribers were asking me to render in 4k again for my repair and DIY kit build build logs, gaming however the concensus is split between 1080 60FPS and 720 30FPS, because most of my subscribers don't have 4k, or don't have enough bandwidth to watch it even if they had a monitor that could.

>>52533736
I am not sure what "port 1.3" is. What is it good for? How can I know if my graphic card supports it?

>>52533624
its more for the workspace i think

>>52533608
Titan video card. 4k goes rough on your video card.

>>52533732
Pcpartpicker

>>52533608
>What is a titan? I am mostly a programmer
I bet you do html and css

>>52533827
The biggest feature display port 1.3 has is that you can run a 4k monitor at 120hz. I would be happy with 4k on atleast 75 or 86hz.

More is explained here

http://www.vesa.org/faqs/#DisplayPort 1.3 FAQs

But you will have to buy a new GPU with DP 1.3 to be able to take advantage of it. I think they are coming out soon.

>>52533667
Yeah, but they both have shit quality. Their 4K is so compressed that it's barely acceptable for 1080p.

>>52534054
Front-end, of course. But also Ruby on Rails and some other PHP frameworks like Symfony and Laravel.

>>52533801
>most of my subscribers don't have 4k
That doesn't really matter. I have a 1440p monitor and I watch Youtube at 4K when it's available. It's less compressed.

>>52533542
are you gonna game?

if so skip 4k unless you also have the hardware to support it. If you aren't gonna game, then go 4k if you can afford it. most consumer cards today can handle general use at 4k, but anything graphically intense just shits the bed

File: screenshot001.jpg (314KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1280x1024px

>>52533608
Here is my mediacenter specs for an example.
I use it for Youtube/Dailymotion/Netflix/Genesis

:~$ inxi
CPU~Dual core Intel Atom CPU D2550 (-HT-MCP-) clocked at 1862.417 Mhz Kernel~3.13.0-76-generic x86_64 Up~5:58 Mem~509.3/3928.5MB HDD~1000.2GB(2.4% used) Procs~149 Client~Shell inxi~1.9.17

they have a 4k tv at my works lounge/lunch area, looks pretty fucking nice

I could run 4k if I wanted to I'm just too cheap, maybe when it gets a little cheaper

>>52533542
my work got me one. i bumped it down to 2k so it wouldn't strain my eyes 7 hrs a day. UI elements get small, man

>>52533542
If you want it for gaming stop now.

If you want it for work. Get a T221 its amazing.

File: the-martian-4k-uhd-cover-61.jpg (862KB, 1592x1991px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1592x1991px

>>52533624
>>52533634
MATT DAMON

File: 1453333426606.jpg (442KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1280x720px

>>52533542
that picture is so bullshit
its exaggerated by about 20%

>>52533634
>have one nvidia 970
>have one 4k monitor
>have played games at 4k

It's prettier, but not worth it, IMO. Windows and 4k works better than Linux and 4k (both with a 1080p dual monitor setup, by the way).

1440p is currently the sweetspot. 4k is not there yet

>>52533542
>4k
>3840x2160

Pick one

File: extremely_angry_todd.jpg (343KB, 1956x2068px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1956x2068px

>>52534294
I was about to say this lol

>>52533542
I have a 40" VA 4k on a r9 390 and it's great.

My only complaint is that the monitor I bought is titled back a bit, but that is fixable once i get a mount for it.

I also have one of my old 1080 screens off to the side still, but honestly the 4k screen is big enough for most things.

I agree with the anons who say 1440p. 2560x1600 is good too. 4K is fine if you get a good deal on it, but honestly I find the extra DPI unnecessary at 28" and it's annoying to have to run it at a non-native resolution in order to play your games at decent FPS.

If you can output 4k and you aren't gaming but just need the workspace I should go for it

>>52533542
Everything is sharp as fuck, fonts look especially beautiful, so working with text is a lot nicer. Depending on the screen size (and how small you want text to be) you will either get much better rendering or simply a larger workspace.

Games benefit greatly as well, if you've got the hardware to run them.

There's not much video content that takes advantage of 4K, so if you want to get one for video, don't. It's only worth it for actual computer use, not media consumption at this point.

>>52534066
You'll be paying out the ass for a 120Hz 4K display when they come out in the first place and you'll need a video card upgrade too, since nothing supports DP1.3 right now. If you want to play games at 4K 120FPS, you'll be paying even more and will probably need Arctic Islands/Pascal high-end dual-GPU setups.

any producers/audio engineers work on 4k monitor? worth it or just stick with something else for now?

>>52533542
1440p until you hit 55"+ consider 4K.
You ever stuck your face up to a 80 inch 4K panel? You can't even see individual pixels then.

>>52534616
actually one already came out and it was $5000

>>52533542
Yes it is stupid.
Don't get me wrong I love mine, but it's stupid.

>>52534771
I wasn't aware of that, a bit of searching didn't reveal anything. How are they pulling it off? Is it MST shit? Fuck that crap.

>>52533634
>GTX 980
>use DSR to play at 4k
>consistent 60 fps

>>52534929
I saw anon's mythical monitor it too. It's OLED. I believe it's Dell.

>>52535113
I was pretty sure Dell just showed off their 4K OLED screen, I don't think it's out, you can't actually buy one. Also the refresh rate has not been officially announced (though it very well should be 120Hz).

>>52535259
>>52535113
Dells mythical burn in monitor

>>52533624
HDMI 1.3 does it. Every new video card supports it, every recent 4K TV supports it.

>>52533542
If you live in the US don't bother, The telecom monopolies throttled you so bad you will be lucky to stream 240p without buffering.

Thanks again crapitalism!

>>52533542
just get 1440p
4k is only readable if you use scaling or something 34 inches or bigger
and if you have a monitor that big that kinda limits your secondary screen options.

>>52535300
I live in the US and I can stream 1080p videos. Maybe you should upgrade from DSL already.

>>52533886
>workspace

yeah except that you need to scale things up to make things readable


4K will be the next standard video resolution, same way 1080p was.
a high PPI display makes everything look crisp and clean.


I've got a 27 inch 4K display right now
I'm scaling to 150% and things are very readable without any eye strain.
Granted how much you might have to scale will depend on the physical size of your display.

>>52535318
If you have a 40" 4k screen you have the space for practically 3 normal mufti-monitor setup in one.

>>52535358
but what if you are playing a game or watching a video?
doing that not full screen is boring.

>>52535345
>yeah except that you need to scale things up to make things readable

Only if you are using 4k at 13-30" range.

>>52535373
With 40" you can easily have 2 1080p monitors on each side if you really want something on the side of your screens while fullscreening a game or video.

>>52535358
>40 inch screen
>sit far away and details wash out to the point of it being equal to 1080p
>sit close and see all the pixels making it pointless

Are you the same people that like to sit on the bottom row in theatres too ?

File: 4khigh.png (191KB, 1410x2123px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1410x2123px

>>52533542
>>52533624
>>52533634

4k is for production, not consumption

>>52535375
>Only if you are using 4k at 13-30" range.
just how close/far away is your face from the screen ?

>>52535420
That's flat out not true though, you're just being retarded at this point.

a 40" 4k has the same ppi as a 20" 1080p screen and if you actually think you're seeing the pixels at that point you're just lying to yourself or have your eye less than an inch from the screen.


>sit far away and details wash out to the point of it being equal to 1080p

And once again, this is flat out wrong when it comes to "workspace" arguments. Sitting far back doesn't make your resolution smaller, unless you're some retard who sits 6 feet back and then scales to 200%.

>>52535459
I have a 40" and I sit on average just over a foot to two away. No scaling is required at all and the entire screen is clearly visible. I could probably even sit 4feet away and still get by before small fonts start to get unconformable

>>52535434
>4k monitor for editing text

SHIGGDIGGY

File: poorfags weep.jpg (213KB, 2479x1859px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 2479x1859px

>>52533542
If you have the money, yes.

>>52535628
that setup screams 'i hate my life and i want out'

I have the P2415Q, looks nice. Most things on windows look fine save the few things that use bitmaps or whatnot for icons.

Display scaling is still shit pass for now.

>>52535628
>both side monitor's bases are more than half off the table

holy shit what the fuck are you doing

>>52535373
For media I'll generally use a 1080p window, half the screen, or go full screen and sit on my couch. Kodi's remote control feature makes this work quite well.

For games, some games work really well with the IMAX style experience full screen and up close, though it does often take some playing with the perspective settings to make things feel right. For other games Big Picture and the couch are the best option and this is really where a 40" monitor shines.

There are some PC games though that are definitely designed around small screens though and restrict view to a fixed scale to make things 'fair' and the developers of these games basically just need to re-think how they're doing things because a view and ui that works well and looks good on a 24" 1080p display just plain falls apart at 40" 2160p.

Can I buy a 4k TV and hook and Xbox up to it? Will it look stupid as fuck or will it look normal? Honestly don't even know the aspect ratio of 4k. I need a TV and might as well get 4k right?

>>52536050
I'd expect it to look fine. It's still 16:9 and a 4k TV should do the conversion from 1080p fine. I mean, you won't get any advantage compared to 1080p, but it should look fine.

File: slit view.jpg (66KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x600px

>>52535586
Stay small little man

>>52533542

What fucking DVDs are still in 480p?

>>52533587
This anon is correct,
> My s6 edge is 1440p
> My Carbon X1 is 1440p
> My dual monitor set up is 1440p
Shit looks crisp and works well.

>>52536050
It will look better than a 1080p tv or a typical '720p' 1366x768 display because a 2160p screen can actually display a nice crisp 1280x720p image.

1440p 144hz is where it's at

>>52536469
mah nigga

>>52536469
>>52536501
>muh gaymen

>>52535628
You need monitor mounts. Just barely tap one of those monitors by accident and it'll smash against your floor.

If you're a macfag (HYPOTHETICALLY), are any 5k display solutions envisionable aside from going out and buying the new 27" retina iMac?

Will the skylake retina macbook pros that'll probably be released in 2 or 3 months be able to drive any non-apple 5k displays? Is a standalone 5k apple monitor likely before 2017?

asking for a friend.

>>52534054
u nailed it anon

>>52534624
two 1080p screens is best for production, one large one, one small one.

>>52535683
they're all connected in the back....

>>52534014
awesome site.


https://pcpartpicker.com/part/sceptre-monitor-e205w1600
I picked this. Do y'all think the input delay will be good?

>>52536249
All of them.

File: 1453307014913.jpg (29KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x398px

>>52535628
>that giant wire under that TV in the middle monitor


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE