ips 4k is amazing for video production/productivity but you don't need the hz
if you are gaming you'd want the hz and preferably variable frames
I have never used curved but it seems like something you'd either like or hate when you try it.
Why does my galaxy s4 have 400+ ppi (pixel per inch) while most dell ultrasharps average at 100ppi?.
curved if you want to be cucked harder on aspect ratios than the industry cucked us on 16:9 over 8:5 with almost no non-widescreen monitors available (yet many, MANY websites only still scaling to 4:3 aspect ratios using the extra widescreen space to run massive banner ads, a trend that will likely continue due to mobile phones)
144hz (or 120hz at least) is noticeably smoother in just about everything other than film/tv, however enjoy being cucked on buying top tier gpus to play non-source games on anything but extremely low
4k is, always was, always will be, primarily useful for multitasking or media editing on larger (>27") monitors, games won't be playable on 4k for a few hardware generations and it will likely be a niche resolution for 5+ years, look at how slowly 1440p was adopted and it's just *now* getting decent single card performance
g/freesync is of course the penultimate solution to tearing, but enjoy getting cucked on nvidia hardware tax or being forced to buy amd hardware (and missing out ULMB) because nvidia are happy to ignore that freesync is a vesa standard and not support it
ips is great for viewing angles but has a lot of problems (much like tn), you get what you pay for and good ips isn't cheap
given the OS doesn't blow at scaling, yes it would be much crisper
also 4K is extremely useful for graphic design if you have the scaling set at 100%
144hz is good for gaming, obviously
Curved panels seem to be a preference thing, I don't really see it being worth the added cost at all
Right now 1440p at high framerate is hard to drive, you'd need two flagship cards to actually get 120 frames avg on new games. Forget about 4K unless you have no standards for framerate. The good thing about 4K is that it scales evenly to 1080p, so a 27" 4K 144Hz monitor would be a good option if they existed. In my experience, panel type is incredibly important for gaming immersion. VA is obviously the best because you get accurate colors and awesome contrast ratios. IPS is okay because you get accurate colors, but also IPS glow and a low perceived contrast. The new 8-bit TN panels are actually quite good. Pretty good color accuracy, great response times, better perceived contrast ratio than IPS imo. TN viewing angles aren't also aren't as bad as they used to be.
>muh response time
>ppi is different from resolution
Probably 144hz, 4k second, and curved last. 4k wont be utilized by many game developers until mid tier gpu's can handle the resolution. Currently a card like a r9 390 or a 970 are no where close to being able to handle all games in 4k at ultra . Give it another 2-4 years until then unless you wanna future proof.
My general recomendations have always been to get a CRT if you only game, watch movies, and shitpost on 4chan. Get a 4k ips if you do photo editing, programming, and general work. Get a VA if you don't care about accuracy just want pictures to look super pretty.
Curved is only worth it when you have 40"+ screens.
It's unformatted that they haven't gotten to curved in two dimensions yet do tall monitors curve down at you. Would be God send.
Increase resolution, you increase ppi.
Keep the same resolution but shrink the monitor, you increase ppi.
Therefor ppi is the same thing as resolution
The only way to increase it is to increase resolution or decrease screen size
I'd consider going for 144hz if games weren't optimized like shit half of the time.
what use are 144hz if games can't utilize the power of your GPU properly and drop framerates all the time?
Yes Goyim, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need THREE different screens now!
If you want to have the optimal "Experience"... hehehe... you will need two of each, nobody goes single screened anymore! It's dual screen or nothing, goyim
So you need to buy...
2x 144hz screens
2x 4k screens
2x curved screens
For MAXIMUM smoothness during gaming, use the 144hz screens, for MAXIMUM video editing, simply switch to your 4k screens! And CURVED for when you REALLY wanna get immersed!
ONE SCREEN JUST ISNT GOOD ENOUGH ANYMORE, YOU NEED ALL THESE
Frame rates to make a 144hz monitor worth it don't exist with current hardware unless you're on a shitty low resolution or playing games with shitty indie game graphics. As soon as you drop to lower frame rates it becomes pointless.
Higher resolutions are always effective on the other hand regardless of fps (which will take a hit the higher you go) but modern hardware can render it at decent payable rates most of the time.
Resolution > meme refresh rates > rest of the meme features.
4k for improved work flow
144Hz for gaymin
Curved is just a silly gimmick
>that word doesnt mean what you think it means, faggot
I blame sleep deprivation, but duly noted
>A number of these don't even exist in combination either, so on top of it, it's one or the other. For instance, I don't think there's a single 21:9 120hz+ monitor.
I'd personally go with a decent tn 1440p/144hz/g/freesync monitor for gaymen with a 4k ips (with accurate colour reproduction, no backlight or bleed issues) for media editing and non-gaming media/work in general
greater than 60hz 4k is a very long way off unless you're willing to 3-4 way sli titans, so RIP that dream
>games won't be playable on 4k
They're playable right now on my 290X CF and these cards came out in 2013. Granted, I can't go full retard and max out absolutely everything and expect to get 60FPS in any game whatsoever, but it's generally High/Very High settings. You could probably get that sort of performance on a single OC'd 980Ti. Not ideal yet, but pretty good for cards that came out in 2013.
ppi is literally the ratio between the resolution and screen size
ppi = amount of pixels ÷ screen size = points (pixels) per inch
tbqh senpai it's pretty simple
didn't actually answer the question.
finally. Someone who grasped the intent of the question. But seems biased.
well, do you want your shit to look like more the top or bottom of this example?
I usually prioritize whether it has an Apple logo first. Then, whichever macworld says is the best.
Is 1440p a meme or it is actually worth upgrading to?
depends on the screen size and what you're doing. For everyday browsing and coding, go for as much resolution as possible. For using programs that can DPI scale, likewise.
Otherwise, 1440p is only good at a size that enables it to be a standard dpi.
Eh, 120hz is nice, because it eliminates some judder from having standard intervals but, I'm not sure people would notice. Maybe, "gamers" since framerate sensitivity or something.
Funny that most people ITT are ignoring 1440p which is quite literally the only sensible resolution in the year of the lord 2016. 4k suffers from scaling problems and lack of content, while 1440p is just enough to make things not blurry and give you an important bit of extra viable space for viewing windows side-by-side.
144hz is also very good if you happen to play games, and there's plenty of 1440p 144hz monitors
>They're playable right now
while I meant to say at 60hz, if you want to take that as back-pedalling or moving the goal posts I completely understand, but I'd at least like to explain my reasoning as to why I said 4k wasn't playable
>Granted, I can't go full retard and max out absolutely everything and expect to get 60FPS in any game whatsoever, but it's generally High/Very High settings.
that's the crux of the issue really, *some* games will do 4k approaching 60fps on a single card, but only if the card is optimised for the game and you're playing on lower settings - have fun playing nvidia optimised games on amd at 4k for instance
a single titan x/r9 fury x will do margionally well across the board but absolutely do not expect 60fps even on medium settings, a single OC 980 ti/OC r9 290x/390x will typically do well on respective nvidia/amd optimised games, but be shit on otherwise, and crossfire/sli doesn't fare much better as neither sli titan x's or r9 fury/x's will push 60fps in games consistently at high (or some games at medium)
it will take at least another hardware generation for the enthusiast cards to be consistent across the board for 60fps, and probably another generation for single card performance to come to acceptable levels for the consumer market, with crossfire/sli being the only exception to the rule but not without its downsides
>buy 4k monitor
>have windowed game at 1080p in one corner
>webbrowser in other two
>misc stuff in last corner
I was going to attach two additional 1080p monitors but I don't think I need them
>Currently the best for any person is that 1440p NEC IPS 4ms monitor for only 140 bucks, can't beat that.
Is the U2715H good too?
Amazon has it for $440
depends on the size
IPS/VA or equivalent. All TN is trash
60hz is fine, but in TWENTY SIXTEEN it should at lease have freesync if it's not 120hz+
1080p or 4k
4k or ultrawide 3440x1440p
why not 4k on the 28 inch screen? because you only get 1080p screen real estate + sharper text.
why not 1440p on the 24/5" because things would be uncomfortably small if you sit even 2 feet away from it so you'd end up losing screen real estate for scaling as well
can anyone tell me how 4k video scales on 1440p monitors?
I agree with you, yet I wouldn't mind at least 1440p for ''24,
PPI is just to low, as long as we need to use even MSAAx2 on native resolution, pixel density must go up, Anti Aliasing must finally become part of history, its worst performance eater=image enhance ratio on whole
GPU gadgetry spectrum.
Now, 144hz is nice to have but its not essential and curved monitors would have sense if they would go all the way around one person, and for that VR is much better and cheaper way.
So, Resolution(not necessary 4K but PPI should be much denser ), then hz(would help with VR) and Curved is a dead end technology (i see use in small tablets or phablets where you could roll your screen and put it in a pocket as pen but as tv or monitor substitute, not)
4k is about productivity not gaming, you'd want to buy one thats at least 32" or more so that you can replace 4 1080p displays
Although some games like CiV are going to be amazing at 4k.
Yes, it's true that aliasing isn't much of an issue and AA can generally be disabled. I want to point out that this is rather a consequence of the high DPI for the viewing distance though, not of the resolution in and of itself. 4K on a huge screen would still need AA, but on my 27" monitor it's not really necessary and will not make a large difference.
I do play at 60FPS though, as I've said however not with maxed settings in all games. AA in general is disabled (especially expensive MSAA) because it's unnecessary and some games aren't quite maxed out, but still in the high/very high region.
The amazing sharpness of the image is well worth dropping a few settings that kill frame rate but otherwise make very little difference. I definitely want an upgrade though, my 290Xs are getting shit support from AMD, so I'm waiting for whatever cards come out next. I'll get 1 or 2 of those depending on how fast they are.
You'll only get the super-crisp image if you're actually running at 4K. Running 1440p looks OK but slightly more fuzzy/blurry than a native 1440p monitor (I have both to compare). 1080p at 27" is too low for me, but the scaling should be OK. If you're going to be running games at 1080p on a 4K screen though, I recommend not getting a 4K screen in the first place.
Also, this is about games, things like 1080p movies show no visible difference between 4K or 1440p at 27".
I don't know much about monitors but I hear dell is gud.
How's about that response time though, 8ms. The NEC only had about 4 and I don't know if that's a real difference.
Are people really as blind as this thread seems to imply?
~100dpi monitors are disgusting unless you're sitting across the room. I can easily count the individual pixels at regular viewing distance. I'm using a 145dpi one now, and it's barely tolerable (the pixels are still rather obvious).
Just compare a good phone (300dpi+) showing the same font size. 100dpi is a fucking joke which stayed with us too much due to the desktop OSes sucking.
Then again, I saw some video where they asked people if they could tell the difference and most couldn't. Same thing with 30 (!) vs 60 Hz. Oh well.
>About to upgrade TV to 42" 4k unit.
>Has 200x000mm vesa mounting.
>TV weighs 22 LBS.
>Want to mount to desk on moving arm.
What are my options? I'm only seeing stupid wall mounts.. This TV is light enough to mount to my desk.
If you get a 144hz monitor are you needing to play at 144fps to make it look decent just like you need to get 60fps on a 60hz display?
Also every card I've ever owned has had coil whine above 120fps. Would be shit if you had to heard that at all times.
Why aren't we talking about that /hdr/ yet. Seems like it's coming:
I'm shocked there hasn't been a "144hz doesn't matter it's just a placebo, human eye cant see past x frames" type post ITT. That's real common, and I can never tell whether the individual posting it is a legitimate retard or blind.
What do you guys think about this?
Excluding phones because of battery life, I can't see how you couldn't want higher resolution on every monitor, no matter the size. We haven't reached a ceiling yet.
Refresh rates over 60hz are hardly noticeable with video games and even at 1080p it's incredibly hard to get past 60fps anyway.
Curved is a gimmick, but whatever.
4k is only wroth getting with a big screen. Gaming on a high PPI display has some real benefits, but they're not THAT noticeable.
The first things you should be looking at is the picture quality, input lag and pixel response time. The rest really doesn't matter at all.
what's the best not ips 1080p panel that has:
- no gsync shit
- 144hz would be okay but not necessary
- solid height and tilt stand
- not a hunk of shit
- at least hdmi
- good color (for as good as you can get with tn)
before you say anything i already tried a dell ultrasharp ips panel and the glow was horrendous.
You either had a bad panel or didn't read reviews, it's also an issue more prevalent on older IPS displays as was ghosting, newer ones have no issues and are infinitely better than TN displays
Otherwise this is the display you should get
but if you must avoid IPS for whatever reason, then 144hz TN free-sync is the only other option
You could also buy an IPS 1440p display for the price of the 144hz display
and you're better off paying the extra for free-sync as it's only $20-30 more for way smoother gameplay if you have a newer AMD card, or if Nvidia decides to care about freedom in the future which they will when G-sync dies
$230 for non free-sync 1080p 144hz
>You either had a bad panel
that very well could have been a possibility. it was a new u2414h that i got in december and the lower right corner was the worst. in dark scenes in tv shows or games it was washed out with this faint bluish haze that drove me absolutely nuts.
>I'm shocked there hasn't been a "144hz doesn't matter it's just a placebo, human eye cant see past x frames" type post ITT.
It genuinely does not matter
Most people don't play DDR, Guitar Hero, Osu or any other useless time-waster that requires frame-precision.
>A lot of people play FPS and fast paced games, so it actually does matter.
It genuinely does not.
Most people have friends with similar skill and can play competitively with 6ms-8ms response times just fine. Again, you only care about 144hz if you're a time-wasting nerd that plays in leagues (0.000001% of the earth population).
A 1440p 144hz display is fairly pricey at $600+ and then you also need at least a 980 Ti or Fury to actually push that many frames on any reasonably demanding game without having to drop quality settings.
It's a fairly big investment that most people aren't willing to make. Even if you step down to 1080p 144hz, you still need a beefy card.
For competitive play, there is more to it than frames per second, using a 144hz display isn't going to magically make you better than a pro gamer on a 60hz panel.
Frame time is not input lag and having a high refresh rate is in no way a guarantee (or even reliable indicator) of input lag. Both may be found in the same monitor, but one does not guarantee the other in any way.
it's not about what you NEED or what makes you play better but more about what improves the experience for you. does it make things look smoother? will you enjoy it?
let's face it, this whole board is just a bunch of manchilds talking about their toys.
>Gaming on 60hz is garbage once you look at the real deal
But gaming at 1080p is also garbage once you look at the real deal at 4K.
Basically, wait for 4K 120+Hz DP1.3 monitors, then get wallet raped to buy one along with the graphics card(s) required.
Even then you have to deal with the "smearing" aspect of LCD panels, it may make motion appear smoother, but your eyes can't see the individual 144hz frames because of this. ULMB, which strobes the backlight, will make motion appear far more crisp even at lower refresh rates and is an actual aid for reactive gameplay, as it's faster for your brain to process.
>(Measurements in ms)
>Total Display Lag (SMTT 2) 17.0
>Estimated Signal Processing Lag 13.75
>Total Display Lag (SMTT 2) 4.05
>Estimated Signal Processing Lag 0.8
ok. But that's not exactly a reason to wait. Unless you're so destitute that it will take more than 5 years for you to save up a couple hundred bucks, there's no reason to not buy a 1080 144hz monitor now and then a 4k 120hz+ monitor a few years down the road.
There is a reason not to buy 1080p. Because it looks like shit. You may want to buy 4K 60Hz instead because it's much better looking. You have to pick your poison and either get improved refresh rate or improved image quality, you can't have both.
Yeah, that's true.
My 1600p monitor that I got yesterday turns on, stays black for a sec, turns off. What's happening? I just blew $600 on a monitor with a no-refunds policy and it doesn't even turn on...
Curved is stupid.
4k is supid fo most stuff. Having a 4k display doesnt matter if the content you're consuming is in 1080p or your GPU can't handle 4k.
144hz is stupid for most people for the same reasons as 4k. Content is t in 144hz and most people cant drive the games they're playing at 144hz. Only CSGO players should care.
What really matters to everyone and what you left out is color reproduction/accuracy. TN vs IPS vs OLED. That matters to everyone with eyes, and should be priority #1 unless you've got a weird usage case like I've already mentioned.
Yeah no shit. Are you going to be watching 4 simultaneous netflix streams? Most people have absolutely no need for a 4k display and what they do wouldnt even look better due to content/gpu limitations. Did you read?
>try different ports/cables
I'll buy some new ones, see what happens
>if that doesn't work try DDU
It doesn't even show POST, so it's not a driver-related issue.
>if that doesn't work try another graphics card
I'll try and get it to work on my brother's PC, thanks for the advice, /g/oys
>before getting cables, try different ports first on both video card and monitor, you have to have at least two hdmi ones for sure
It's only got both one DVI cable on both the monitor and GPU, I've even tried it on the motherboard's DVI, still didn't work.
>does it make things look smoother?
It doesn't though. You're much better off getting gsync instead. The only worthwhile function of 120hz monitors is that 24, 30 and 60fps videos all play without judder or interpolation.
oh, can you help me? what is better 90-120 or 144hz for anti judder? for 24/30fps videos
i can't confirm it for myself because if i change it too often any refresh rate looks juddery to me
Which of these divides evenly?
Freesync then, but let's be honest, AMD isn't that great anymore.
You can't call me a shill either. Pic related.
depends on the os mostly imo... osx does a great job giving the "retina effect" which is basically downscaled resolution with high dpis to have a more pleasant view when working (I use linux win osx so dont bother tipping ur fedora)
>Freesync then, but let's be honest, AMD isn't that great anymore.
>You can't call me a shill either. Pic related.
AMD currently isn't great in terms of CPUs, but yeah they're still great when talking about GPUs.
>osx does a great job giving the "retina effect" which is basically downscaled resolution with high dpis
That's only if you choose something other than "best for retina". By default everything on the screen is rendered with 4 times as many pixels, not downscaled or upscaled at all. If you enabled retina mode on a normal screen things would just be 4 times lager.
I'm not a gamer, but why the fuck not?
Are there any benefits to 4k when the videos themselves look like shit? We need better sensor tech on the cameras instead of more megapixels.
Curved is a gimmick.
>Big (the taller aspect ratio the better)
>Produces accurate colours without any shitty enhancements etc
Monitor for 2D work in Photoshop and alike
Relevant to the thread.
This is my 4th MG279Q, no dead pixels, but quite a bit of glow and 4 light bleed spots on the top of the screen (see pic). It's still the best overall of all 4 I got.
Should I continue to RMA indefinitely? Has anyone had a perfect one?
I don't think I can get a refund, only a credit.
>have you used any of the listed
I use a Vizio 43" TV as my monitor
I have it set to 3840 x 2160 running at 59 hz. I game just fine on it, although it is so fuckhueg that i have to run in wondowed mode or i feel like i'm gonna fall in.
for my two cents, screen resolution for general purpose home use means that the dot pitch on the screen should be fine enough you can't see it.
flat, 4k, 59hz, overlord here, and i love it. it is so huge i lose the edges of the screen at 'normal' desktop distances
mine doesn't look like that, it has glow sure my dell 2311h had it worse, lower right bleed is with most panels(thank god i don't have it, i was VERY lucky)
settings i use
>racing mod (if you hate how text looks set it to rts/rpg and fiddle with sharpness a bit)
with these setting i don't even notice glow most of the time
>Relevant to the thread.
jesus christ, that's utter shit
return that piece of shit and get a Vizio 43" TV with the 60hz HDMI port
I got mine from Best Buy as an impulse buy, and holy shit, it's awesome.
is it perfect? fuck no, but it was cheap as shit at 600 bucks and FUCKHUEG, and it's got about ten times the picture quality of that piece of shit
crt is the only display technology that isnt a meme
lcd was considered consumerist bullshit tech memes just like all these new variants of it but you newfags are too young to remember
all because LCDs are flat
that is the ONLY reason
all the 'advantages' of IPS are literally the most miniscule shit you could come up with whereas crts have advantages that ACTUALLY MATTER
it's like you never wanted life like looking pictures to begin. just go back playing at your white black crt anon.
also the video capturing doesn't relate with seeing it in person, it just gives you the idea of how much contrasts broadens the physical dynamic contrast ratio
Why tf do you need scaling?
>mfw I use a 27in 4k @native
no. it is one of the reasons why tv's are so prone to reflectiveness, because they can't compete with in real life brightness.
the new hdr standard is about making tv's capable to deliver 10.000 nits. this means your eye is perceiving a more accurate picture, more dynamic pictures with more bright spots and more dark spots perceived where on a normal tv, everything has about the same brightness and dark pits appear grey and the sunlight appears like a fog instead of a glare.
the reason the right hdr picture seems unreasonable bright, is because the camera is unable to reproduce the picture since it's not optimised task and your monitor isn't able to reproduce the brigthness aswell, but your eyes actually do and you will see a much clearer, natural picture, like looking out of the window.
You might want resolution or if you are game dev you might want hzs and resolution
You might want to think how you want to take enjoyment. Mostly films? Size and resolution etc.
its not easy
I recently acquired an old iMac G3 and I was happy to find that it does 640x480 at 117 Hz. almost twice as fast as the 60 Hz monitors and phone panels Im used to. Just moving the mouse around felt noticeably smoother. What games / other media can I run on it to take advantage of such a high refresh rate?
this is why i went back to tn. so god damn frustrating playing panel lottery in hopes you dont get one with such awful glow, especially when you already paying a lot for a model like that one.
144 is nice but its utterly wasted on someone who doesn't play fast/competitive games all day and is now mostly an excuse to price gouge, that's of course if you can get your games past 100-120fps in the first place. loyalty should be to panel quality, warranty, color, response, a good stand, and of course your wallet.
why would you want a 4k 34" monitor?
get a 24" 4k monitor. it's double the pixel density of a 1080p monitor, so you can scale text and everything else cleanly to 2x (assuming your operating system isn't trash, and knows how to scale in the first place)
I would recommend 144hz over 4k and curved for now, it makes everything look more smooth and 4k just doesn't feel necessary yet.
If anything, just get a 1440p 144hz monitor with g-sync or freesync if your system can handle it. I have that for my monitor and it's astoundingly good.
Either you're talking about putting the monitor too far back, or you're talking about having the monitor at normal distance, so you get to look off into the distant corners to see the entire field of view presented to you.
you can still use a 4k monitor at 4k if you want, but scaling to "effectively" 1080p means sharper text. if you think "real estate" is more important than eye strain over the period of a day's worth of reading, coding, etc... then you haven't thought it through very much.
There are no single GPUs that can drive a 4K monitor decently in gaming.
144hz will not make your CS score any better, G-sync/Freesync is what matters.
Unless you have more than 1 monitor, curved isn't worth it unless you go 34"
check the list on logical increments (though ive heard its getting outdated) and if you buy an ips panel beware of glow and be prepared to play the panel lottery. buy from somewhere that has a good return policy.