4096x2160 or 3840x2160? Which one is the better to use on 4K tv?

>>57923249
1920x1080

>>57923286
Fuck off with that outdated gay shit you hobo faggot

>>57923249
640x480

>>57923249
1366x768

320x240 NTSC faggots.

>>57924029
/thread

fucking autistic g fags cant even answer a simply question


true lonix users itt

>>57924101
Read the sticky shit for brains and fuck off to toms hardware.

>>57924313
2% marketshare :^}

>>57924338
I am not a linux user. But please try again.

1280x1024boyz

>>57924345
Nah mate 800x600 59hz is where its at.

>falling for the 4k consumerist memeia
gud goy

>>57923249
kill yourself my man

>>57923249
>4096x2160 or 3840x2160?
the first would make it 16:10 and but make it occupy more space vertically which can hurt clearance. the latter is 16:9 and generally recommended for not watching half the scree

>>57923249
Dont get me wrong, 4096x2160 would technically be better but all "4K" consumer media is 3840x2160, you'll need horizontal bars or everything will look weird so what's the point

>>57924678
-n get covered in black bars. posted by itself ffs

>>57923249
UHD "4k" TVs are all 3840x2160, so just us the native resolution, genius.

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

14KB, 430x319px

>>57923249
Better in what context? More pixels are better, but you're going to pay a lot for a specialized 4096x2160 display. Might be worth it if you're into video editing. I hear pro video is sometimes shot in 4096x2160 or even 8k and then cropped down or resampled for release on 'normal' 3840x2160 displays.