Anyone else fall for the 1440 meme. Did I make a mistake? 4K

>>61670615
1440 was the right choice in 2010-2011 for those who were thinking ahead, now it's a stopgap for 2160 monitors to drop in price / increase perf while also waiting on GPUs capable enough for muh gaymes. If you're forward thinking and have enough money to spend, you can get a 2160 monitor now though. In either case 1440 is still degrees of magnitude better than 1080. 1080 is the new 768 and has been since 2014 - 2015.

Of course not, I don't buy 16:9 trash.

scale   ppi   4K      FHD
-------------------------
1x      96    45.8"   22.9"
1.25x   120   36.7"   18"
1.5x    144   30.5"   15.2"
1.75x   168   26.2"   13.1"
1.875x  180   24.4"   12.2"
2x      192   22.9"   11.4"

>>61670664
why not just buy a 4k when the tech catches up, and the prices are right? What's the point of buying things now at a premium when shit diesn't run well with it, just to keep it until it does?

>>61670664

My prior screen was 720p so..

not OP, but since we have this thread

I want to upgrade my existing 1080p 24" display to 1440p one. Is 25" big enough to use it w/o scaling? If not, how about 27"? I'd like a smaller dot than 24" @1080p, but only a bit smaller, like 15-25%
and scaling seems gay

File: you.jpg (38KB, 401x337px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 401x337px

>>61672365
30" == 97 ppi
27" == 108 ppi
24" == 122 ppi

i'd say 27 is best for 1x

>>61672455
or 30" dot should still be smaller than your fhd atm

scale   ppi   4K      FHD     1440p
-----------------------------------
1x      96    45.8"   22.9"   30.5"
1.25x   120   36.7"   18"     24.4"
1.5x    144   30.5"   15.2"   20.3"
1.75x   168   26.2"   13.1"   17.4"
1.875x  180   24.4"   12.2"   16.3"
2x      192   22.9"   11.4"   15.2"

>>61672365
Dude I use a 28in 4k screen with no scaling, you're fine

>>61672615
>28in 4k
eagh

>>61672455
>>61672480
Now those are quality answers, thank you Anon(s)!

Are DELL ultrashaprs a meme, or actually a decent IPS panels? Currently rocking 2x some cheapo Asus IPS and one gaymur TN, which are cancer to work with.
What's the best ~27" display, let's say that I don't want to spend more then 1500$ total.
Not sure if 3x 27" isn't a bit overkill tho. 3 x 24 is already taking up most of my desk space. Still, I'd rather go with 3 smaller displays than 2 bigger. I'm spend a lot of time (werk and gaymes, mostly) on Windows, and it has no (decent) tiling WM. That's why I'd rather go with more smaller displays than a bit one.
>gpu passtrough
yeah, no
i use multiple displays for work, so it really doesn't change anything

>>61672666
I have a 14" 1080p laptop (dell e6440), here the dot size is almost perfect (even when reading aticles on web, with eyes about 1-1.20m from display)

File: 1452714174466.jpg (11KB, 320x270px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x270px

>>61672666
>hi satan

idk what to recommend but you can check
https://pcmonitors.info

i can tell you this tho, i have been using a 128 ppi screen and it's kinda shitty because have to zoom to 120% because ff doesn't have 125% else websites are too small so if you go with 1440p get the 30"

>>61670615
i still remember back in the day with dell ultrasharp to drive 2560x1600 display you need dual dvi...and that was 30 inch display....

>>61670615
and you think 4k isnt a meme? 4k is started to catch up like 1.5 years ago and the industry is already leapfrogging to 8k
8k will be the next 1080p

>>61672787
thanks

btw, in case you didn't know:
Firefox: layout.css.devPixelsPerPx in about:config (I use 1.3 for 2560x1440 on 25'') Chrome: Alias chrome to start with --force-device-scale-factor=2

>>61673014
>Chrome: Alias chrome to start with --force-device-scale-factor=2
2 is YUUUUGE

it's for ppi around 192

>>61673014
its best to follow standarts anon

save yourself headaches

>>61673124
>>61673204
this post was copypasta saved from /g/, just to remember what was the ff setting called