Would only a idiot buy a non 4k display in the current year?

>>57478970

Should of mentioned I'm referring to normal use not gaming.

>>57478981
>should of
Should have, as in "OP should have been aborted"

>>57479036
>>>57478981
>>should of
>Should have, as in "OP should have been aborted"
Kek

File: 0034 - 1qfwZyT.jpg (67KB, 709x765px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 709x765px

>>57479036
>>57479067

>tfw graduated valedictorian and make this mistake repeatedly
>tfw I do nothing but shitpost on 4chan all day
>tfw anons insult me in m safe space

>>57478970
Just buy the best monitor you can with what you're willing to spend. Simple as that.

File: Attach2032_20161017_210722.png (856KB, 647x1152px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 647x1152px

>>57479075
Grades don't matter, bitch boy

>>57479191

Can I C your BBC?

There's that OLED that's just 1080p

>>57478970
>high refresh rate monitors for gaming
Anything beyond 120 Hz doesn't make a difference. Not even professional Quake players can utilize a difference that fast.

i bought a 32 inch 1080p monitor a few weeks ago, 200€ best purchase ever
>>57479273
120hz is high refresh rate you idiot. even 90hz would be.

>>57479306
I assumed you meant higher, since, you know, 4k screens come in 120Hz. If you need 120Hz there's no reason to avoid going with a 4k monitor if you can read a label. There's no need to separate the two.

File: 979838980985089658.jpg (24KB, 282x267px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 282x267px

>>57479306
>120hz is high refresh rate you idiot
What the fuck is this nigga trying to say?

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 430x319px

>>57478970
Arguable, but I would say 2560x1440 is still viable and can be purchased for significantly less than a 4k unit if you look around.

Personally, I don't think the additional pixels of 4k make that much difference until you get into maybe the 35" range.

>>57479388
You can see 4K as low as 20", though I would personally not get it until 25-26" because it makes it more noticeable, and over 25" is where 1080p starts to look noticeably bad at a sitting distance.

>>57480579
1080p is shit even at 22", not because of low dpi but because it's just not enough vertical pixels for effective computing. I'm saying 27" 2560x1440 is the best price/performance value today.

>>57480670
>1080 not enough vertical pixels
What the fuck do you do?

>>57480677
Mostly web-based shit, like most people today. A lot of the most popular SaaS business software like SAP and MS Dynamics really benefits from the additional vertical pixels. Not to mention things like PDFs in 8.5x11 portrait layout and spreadsheets and even email clients.