why are there no 40" 4k monitors on the market?

There are. They are classified as televisions.

Delete this thread.

fuck 4k I want my <$500 OLED monitors

>>57371449
they don't have display port.

why are they classified as tv's? what is the strategy

File: dangreen.jpg (39KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x640px

clearly if they are marked as televisions they can't work as a desktop monitor. right guys?

>>57371430
Do you even wendell

Why do you even need a 40" monitor?
My monitor is 2560x1440 at 27" and I feel like much bigger would be a pain to use at a desk.

>>57371430
There are 40" 4k monitors on the market, video reviews on level1tech youtube

>>57371968
People say it is the minimum screen size to appreciate 4k resolution. Anything below 40" would be a waste and 1440p would be better even.

>>57371430
Philips 4065UC

>>57373297

this

also dell has a pretty legit one for like 1.3k; 43" i think

most are targeted towards stock traders and financial analysts who need to use bloomberg terminal so you should take that into consideration when searching

>>57371577

just got my Club3D active display port to hdmi 2.0 in the mail, and UPS is about to deliver a 43 inch 4k tv to replace the 37 inch 1080p tv i've been using for a monitor for years.

feels good man.

Feels good man.

>>57372058
24" is the perfect size for 4k
Gets you near print quality.

>>57371430
dell p4317q

>>57373604
That's retarded, you end up GUI scaling to 200% which means your effective desktop resolution is 1080p.

Sure it's sharper 1080p because you have 3840x2160 but it's still 1080p effective resolution.

>>57373621
>"""effective""" resolution
The resoltuion is 4k.
What you draw on it is another matter.
I for one can't stand text at 100 PPI.
It needs to be 200-300 PPI to appear pleasant.

>>57371430
because they would use the entirety of your bandwidth in about 5 seconds

>>57373659
So what have you been using for the past two decades? $100 says it wasn't a monitor with greater than ~120PPI


40" 4k is the minimum for no GUI scaling and actually being able to fit 4x1080p windows full screen on the same monitor.

With 24" your screen is so small if you were to go without GUI scaling and try to display 4x1080p windows full screened, you wouldn't be able to see much of anything because of how small it is. With 200% GUI scaling you'd have 1 1080p window full screen. And sure it would be sharper than a 24" 1080p panel, but again. I am MUCH more interested in being able to see 4x as much shit at once as opposed to a slightly sharper 1080p image.

File: IBM_T221.jpg (3MB, 4308x3513px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4308x3513px

>>57373709
IBM T221
22.2"
3840×2400

>>57373585
Never order a TV through UPS
t. UPS employee

>>57373709
And are willing to spend over a grand for it?
Honestly it's a huge waste of money right now.

Just buy a regular fucking monitor, in a few years we'll have much better shit then 4K. Going as far as seeing VRD displays make an introduction into consumer tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display

>>57373761
Lol you didn't have one of those and if you did, who the fuck paid for it?

The only people who use those are rich autists and some few lucky nerds who managed to find them cheap or free.

>>57372058
They're wrong, 4K at 27" is gorgeously sharp. It depends on what you want though, 27" is great if you want image quality, getting a bigger one is about larger work area. Thing is though that work area is easy to get with multiple screens, depending on what your work is you may not even need anything fancy so maybe you can reuse your old monitors.

I prefer having a high-quality main screen and just use my 2 older monitors for all the work area I need.

>>57373801
Me personally? No because I have 2x2560x1440 (5120x1440).

In 2-3 years I will be likely getting a 35-45" 4k OLED and use the two 1440ps for peripheral monitors.

>>57373785

well i ordered it from walmart, and strangely to do the site to store option was ridiculously long compared to the 6 dollars to ship it via UPS.

if it's broken i'll just take it back.

File: 1478159106136.jpg (66KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x640px

>>57373898
>16:9
Disgusting.

>>57373924
Sure, let me pay 3x the $ for the 30" dell 1600p 16:10.


Oh wait, i'm not retarded.

>>57373937
No, you're just poor.

>>57373975
... yeah I'm poor for buying two 1440p monitors for literally half the cost of a SINGLE 1600p monitor.

I'm not poor, I just don't waste money on shit I dont need, I'm not autistic, nothing I do REQUIRES 16:10. Is it nicer than 16:9? sure. But it isn't worth wasting literally ~$1400 more for 1600p vs 1440p.

>>57374023
If you weren't poor, the price difference would mean nothing to you.

Do you buy the $0.50 ice cream when the $1.50 tastes better?
No, you don't.

>>57374059
Wew lad, I actually put money into savings instead of spending every penny I make.

I could buy the monitor several times over if I wanted to, but I wont because I have no NEED of it. It provides very VERY little tangible benefits over 1440p. Maybe you've convinced yourself it was worth it. But I can't justify the $1400+ price increase for 160 vertical pixels.

>>57374086
The fact that $1400 is actual money to you is proof enough that you're poor, lol.

>>57374118
...even if you make $100,000 a year $1,400 is 1.4% of your yearly income.

1.4% instead of 0.65% for 160 vertical pixels. an increase of more than 100%.

Again this has nothing to do with if i can afford it or not and everything to do with it not being a smart financial decision.


If you make $250,000+ a year and can piss away your money AND still save for your family and retirement, go right ahead.


More than likely you're just a nerd autists beating a meme into the ground and you couldn't even afford a single 1600p monitor to begin with because your NEETbux don't pay nearly that well.

I run a 43-inch UHD TV as my monitor on my main work computer.

The real estate is great, particularly with a tiling WM.

But man does the smart TV portion absolutely ruin the experience. It's a Sony android TV and boy is it slow and terrible, constant updates that take 30 minutes and complain if you ignore them, sometimes restarts by itself without any prompting.

If I had to make the choice again, I'd probably still buy one because the screen real estate is so good, but boy is it a terrible user experience.

>>57374264
you can't disable the smart tv functionality?

>>57376200
Nope.

>>57373802
You could import the low refresh rate version from Japan for like $400, there was no need to be rich

>>57377592
I'm sizing up what I can get on black friday,

>>57377963
If you can deal with updates about once a month and an unexpected restart here and there, go for it.

Make sure it supports 4:4:4 at the full resolution and at 60 fps, though, this is really important. Needs HDMI 2.0 for that, but some TVs have HDMI 2.0 but only give you 4:2:2.

If you don't get 4:4:4 it will look like shit, particularly the text.

>>57378038
>If you don't get 4:4:4 it will look like shit, particularly the text.
So much this

And many manufacturers dont advertise this so you'll need someone who owns one to test, or check AVS forums or similar.

I wish 4k monitors in that size range would come down in price, maybe in a few years.

>>57373621
It being sharper is the entire point though. If I want trillion square inches of screen real estate I just buy more monitors.

Text being sharper avoids frying my eyes because I use the damn thing 10 hours a day

>>57373924
>Philips 4065UC
>>57373937
>>57373975
>>57374023
>>57374059
>>57374086
>>57374118
>>57374166
classic trolling

>>57378038
>>57378087
thanks, i have an r9 nano so i have displayport 1.2 and hdmi 1.4.

this kills me so much i wish i could return my r9 nano after learning what shit ports it has.

for 4k60hz i have to use displayport or displayport to hdmi 2.0 adapter.

>>57371968
Not OP, but I use a 43 inch TV as my monitor, and it's because I like to have a huge ass desk with tons of room on it for stuff other than a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

The Keyboard and Mouse are in a drawer under the desk, and the TV's are so large that I get about 3 feet of space to use between me and the TV. I basically live at my desk, so for me this is a must. I plan on replacing my one 1080p TV with 2 4K TVs, because while I've loved my new setup having just one monitor is a struggle.

>>57378138
>If I want trillion square inches of screen real estate I just buy more monitors.
As someone who has experienced both, a single 43-inch 3840x2160 monitor is a lot better than 4 22-inch 1920x1080 monitors, as long as you have a proper WM to back it up.

>>57371430
wasabi mango UHD400