Should I call for the 4k meme or go with 1440p?

>>59558927

640x480, god's resolution

>>59558957
At least no scaling issues

>>59558927
>960x540
This image is exactly 1:4 scale of the sizes it's representing. Cool.

>>59558927
4K native > 1440p native > 4K scaled > 1080p native > 1440p scaled

don't buy a 4k screen smaller than 32"
don't buy a 1440p screen smaller than 27"

3440x1440 ultrawide

>>59560100
THIS, don't get an ultra-wide screen, they're a pain to work on and look at.

>>59558927
2560x1600

>>59561260
Ultrawide is the masterrace, it's like having dual 5:4 monitors.

>>59561260
what? I didn't talk anything about ultrawides at all, only about fags who buy 4k screens to use as crispier 1080p screens

150% ui scaling on 1440 is cancer... get a 2160 one that's big enough

>>59561753
any ui scaling that isn't 100% is cancer, even more on windows

>>59558927

depends, what are you doing with it?

>>59561260
ultrawide is fucking amazing

>>59558927
Whatever speaks to your heart :*

>>59558927
hires on anything <20" is a junk
you should go with low DPI

>>59561260
Are you retarded?

>>59560100
What's wrong with 1440p on 24"?
I just bought one and haven't opened the box yet. Should I return it?

>>59562137
if you're going to use it at native scale, no problem at all, thing may be kind of small on the screen though

if you're going to use it with scales bigger than 100% (125, 150, etc) return it because it isn't worth the price, go for a 1080p 24" or 1440p 27"

Wide-screen monitor users, how do you deal with things like left aligned Web pages (like this one) in a maximised browser? Are constantly having to manually center it?

>>59562452
*ultrawide

>>59562452
>>59562465
>ultrawide
>one window
Fucking why?

>>59562452
Don't maximize it.

>>59562452

the point of ultrawide is to have 2 pages open at the same time.

>>59562473
>>59562496
>>59562513
This has always intrigued me but I don't want to spend 1k on a monitor

>>59562640
Better than spending $20k on a few 5:4 monitors

>>59562640

well the alternative is to have a 2 monitor setup, which isnt as egonomical as a ultrawide screen imo

File: 1489778603249.jpg (12KB, 426x382px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 426x382px

>>59558927
None, use VSR(AMD) or DSR(Nvidia) on your 1080p Monitor. Use the money to get some whores or anything else.

>>59563570
some of us want more screen real estate and not crispy gaymen

>>59558927
Went to 1440p, was disapointed
You would think a 40% increase in PPI would look better than 1080p

It really doesn't, it's a marginal gain at best.

I'm waiting for 4k 144hz screens to drop in price.

1440p is the best resolution for watching anime since it upscaled perfectly. I don't see any reason why anyone would need anything larger

File: 1487885738966.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>59564458
I understand but with only 2 gpu's 1080ti and Titan XP handling 4k gaming in the market that are expensive af, i don't see a point on getting higher native resolution monitors, 4k gaming is only for richfags and most people game at 1080p or 1440p, so, IMO i upgrading from 1080p to 1440p or 4k is not really worth it, with VSR and DSR it doesnt feel right, im sure that most people prefer a higher refresh rate than a higher resolution anyways thats just my opinion in my case i am really happy VSR'ing to 1440p the games i run at 1080p 60 fps flawlessly.

File: 1452468051477.jpg (39KB, 374x347px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 374x347px

>>59562752
>egonomical

>>59560100
This. I have a 32" 4K monitor and it's literal eyesex.

>>59558927

>>59562452

Custom CSS
multiple windows open
multiple pages running

>>59562752

Having a portrait monitor is pretty good I think.

>>59565438
Enjoy your eye damage.

>>59562137
pixel density doesn't have that great an impact on a smaller screen

but on the plus side if you can't get high frame rates on a game in 1440p then it won't look bad when you go down to 1080p

>>59565829
This. Because 1440 is a multiple of 1080-wait no, it isn't, retard.

Some screenshots might help you decide.

File: 20170324185039_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px)

1MB, 3840x2160px

i'm retarded
>>59566253

File: 20170324184306_1.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>59566268

At 27'', 1440p is very similar to 24'' 1080p, barely any better. But at 24'', 1440p is a significant increase in DPI.

>>59560100
Depends on how far away you can sit from the screen~~
(desu)

I sit at most ~30-34 inches fom my monitor. When I buy a 1440p 144hz screen I won't accept any smaller than 27 or larger than 32, but what do I know about perceived image quality or eye strain?

I wanna buy Dell 2515 that is 25'' 1440p, is it good ? Or letters will be too small?
No fucking gaymes, only programming and sheeit.

>>59567836
what distance will it be from your eyes?

>>59566801
>Not having eyes 1 inch away

>>59560100
I'd say don't get 4k under 40", but I'm also not a retard with my face against the monitor under normal use conditions.

>>59568881
nice desktop

>>59560100
>don't buy a 1440p screen smaller than 27"
I'm on 24" 1080 absolute upper limit for 1080. I think 1440 would be good from there, for gaming.
Especially in shooters that require accuracy. Also good for other media.
Wouldn't get a 24" 1440 for text.
But get 27" 1440 if you can afford it. Any bigger than 27" just get 4k. Future proof and what not.

>>59569185
>Any bigger than 27" just get 4k. Future proof and what not.

How the fuck is a low PPI monitor considered "future proof"?

>>59569239
???
Are you saying buy 8k??
I was thinking in terms of value retention and use. Or am I seriously miss informed here.

>>59569258
I'm saying 4k bigger than 27" is pointless because the future is high PPI. You'll want 4k that is 27" or smaller to be future proof.

>>59569303
True, but currently prices are a bit high to justify 4K at a screen size <= 27".
For the prices I'm seeing anyways. The Korean ones are the cheapest, but come with the chance of dead pixels. I'll be keeping my eye out for deals on 1440 and 4K.
My current is a Jade K242HL I got for $170AUD. I personally don't with to spend more than $250AUD because of the advances in manufacturing that has happened, and the large volumes of sales. It's evident they are still gouging despite paying off RnD costs years ago.
Sure if you can afford 4k at those screen sizes, go for it. But in my market we're still being fucked over, with 27" 4K screens being $400-500AUD+

>>59560100
>>59568896
I have a 27" 4k monitor and like it a lot. you don't need to shove your face into it to see the benefit.

it always makes me wonder why people who don't use a certain monitor talk about them like they know anything. all you do is repeat shit others have posted before.

>>59560100
>don't buy a 1440p screen smaller than 27"
fuck off. 1440p is literal perfection at 24" and i'd be willing to push the ppi even higher.

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

Go with 4K 120Hz, no need to compromise anymore

>>59565829
>it won't look bad when you go down to 1080p
t. doesn't own a 24" 1440p monitor and is talking out of his ass

I bought a used 27 1440p 144hz freesync monitor for half the price (new 570, bought at 320) and i'm really enjoying it.
The owner switched to 32 4k 60hz because is not playing anymore.

Go with higher refresh rate 1440p monitor if you play, 4k bigger screen if you are a productivity guy only (because you need a monstruos gpu to play at 4k at decent details)
>>59558927

1440p all the way

>>59558927
Go for the 4k meme, buying an expensive 1440p screen today is as retarded as buying an expensive 720p screen was ten years ago

27" (or 28") 4k is literally the sweet spot.

>>59570265
What about aspect ratio

>>59570280
When 1080p was the de facto standard I was a 16:10 advocate to get 1920x1200 but with 4k I'd always go for 16:9. 16:10 4k screens are rare and expensive, and face it, at that resolution you don't have to worry about vertical space with current applications anyways. So you might as well get a screen that's good for media consumption and productivity. Also, who the fuck doesn't have a secondary 1200p screen in portrait mode?

>>59570280
21:9 or go kys

>>59570309
How does this compare to ultrawide?

>>59570344
16:9 or 16:10? Doesn't really matter, 21:9 is the most memed aspect ratio ever. It's really shit for anything but gaming and maybe watching ultrawide hollywood movies. For desktop use it's terrible and unergonomic.

>>59567836
Great monitor for the price. All these fags saying no 1440p under 27inches are wrong or have bad eyes.

>>59570693
1440p is fine at any display size, below 27" it requires scaling though. Windows is optimized for 90PPI if scaling is turned off. 120PPI is OK but anything higher is unusable without scaling.

>>59570761
>this
though I wouldn't say "any" display size. Shouldn't get too large. I think 1440p at 32 inch equals 90ppi so I'd say that's the max size for that resolution

>>59570761
>>59570840
Certainly doesn't require it. If I'm at my chair at my desk everything is legible and the dpi is nicer for most things.

I'm not crazy and know even 32inches is too small for a 4k desktop without scaling. But 119dpi is perfectly good. There's not that much difference from 27inch to 25inches, but the cost reduction is nice.

>>59571482
So 4k 27 inches require scaling?

File: 1475520621305.png (853KB, 861x889px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 861x889px

Using a 24" 1080p monitor as reference, you need about 27" for 1440p and 40" for 4k to more or less keep the physical size of the task bar constant.