Do you prioritize high refresh rate or high resolution in a monitor

High refresh rate all the way

>>59347802
60p @ 1080hz

>>59347802
but you cant have high refresh rate without memesync

you need memesync to break the 60hz barrier

>>59347827

Wouldn't 144hz at least help?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11014/asus-demonstrates-rog-swift-pg27uq-4k-144-hz-hdr-dcip3-and-gsync

Why compromise when you can have high resolution & high refresh rates now?

>>59348201

Gonna wait for true OLED panels not this QLED gimmick that Samsung is trying to pull.

>>59347802
I have a 4k 60hz ips and a 1080p 144hz tn monitor and if I could only keep one, I'd take the 4k monitor.

high refresh rates are really nice for fast paced games but for everything else the higher resolution wins. best thing about it is text. nobody ever spends a minute thinking about it but text looks so much better in high dpi. with the amount of shitposting I do, that alone makes it worth it.

File: 1465344314322.gif (163KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 640x640px

I prioritize 4:3 more than anything

My laptop only has an hdmi port but my new monitor has both hdmi and displayport. what should i get, hdmi-hdmi or displayport to hdmi?

>>59348500
>everything else
wouldnt the quality of 1080 videos turn to shit if you went full screen

What is the best monitor size for 4k anyway? I've seen people prefer using a 40" led tv for that purpose.

high res because it's good for both work and leisure

refresh rate over 60hz only matters for video games, which adults don't play

160hz crt or bust

>>59347802
Neither. I prioritize low cost at a usable resolution.

>>59348676
4k just scales 1 pixel to 4 when playing 1080 content. It will be every bit as clear as a 1080 screen the same size.

>>59348500
>wasting all that screen real estate with muh high dpi
kys

I prioritize
1. color accuracy, stability and uniformity
2. backlight uniformity
3. good linearity
4. good black reproduction
5. high PWM frequency at low brightness levels
6. high-bit LUT
over anything else.

/g/'s taste in monitors disgusts me.

what's the current meme budget king ?
i'm currently rocking an old benq 20" G2000W @ 1680x1050 with vga as external to my docked fagpad. But it's starting to shit the bed....

120hz 1080p

don't need the screen real estate for anything else and if i do, i have my second 120hz 1080 monitor to the right

maybe at some later date but 1080's fine for me, plus it's widely used and supported so no scaling issues

looking into maybe 240hz 1080p..

>first person shooter gaymen
high refresh rate
>other
resolution

but why not both?

It's hard these days.

I used to love high refresh rates. I bought a 120hz monitor a heck of a long time ago and it was the bees knees, but the resolution was balls.

As time went on, I noticed that for that smoothness, I was reading more and more, and it was getting more tiring to look at text alone. Specially when my phone had a resolution that wasn't much lower, on a much, much smaller screen.

I bought an ultrawide monitor which is also a meme thing. It's nice for having 2 windows side by side displaying a lot of content, but that's about it.

The truth is, I like high resolution a lot, with proper scaling. I like seeing smooth stuff, not being able to distinguish pixels. I bought an X220 recently and I must say it's hard to adapt to its resolution, even though the screen size is brilliant. It has gotten harder for me to go back to that resolution from something like 2560x1080 to 1366x768 than going from 120hz to 60hz. I think in the end, 2K is ideal because it's cheaper, not as taxing and definitely good enough on the eyes for 25'' and such. Also IPS/TN is like night and day. I'd gladly sacrifice refresh rate for IPS.

I don't play FPS junk so I don't give a damn much about high refresh.

For gaming:
120Hz ULMB or nothing
For everything else:
IPS with A-TW, preferably EIZO

>>59347802

High res anytime, I'll be on 8K when 4K 144ps is standard. Refresh rate can be mitigated through tech (fast sync, interpolation suppression, high quality panels).

>>59349632
High refresh was also meant for less eyestrain.
Though that only counts for that monitor type

EInk would cause less eye issues despite having zero refresh on a static image.

>>59349690
Refresh rate can't be mitigated, that's fucking retarded

File: 1330241696437.jpg (22KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 429x410px

>>59347820
LOL! WHAT AN EPIC MEME XD

>>59350089
Refresh rate means fucking nothing compared to ULMB.

File: motion-blur-graph.png (43KB, 576x460px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 576x460px

>>59350107
Reference:

Considering it wouldn't have memesync, there's a higher chance it will be a monitor with shit input lag, meaning it's shit for games anyway. In which case, refresh rate is pretty useless.
So resolution.

>>59350121
What should I look for in a cheap 1440p. Motion blur is what ruins screens for me.
Currently on a jade K242HL.

File: 1461142274999.jpg (266KB, 3757x1945px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 3757x1945px

>>59347802
>>59350121

Reference:

I currently have a 5ms screen, if I go to a 5ms one, will I feel the difference for too long?

You only need above 60hz for FPS gaymes. If you play WoW or something 60hz is fine.

File: reference.png (82KB, 1481x594px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1481x594px

>>59350121

So question.

I run a 3 monitor setup

1 LG 49" TV @ 1080p for movies, streaming, etc.

And 2 HP Pavililion27xi the center one for gaming and the side one for chatrooms or whatever else, its especially helpfull for work/school work

I was consdering selling the two and buying a 4k 27/29" monitor for gaming and then get another standard 1080p monitor in portrait mode for chat/reading. (since these hp's cant go vertical)

What's a good model/brand to look at for great quality 4k Monitors

I just realized I'd probably have to upgrade to a 1080ti or go sli with my current 980......

I don't play gaymens, so I don't need high refresh rates.

If you need it, then please, go back to >>>/v/

>>59350335
>>59350335
I'd also like to stay at the level of IPS or if theres anything better that is.

>>59350335
enjoy needing a fucking microscope to read stuff in the screen

>but muh scaling

just buy a 1440p screen then, more real estate than 4k at 200% scale, and no, windows is trash with 150% or anything like that

File: 1461208053680.jpg (178KB, 1481x594px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1481x594px

>>59350121

>>59348860
What would you suggest, then? Some NEC or Eizo monitor?

>>59350316
>>59350407
160Hz CRT would probably be worse due to slow phosphor decay but whatever

>>59350407
>Future /g/
>Not overclocking your eyes to compensate for natural motion blur produced by the brain

>>59348500
>I have a 4k 60hz ips and a 1080p 144hz tn monitor
Sure thing rajesh

>>59347802
I prefer resolution, but I don't want any scaling happening.
So I got myself 34" 3440x1440 60Hz screen
It's perfect