Is 1440p worth it or is it just a meme?

>>56177998
stop caring about what other faggots say, if you want it just go ahead.

>>56177998
If surfing and shitposting is the extent of your computer usage, no, probably not. You'd probably be fine with 1024x768.

If on the other hand you do any kind of work or multitask at a mentionable level, yes, it's definitely worth it. Doubly so because 2560x1440 is the only common 16:9 resolution that's not anemic in terms of vertical space.

The problem with increased resolution is the entire software ecosystem is totally fucked for the foreseeable futute and nobody seems to give a shit that technological advancement and thus their well being is shoe stringed by it

>>56178094
>Doubly so because 2560x1440 is the only common 16:9 resolution that's not anemic in terms of vertical space.

What do you mean?

>>56177998
2160x1440? 1920x1440? 2304x1440? 2560x1440? 3440x1440?

>>56179319
Most common 16:9 resolutions are starved for vertical space, causing constant scrolling to be necessary and making it difficult to stack windows vertically. This is most notable on lower resolutions like 1366x768, but doesn't go away completely until you hit 2560x1440. 1920x1080 is workable, but to counteract all the space hogging taskbars, toolbars, titlebars, status bars, etc the extra pixels afforded by an equiv 16:10 resolution like 1920x1200 are great.

2560x1600 / 2560x1440 is where 16:10 starts having too much vertical space and where 16:9 starts having enough.

File: 1449787673266.jpg (240KB, 1280x960px)

240KB, 1280x960px

16:9 is the pleb's aspect ratio
Save up and buy a 2560x1600 monitor
1920x1920 is fine too.

File: BlackBerry_PASSPORT_(15200890784).jpg (60KB, 482x621px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 482x621px

>>56179409
1440x1440

>>56179464
Not a meme

That 16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst 16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of association.

Practical plebeian folk judge a thing only by its immediate touch, taste, and smell; while more delicate types form their estimates from the linked images and ideas which the object calls up in their minds. Now when 16:10s and 16:9s are considered, the stolid churl sees only the two monitors before him, and bases his favour on their relative capacity to pander to his sloppy, unformed ideas of visual artistry.

On the other hand the gentleman and thinker sees each in all its natural affiliations, and cannot fail to notice that in the great symmetries of 16:9 monitors fall in with slovenly pulp movies created by peasant-burghers, whilst 16:10 monitors stand proudly with the highest art conceived by man such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and the Parthenon.

16:9 monitors are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness - the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men.

16:10 monitors are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality - the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men.

16:9 is a peasant and the 16:10 is a gentleman.

>>56177998
Yeah 27" 2k monitor will make a 21"-23" 1080p one look like shit.

>>56179562
What about a 24" 1080p monitor?

>>56179574
What kind of wierdo uses that?

>>56179622
someone who likes cinderblock pixels

3440x1440 is the only way to go anon

1440p is a meme. You should be at 4k now.

>>56179809
>You should be at 4k now

Why not 5K?

>>56177998
It's worth it if you play FPS games, especially CSGO. Obviously you will need a card that will handle stable 144fps+ though

>>56179825
Because there aren't any standard connectors that can drive 5k without having to use shitty hacks.

>>56179464
And there I thought there were no wrong answers, but bb did it again. I tip my misshapen Fedora.

>>56179809
>this
4K IPS aren't that expensive anymore. 1440p is a weird "in-between" resolution like 720p was.

>>56179935
>4K IPS aren't that expensive anymore

Too big and laggy, only OSX can properly upscale everything in current year

>>56180001
>Too big and laggy
No it isn't unless you mean it's laggy when you play 4K games.

>only OSX can properly upscale everything
And any linux distro that runs Unity, Gnome 3, Cinnamon, or Plasma 5 as a desktop enviroment. Also Windows 10 has better hidpi support.

Anything that isn't 4:3 (1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200 etc.) or 5:4 (1280x1024) is a meme.

1440p is a meme at this point.

Get a 2160p Monitor.

>>56180123
>4:3
kys

>>56180636
>>>/v/