4k

Don't own one but I had a roommate last year who did. As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p. If you need a lot of screen estate for multitasking, then it may be worth it to buy one.

>>62041275
I'm not quite sure I know the answer to this question.

That depends on what you're doing. If you need a lot of screen space, you could just get more monitors, though. If you want to watch movies, get a projector instead. If you want to play games, get a 1440p monitor with 144+ Hz refresh rate.

>>62041305
How about general usage like browsing web and watching youtube?

File: firefox_2017-08-22_21-42-50.png (112KB, 878x521px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 878x521px

>>62041275
Fonts are extra sharp on 4k, they look like vectors without rasterization, if you are a programmer a 4k screen is a delight.

lol just got this.

>>62041533
>web browsing
The fonts are really really nice. So I'd say it's worth it if you read a lot.
>youtube
There's very little content in 4k and I don't really see a huge difference between 1080p and 4k.

honestly considering a 4k monitor for my next build. I want to do a Linux + Gaming build and i heard that having multiple monitors with different resolutions (I have a 1080 and a 1440) let alone different refresh rates (both of my current ones are 60hz) is a nightmare.

>>62041275
Higher refresh rate > higher resolution for me.

I don't play games often, so I really had no use for the extra screen space.

Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function. Minimizing applications and such is almost second nature. Actually, Windows supports virtual workspaces natively now, so there's definitely no need for such a thing.

>>62041275
I have a 4k laptop but I find that I spend much more time paying attention to how sharp the font looks rather than actually reading it. I turned it down to 1080 after it started to hurt my eyes. I should have just stuck to 1080.

>>62041275
nothing in life is worth it

>>62041533
Sorry, I don't know. I wasn't paying attention to those aspects when looking over his shoulder.

>>62041746
>natively
Only if you're using Spyware 10
For third party, just get something like bbLean

>>62041746
>Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function.

I didn't need 4 windows viewable at the same time when I was 10.

>>62041746
Minimizing is gay shit for floating WM faggots. Also, if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?

>>62041746
>Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function.

1024x768 was the norm when I was 10. That's a trash resolution for games, shows, and productivity programs. Plus most 4:3 monitors were CRT, which take up a huge fucking chunk of your desk.

File: 1429915334636.gif (2MB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x750px

>>62041824
>nothing in life is worth it

>>62041956
>even the billboards are ultrawide

>>62041275
Use a 55 inch 4k tv Yes it is far superior to 1080p

No and everyone who does is a fucking retard. 4K video is actually 1080p video (ie 420) and graphics cards powerful enough to play games at 4K literally don't exist, hell even high end cards struggle at 1440p.

Get a 1440p monitor if you multi-task often or a 1080p one if you don't.

2560 x 1440 144Hz or 4k 60Hz?

I dont play games btw

>>62041275

I'll buy one when they have g;ass panels

>>62042054
They are already 4K movies and web pages look much much more sharp than on 1080p you dumb nigger

>>62041275
>le curved meme

>>62042059
Freesync 2

>>62041910
>Also, if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?
Because browsing the web/your desktop feels better at 144hz since it's more smooth?

>>62041275
>expensive over other tech available
>not much content
>will get better when they go mainstream
Probably not right now. Better wait at least another year.

File: 1080p24.jpg (52KB, 610x377px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 610x377px

>>62041910
>if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?
60 Hz displays can't play movies.
They only play vague imitations of the movie, because 60 / 24 does not divide evenly. Now you can probably run a 60 Hz display at 24 Hz, but then the desktop experience goes to shit. Even on-screen displays are unbearably jerky at 24 Hz.
So you choose 144 Hz.
144 / 24 = 6

Anytime I see someone mention they have 4k I automatically write them off as a gamer retard that doesn't know what they're doing

>>62042143
>Anytime I see someone mention they have 4k I automatically write them off as a gamer retard that doesn't know what they're doing

Why?

>>62042143
Actually 4K is more appealing to non-gamers due to modern GPUs struggling to render 4K at high qualities.

>>62042054
the fuck are you talking about? I have a GTX 1060 and it plays games like Doom 2 and GTASA at 2160p@144hz just fine. solid 144 fps, no stuttering.

File: u_files_store_1_281751.jpg (910KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

910KB, 3840x2160px

>>62042143
This movie is over 50 years old and 1080p doesn't do it justice.
Properly made movies easily exceed 1920x1080 effective resolution.

>Comparison image
>Two different images used
What purpose does that serve

>>62042128
>60 Hz displays can't play movies.
Most 4K TVs on the market are 60Hz and can play movies fine.

>>62042207
>post 4k image
>Its just an ultra-grainy, low-detail wideshot
Literally what?

>>62042219
only 30 and 60 fps, so mostly TV, not 24 fps

>>62042074
No they don't, they look like mobile websites and have shitty material design.

File: 1445711577073.jpg (20KB, 255x256px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 255x256px

>anons who fell for the 4k meme desperately justifying their purchase
when will they learn

>>62041656
I have a 4k-60hz and a 1440-144hz monitor and have no problems at all. The only thing is it's hard to get a wallpaper to work

>>62042398
on linux though?

>>62042059
I'm >>62042398
I'd suggest 4k 60 for doing anything but gaming. Thought 144hz would be a meme, but for gaming it is fantastic

>>62042403
Have not had Linux since getting new monitor, cannot speak of this

>>62041275
It really depends on what you want.

Text is great on one, and if you need more screen real-estate on a montior in less space then by all means go for it. If you want gaming, a 144hz monitor will be much more beneficial, especially if you're competitive and turn your settings down for more FPS.

>>62042437
that's like 90% of the issue then

>ITT: dumbasses justifying their bad 4k buy
1440p is all you need from a monitor. Monitors are designed to be used close to the user, and ones big enough to take advantage of 2160p are too large to be ergonomic.

1440p 144hz IPS is cream of the crop right now for monitors, 4k is only good for TVs.

>>62042235
Fucking what; almost all 60Hz monitors are / support a 59.94Hz refresh rate, which is a perfect 2.5 vsync ratio for 23.976fps movies.

holy shit this thread is retarded

>>62042456
>2.5
>perfect
Extremely inconsistent you mean

>>62042518
I have some bad news for you
The majority of movies you've ever seen have not been on a display that refreshes at an integer multiple of 23.976.

>>62041275
40"-50" 4k is the current productivity king if you're OK with ~100 dpi and being stuck at 60 Hz until hopefully no longer than next summer.

<30" 4k is nice if you're a shoopfag.

>>62041275
I went from two 20"1650x1050 to a single 27" 4k.

I do enjoy the productivity and sharpness I (mostly) get out of it though. I borrowed my brother's 1440p and thought it as not enough for my needs; coming from my two previous monitors. I also didn't want multiple monitors again as my work space is currently limited. It's pretty neat having basically 4 1080p windows on one screen.

However, my real major reservation against the switch is the lack of support of it for certain programs. Legacy programs I have will either be blurry as fuck or be a tiny box.

Gaming is a bit of a bitch too, though it looks REALLY good when it works.

I would have gone with a 1440p ultrawide if I found a decent sale last year.

>>62041275
No because unlike all the fagots who suck dick and follow the trendy words and shillin i know that pixel density hanst improved that much in the last 5 years.
So yes, you have a bigger monitor and a bigger image that is rendered with almost the same pixel density of an hd monitor.

>>62042647
is the real difference in sharpness between 1440 and 4k?

>>62042702
Hm?

HP Z Display Z27q
27" / 5120x2880

NEC MultiSync EA244UHD
24" / 3840x2160

Both twice as dense as regular HD monitors.

>>62042737
>twice

>>62042896
Yes.

>>62042647
My brother and I notice a difference in sharpness between our monitors. IMO, the difference isn't worth worrying about at 27 inches (I just went for 4k because of the stupid good deal at the time and I like my windows).

So 1440 at 27 inches is perfectly fine and probably the sweetspot for sharpness sake.

1080 at 27 inches is a sin against humanity at this point though.

>>62041656
>i heard that having multiple monitors with different resolutions (I have a 1080 and a 1440) let alone different refresh rates

I heard this too. I'd hate to spend a bunch of money on a 1440p 144hz monitor and a 4k 60hz monitor only to run into some goofy bugs but still I'd like to try it

File: firefox_2017-08-20_19-01-28.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

I would like 4K to be mainstream at least 10 years ago, because IBM already had a 3840*2400 monitor back in 2001.
>4chan doesn't allow 10240*5760
pleb limits.

>>62041584

Whats wrong with using a proxy/ vpn exit node?

File: 4K_VS_HD.jpg (2MB, 2560x1392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1392px

>>62041275

>>62044106
>I would like 4K to be mainstream at least 10 years ago, because IBM already had a 3840*2400 monitor back in 2001.

But then again, these monitors required esoteric expensive quad GPUs or some shit.

>>62044768
You need two DVI cables because back then it didn't have Dual-Link.

File: 4K_vs_HD_2.jpg (843KB, 1280x1706px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 1280x1706px

>>62044762

>>62041275
1440p is the money res

>>62044268
They don't want you to escape the botnet

File: IMG_20170823_081757.jpg (2MB, 2072x2348px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2072x2348px

>>62044784
>>62041275
1920x1080 24" vs 3840x2160 27"

>>62044268
No idea but 4chan seems to flag any IP with a lot of outgoing connections as an exit node and gives you a 1 month ban.
When I lived in uni accomodation i'd get banned for it 25% of the time I posted, and then have to appeal and wait 3 days for the mods to unban me, just to be banned again.
I even found the exact IP range my unis internet provider used and sent it to the moderators explaining my situation, but they didn't do shit and I never heard anything back.

>>62044892
My VPN is banned as well.
I route sys.4chan.org over my home server (SSH SOCKS proxy)

Is there much perceived difference between 100 and 144hz for goyming? I could stretch my budget and get a predator x34, but there's also the dell s2716dg that would only cost 60% as much.

>>62041305
>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p
Bull fucking shit. I game on my 27in 4k display and the difference between 1080p is night and day. 1080p is a blurry fudge filled mess whereas with 4k everything is super crisp and practically jumps out of the monitor.

>>62041956
>新しい日の誕生
Whatever weeb thought this sounded good needs to be shot.

>>62045116
kinda, yes

there's a lot less difference between 120 and 144 though

>>62041275
1440p is the sweet spot

>>62044784
You have dust under your screen, don't you?

>>62041305
>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p.

If you're legally blind, maybe.

>>62041275
look at your phone, scale up the fonts to match the ones on your monitor and hold it next to it. compare.

>>62041656
meh, I've used a 60hz 16:9 1080 lcd alongside a 140hz 4:3 1024 CRT for a few years with linux and once you've got a few xrandr scripts or Xorg.conf set up, you can forget about it.

bought a 27" 4k monitor, the only reason I bought it was to edit large photos without the need to crop
gaming is mostly no different to 1080p although 1440p is probably preferable, media (tv, movies) is mostly no different but I've always gone for the higher bitrate/resolution where available - it's a monitor on a desk, not a >40"
as far as scaling goes nothing scales well, windows 10 might do okay but windows 7/8.1 will only scale one monitor so you need to enable resolution superscaling on your second monitor to have two reasonable displays and even if you do this, and this will be a problem under windows 10, there's still those old legacy programs or some java programs or some program that just won't scale at all, under linux your best bet is to just bump the font size up but this isn't practical or reliable, maybe in a couple of years scaling will be where it needs to be but I'm convinced the only thing that'll ever do scaling well is osx or mobiles

since I did buy a 4k for a niche I can't complain too much but I'd probably have been far better off on 1440p - it's mostly the stupidly high dpi that's killing it for me but when things scale nicely it does look pretty nice

>>62041275
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: The more you know where something is, the less you know where it is going. The more you see the pixels, the less you see the information.

>>62045234
https://dreamcatalogue.bandcamp.com/album/--18

>>62041610
>There's very little content in 4k

Wat? There's lots of youtubers uploading in 4k now

>>62042536
>The majority of movies you've ever seen have not been on a display that refreshes at an integer multiple of 23.976.
Unfortunate that you aren't watching movies with frame doubling on a gsync monitor then.

>>62047062
Sounds like you need to backup yourself up because we don't believe you

>>62047101
What don't you understand? Gsync monitors work with weird-ass framerates but only above 30fps. You can even arcade games like Mortal Kombat at 54.7fps just fine.

>>62046853
Yes but youtube convert it anyway and the detail loss is tangible, they used to upload near-untouched 4k videos they looked astonishing, but it was something like 5 years ago

I think a more important concern is why the fuck 10bit or above is not supported on the desktop and only via 'Pro' shit (Have to have an expensive 'Pro' GPU (Quadro). 'Pro' monitor (Eizo) and 'Pro' software (Adobe Photoplop).

My Acer XF270HUA supports 10bpc at 120Hz and below but only via DX11 (MadVR FSE DX11 mode and HDR games if the monitor was HDR capable).

For photo editing you are stuck at 8bit and yes I do notice gradients.

But I am not going to shell out several thousand just for photo editing.

>>62041275
>not watching your tv with binoculars

Why even live?

>>62042455
This. To really appreciate 4K you are going to need a monitor that is 32" or bigger. The other down side is that if you have 4K on a smaller monitor font scaling becomes a nightmare. I have a 27" 1440P 144Hz monitor and 4chan's default font size is really really small when scaled at standard Windows scaling. Granted I am short sighted and have to pull the display closer to me to be able to read it. I can imagine how bad it would get if it was 4K.

>>62041275
Yes. No, if it's less than 40" and more than 24".

>>62044784
IIRC this is an older vs newer MacBook Pro.
Pre-retina and post-retina display.

>>62044878
>>62044784
nobody sits that close to a monitor

>>62041305
What are you talking about. The pixies are 1/4 the size on a 4k monitor of equilibrium dimensions to a 1080p one. How can you not tell the difference?

On the topic of running GNU/Linux with multiple monitors:

>>62041656
>>62044027
Resolution is rarely an issue, but having different refresh rates is still an issue on some DEs where your entire desktop GUI runs at the lowest refresh rate (e.g. 60Hz) despite one of your monitors reportedly running at a high refresh rate. From what I understand, this is an X11 limitation and should probably be fixed on Wayland. The only workaround is to disable compositing, or use a non-compositing WM.

Another notable limitation is per-monitor DPI, which you'll suffer if you're using a 1080p monitor and a 4K monitor. Also, In terms of gaming, SDL1 is terrible with multiple monitors, so you should look for games that use SDL2 instead.

>>62046440
>forget about it

Are you italian, camaro?

>>62048947
>being this fucking dumb

I bet you're a 3rd worlder who's never seen anything other than 1366x768.

>>62041305
>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p

I have to beg to differ. I bought a dell p2415q and I was blown away by witcher 3 @ 188 dpi / 4K / 60Hz. It ran smoothly on my GTX 1050 Ti as well.

>>62042128
source on this? It doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't a video player be able to resolve this at playtime?

I've got a XPS 15 with a 4k display.
I honestly don't really notice the difference.
Maybe because it's only 15"

>>62041275
If you go big (around 40"), definitely.

A 2560x1440 image is ~26.25in (66cm) which looks kinda small from the distance I sit from my monitor.

>>62050028
How much do you scale it? I'd imagine at 200%, it's still as painful as using 1080p at 15".

>>62050078
I scale it to 200%

16:10 master race

>>62049996
How could the video player resolve this?
If the display is fixed to 60 Hz, there is no way to play 24 Hz (or 23.976 Hz) perfectly
It's simply impossible
Some displays can be underclocked but then OSDs and menus would be jerky and slow

>>62049959
>1050ti
>4k
At 15 fps right?

4k is INSANE.

I love it so much.

I had a 4k 2 years ago and then sold it.
I missed it so much I finally got mine back.

Protip for 4k newbies:
whenever looking at prices for 4k monitors add 50 dollars for a proper mount.
You NEED these, you have to get your monitor positioned JUST right for 4k to be at its fullest.

>>62046853
Yeah, but you really have to go looking around for it

>>62041305

The difference from 1080 to 1440 is minimal. But the jump to 4k is huge. Even from 1440.

Evetyhing is crisp af. That's why I can't wait for 4k144hz

>>62042219
The new avatar will be over 60 fps. Future movies will require much higher frequencies.

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"

I have a 4K screen in my laptop. To be honest it's a bit overkill and Windows' poor support for HiDPI (or rather their poor support for mixing different DPIs) makes the experience a pain sometimes. I could just put the screen in 1080p and default DPI, but it's just such a degraded experience compared to 4k. Pictures and PDFs are nice and crips instead of being aliased to fuck. Good eyesight allows me to use a smaller than usual scale and gives me so much extra work space. Anytime I'm forced to use a 1080p (or god forbid, 1366x786) screen on someone else's computer, I whince.
I'm on a 15" laptop screen, so 1440p/2K might be actually ideal at this size, without having to fuck around with DPI. But I'd definitely go with 4K for a nice 30" desktop monitor.