If you had a choice of a monitor. Would you go 4k (16:9) or

>>55452268
i got a 4k monitor and then later got a second. everyone that's advocating a 21:9 practically seems to revel in their fedora-ness.

File: 1392343092407.jpg (32KB, 491x404px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 491x404px

>>55452268
M 4k
F curved ultrawide
K ultrawide

File: m9l.jpg (12KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x225px

>ultrawide
>CURVED ultrawide

2560x2048

>>55452322
they are different with curved being significantly more expensive

>>55452268
I'd make sphere that surround me.

File: 3wi.png (570KB, 767x897px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 767x897px

>>55452337
Yes, anon, that's right. Very good.
Why the fuck would any functional human even consider buying either?

640x480 14" CRT

>>55452365
there are people who made it to adulthood never having learned to fight the impulse to buy new toys. they see a 21:9 monitor, or a curved monitor, and they come to /g/ begging for our approval to buy it.

>>55452395
>posted from my 320x240 CRT

>>55452365
what would you buy then? some $100 20" gook tn panel off ebay?

>>55452404
i have some 4k monitors. at 24" they're not some crazy funhouse mirror version of a monitor that i'll get sick of in a year or two, and support for higher density displays is already ubiquitous within operating systems with non-shit desktop environments.

4k would be really nice, ultrawide is a serious luxury.


If youre really serious about gaming a 144hz ultrawide with freesync/gsync is going to be the better option, but don't bother going with a curved panel.

>>55452268
40"+ UHD is the way to go.
The only issue is that 120/144 Hz UHD won't be available until the end of the year in any size, so next summer for a 40"+ model best case.