4k monitor

Hardly any 4K content of anything. Running recent or new games at that resolution requires a beastly machine.

>>55671847
>playing games

>>55671815
only photo and video editing maybe.

watching anime, movies or youtube needs the content or bandwidth

gaming needs are gpu capable of delivering acceptable framerates at justifiable graphics settings

dpi scaling is shit on windows and once you go over FHD, everything seems unoptimised as shit, depending on your screensize though

the best and most budget friendly solution is to get a atleast 75hz ips/va panel which supports freesync

>>55671815
too expensive, at least the IPS versions

>>55671904
I want to know. There's a lot of talk that some software don't run well in 4K. I'll stay in the safe zone and get a 1440p panel.

Not worth investing in 4k until these conditions are met:
4k (or 8k)
IPS
HDR
240Hz
10bit
1ms latency
100% sRGB and/or AdobeRGB

>>55671815
Saw Dell 4K for almost 1k$ in the store. I like the picture on my 1080p Eizo better.
May be there will be good affordable IPS 4k monitors in 2 years, we'll see

>>55671955
is there a big difference in colour quality between 99% and 100% sRGB coverage?

should one pay the extra for thsi 1%??

>>55672155
depends on how low end the panel is and for which requirement

I know saying "you don't need a 4k monitor!!!" is my opinion, but why not just settle for a 1440p monitor?

Are there any new good 1080p monitors? the only ones that are popular are the BenQ XL2411Z or Asus VG248QE

scaling up your desktop becomes mandatory, which means you can no longer rely on pixel-wide fonts and other on screen elements. it's not that big a deal, but it normally means losing some workspace and sometimes blurry scaling artefacts.

>>55672258
unless you're a 144Hz gheymer, the only right choice is 1440p.

File: gamut.png (156KB, 489x536px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 489x536px

>>55671955
Why settle for sRGB?
Or even Adobe, for that matter?

>>55671815
No.

1440p 144fps > 4k 30fps

>>55672307
what if I want 16:10

>>55672242
1440P IS OBSOLETE FORMAT

>>55671955
>240Hz
>decent color
Not for a decade at least.

>>55672404
16:10 is dead, sadly. with resolutions at 1440p and above you're just going to have to deal with 16:9, which will give you so many more options in terms of screen size and features.

>>55671904
>dpi scaling is shit on windows

This is pretty much the only reason but that's only an issue if you can't handle running it at 100%. It's fine for me on a 30"

Also 3440 x 1440 > 3840 x 2160 imo

>>55671815
only 60Hz

>>55671955
You can't even get all that on 1080p. Your conditions have no connection to resolution

>>55672564
That changes this year though. DP 1.3 monitors soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6AUn5hHg-A#t=15s

>>55672555
pretty sure 3440x1440 only come in one size, and whilst the pixel density isnt bad it would make it a downgrade from 2650x1440@24". with 2160p you have a ridiculous range of sizes to choose from, which is always a plus. also, some are even cheaper than the "meme ratio" monitors.

>>55671847
>Hardly any 4K content of anything

What does this even means? "content" it's a fucking computer, it's not like your software is hard coded to refuse to maximize the windows if it's bigger than 1080p.

>>55672504
>with resolutions at 1440p and above you're just going to have to deal with 16:9

2560x1600 is a thing, you know. I've had one since 2009.

>>55672750
24" monitors with that res are pretty rare. Most are 27" that are equal ppi wise.

>>55671815
you can get 2 nice 1440p monitors for the same price