"Happy birthday, Anon! We heard you wanted a new monitor

>>36784081
Sweet. Enjoy, man.

>they fell for the 4k meme

>60hz

DISGUSTING

what the fuck only 60hz??? that's what i'm worth? only 60 miserable hertz, TN panel and not even a fucking DVI input?

FUCK you mom. im gonna kill myself.

File: 1493362120586.jpg (97KB, 866x767px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 866x767px

>>36784081
>ASUS

File: 1404526829608.jpg (136KB, 850x616px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 850x616px

>>36784147
>he thinks he can power a 144hz 4k monitor
We're talking two 1080ti's at that point, shit I'm not even sure if they exist yet
Though really anon I hope this is just LARPing and you weren't actually gifted what I assume is a TN 4k panel

As long as you're a casual you wouldn't be bothered by this monitor.

>Thanks I really appreciate it!

I'm not a gaymer manchild so I don't really care about muh Hz.

>>36784504
Not even most casuals would like a 4k monitor
They'd complain about the UI scaling everywhere and eventually return it for something "bigger"

>>36784504
120hz+ makes a pretty big difference even if you don't play games. it's much smoother

>>36784706
If you don't play games it's not worth the cost. What are you going to do? Bask in the glory of how smooth you can move windows around?

>>36784742
I dunno anon, you can get 144hz TN panels with acceptable color for $150 with some looking, that's not really much of a premium

>>36784127
>tfw filmmaking and animator and have to work in 4k now

>>36784081
I would be very thankful

Good monitor if you're into digital art/animation?

>>36784742
Lol.

This comment is not oregano.

>>36784753
For the same/less you can get a proper 1080p 60hz IPS with great colors. If you aren't gaming, 144hz is useless.

>>36784850
your eyes cant even see that many colors.

>>36784946
A cheap IPS will be noticeably better in color reproduction than the $150 144hz TN panel. Forgive me if monitors have improved, but having less blue will help out a lot.

Also apparently 1440p 144hz IPS monitors exist, but the response time is 4ms and they're $600 at minimum.

>>36784850
I don't think if someone is that casual they're going to even notice the colors on an IPS, and they're certainly not going to calibrate it
Don't really disagree, I think it's all a moot point since normies have had the same monitor for the past decade and will buy whatever they find on sale when it dies
>>36784946
7/10

>>36784997
who the fuck cares about color reproduction. i wouldnt give a fuck even if my monitor was black and white. as long as i can see contrast i'm good to go.

>>36784760

you're not a "filmmaker and animation" just because you have a shitty youtube channel and upload poorly drawn cartoons occasionally

I'm not a huge gamer but I recently bought a new computer (I was looking at building but couldn't be bothered), and what I learnt is:

4K
You'd need probably TWO GTX1080 graphics cards to work this. It's useless for watching movies because there are very few 4K movies even in release, ever fewer available to download. Also, at the distance the average person is facing a monitor, the monitor would have to be unbelievably huge to get the benefit of 4K.

60Hz
There are multiple casual tests you can watch on Youtube where even professional gamers can't guess which monitor is 60Hz or which is 144. Also this >>36784997

>>36785148
Thats because our eyes can't see the performance of the 144hz stuff. they legit don't have the functionality.

>>36785259
how many shades of red can you see loser

>>36785148
>There are multiple casual tests you can watch on Youtube where even professional gamers can't guess which monitor is 60Hz or which is 144

you have to be literally blind to not notice a difference

>>36785333

Well as I said I'm not a huge gamer so I wouldn't know myself, but I saw a few examples of people not being able to really tell the difference, here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWEpIwNDeCA

>>36785148
>There are multiple casual tests you can watch on Youtube where even professional gamers can't guess which monitor is 60Hz or which is 144. Also this
That's because you actually don't see the difference.
But you will feel the difference when you play the game.
The game will feel much more responsive to input on 144hz monitors then on 60hz monitors.
I realize instantly my monitor isn't set to 144hz if it isn't.

>he has people in his life that actually care
enjoy these times lad

>>36785385
during the intro he says that the game is running at 84fps. it's probably even lower during combat when he's playing. you don't see 120hz if the game is running at 84fps. to see 120hz you need 120fps. the difference between 84hz and 60fps is small.

>>36785487
>>36785385
To add to that.
The tester was probably a minecraft player as he was double tapping w to sprint and tapping e to zoom.
Your average CS player will immediately tell the difference.

>>36785385
someone has to be mentally retarded to not be able to tell the difference between 60hz and 120+hz. there is a significant difference. if you're playing a game that is locked at 30fps or 60fps then you aren't going to notice a difference because...the fps is locked. 120hz doesn't matter if your hardware can't get to 120fps or the game you're playing is locked at whatever fps.

>>36785487
>>36785542
truth. that entire video is useless and not even worth talking about for this reason.

>>36784081
>not-IPS
Dropped

>>36785703
it's not that hard to find a TN panel that can come close to IPS panels without the viewing angles

>>36785703
TN panels have been around for longer, are more stable, are faster, are cheaper.

you're a good goy.

>>36785716
>buying IPS for the viewing angles
for all those times you're using your pc while sitting on the floor

>1ms delay
>157ppi

regardless of the 60hz i'd be damned happy with that

File: 1414641878001.png (66KB, 326x256px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 326x256px

>>36785732
>been around for longer
horses have been around for longer than cars, but we still don't get on I-35 on Seabiscuit
not that I disagree with the rest of your post desu

>>36784081
I'd return it and get a 1440p monitor with g-sync

>>36785786
the hidden premise behind that is that TN panels have been tested for longer, have had more space for improvement, etc.

i thought you'd get that, but you didn't.

File: 1388954357143s.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x250px

>>36785808
>doesn't even know if he has a GPU that supports it
>recommends something that adds $200 onto the price tag

>>36785820
>hidden premise
i think you're overthinking it in order to be snarky, anon

>>36784081
that would be really nice. i have never received a gift that expensive in my entire life. not that i received lots gifts or anything.

>>36785844
hidden premises are very basic in critical thinking anon, i actually think you got it from the start, but you tried to be snarky by taking it literally to the letter, pretending like you don't get the premise behind what i said.

>>36785898
>but you tried to be snarky
i dunno, i like to think i succeeded
we're all shitposting about a 4k monitor outside of /g/ anyways

>>36785925
no, i don't think you succeeded when i pointed out how it was a hidden premise, you seemed kinda taken aback when i told you that.

you need to thinky before you posty anon.

>>36785967
i think you're reading far too much into a shitpost, anon, and ascribing imaginary feelings and reactions
there's no winning or losing a conversation in this thread

File: AA586979-AC46-48A5-BEF0-FE58D4ABDA7C.jpg (423KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 3264x2448px

>>36785878
Not op here.
My parents are richfags.
Usual Birthday presents look like this.

File: 1405328592408.png (900KB, 690x968px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 690x968px

>>36786018
>X99 motherboard
jesus christ why

File: IMG_4927.jpg (94KB, 710x505px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 710x505px

>>36786033
What's wrong with the X99?

>>36785148
I can play most games in 4k at 60fps using a single 1080ti

4k on a smaller monitor basically makes AntiAliasing obsolete

and 4k porn is some good shit desu senpai

>>36786067
nothing, it's just incredibly expensive, especially with a 5820k
but you did say your parents were richfags, so I guess it makes sense. did you ask for these parts, or did they choose them for you?

>>36786003
>i think you're reading far too much into a shitpost, anon
i take that as you withdrawing your argument. thank you for being open about your intellectual dishonesty.

>there's no winning or losing a conversation in this thread
funny that you're saying that, in your last post you said you succeeded. so which one is it? did you succeed or is there no winning or losing? try being consistent.

>>36786082
do you not play any competitive games? I'm still stuck on the 1080p meme due to playing at this resolution forever and not wanting to jump up to even 1440p
I even have a GTX 1080

>>36784081
>oh sweet!! a dual monitor setup is gonna be awesome

File: 1405550321733.jpg (11KB, 243x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 243x243px

>>36786094
>intellectual dishonesty in an /r9k/ thread
wew lad
you're not allowed to go full autism until the final round, it's cheating

>>36786085
I said what kind of new parts I needed and specified the I7. They took care of the rest, but showed me a list of what they're getting for me beforehand.

>wanting a monitor

>not asking for a big tv you can just plug the hdmi into

>>36786123
i'm simply pointing out what you've said. this is all you, my friend. you are responsible for your actions, not me. you did this to yourself.

>>36786129
Do your parents build their own computers or work in a tech field? Most can't even figure out how to transfer files, so I'm kind of surprised.
It's probably absurd overkill for what you'd need, but if you can afford it, why not

File: 1492815497742.jpg (34KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x360px

>>36786156
>implying you can't succeed without winning
>implying someone must lose for you to succeed
i dunno anon, i think you might be baiting me into (You)s

>not 16:3 surround monitors
mom can't get anything right

>>36785037
that is filmmaking/animating these days

>>36786157
My dad has contact to someone who provides computer stores with parts.
He gets them really cheap off him. He also tells my dad what he needs.

>>36784441
You only need 144 fps to take advantage of 144hz

File: 1404526971791.jpg (29KB, 526x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 526x300px

>>36786209
I know, but that would require a significant amount of GPU power or to lower the settings significantly
I'm aware 144hz monitors aren't literally kept turned on by a graphics card

>>36786100
I play stuff like counterstrike and overwatch ranked and maintain 60fps just fine. I don't know how much a difference 1080ti makes over regular 1080 for that though. and ive never actually tried 144hz so I can't say if that would make a difference for me.

File: 1426683348011.png (447KB, 1117x1600px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1117x1600px

>>36786199
Well nice. I'm jealous. Congrats on your connected rich family, anon, I hope it works out for you.

>>36786172
succeeding is synonymous to winning in this context.
i never said you lost or i won. you said you succeeded. if you think i did say that, quote me and give us a link to the post where i said that.

>>36786243
I'm gonna end up sounding like a dick, do you actually play at a high level? Anyone can play ranked, but most people aren't doing very well at it

>>36784081
Wow mom, 1ms and 4K! It's really big too, you really did some research. I'll go set it up now, thank you!

>>36786262
>succeeding is synonymous to winning in this context
i don't think you've provided any justification for that assertion anon
you can succeed at running a mile in under a goal time without someone losing
well i did say there was no winning or losing and you told me i talked about succeeding and that was inconsistent
this really is a ruse for my precious (You)s isn't it

nice meme dude, if I wanted another monitor my dad would unironically tell me that there's a gateway crt in the shed from 20 fucking years ago that I could use.

>>36786254
It's not all wine and cotton candy though.
There is a reason I'm on this board.

>>36786320
no arguments there, but there's plenty of anons with the same shit life you have and no luxury cushion to fall back on
i did mean what i said unironically

>>36786331
I'm not saying my life is shit.
Especially viewed from outside it's nice. Atleast from a societal standpoint.
My parents are proud of me, my sisters love me, I have a ton of friends who I've all known way before my parents became well off and yet I'm a kV manlet with tons of anxiety issues, especially around girls.
I bet most of /r9k/ has issues way worse then mine, yet I can still somehow relate when so read posts on here.

File: winning.jpg (20KB, 224x286px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 224x286px

>>36786300
>i don't think you've provided any justification for that assertion anon
pic related

>well i did say there was no winning or losing and you told me i talked about succeeding and that was inconsistent
do you not see how it is inconsisten to first say you succeeded, followed by saying there is no winning or losing? your point that there doesn't have to be a loser for someone to succeed is irrelevant to the conversation (on top of that, i never said that that isn't true, you're trying to use a strawman argument as a distraction here). there are two errors in your reasoning. the first one is a minor one which is that you have been inconsistent by saying you succeeded followed by saying there are no winners or losers. this is a contradiction of the first order. the second error is a major error which is that you're avoiding the argument. when i tell you that you are inconsistent with the winning/losing ordeal, you try to change the topic into the semantics of winning and losing. this has nothing to do with the conversation, drop it.

oh, and i see you keep trying to discredit reasonable arguments by ending your posts with "this is bait right?" comments, this is a rather cheap way of having a discussion. this does not help you in your argumentation. most anons on this board are smart enough to see through your sophistry.

File: 1425846162747.jpg (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>36786512
posting a picture that shows synonyms isn't a justification anon. nearly the same as a word does not mean the same as a word
i don't believe it to be inconsistent because i don't believe you had to lose for me to succeed at being snarky
the rest of your premise kind of falls apart after that anon

File: synonym.jpg (40KB, 590x342px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 590x342px

>>36786563
>posting a picture that shows synonyms isn't a justification anon.
actually that's the best justification you can get. i made the assertion that succeeding is synonymous to winning in this context, and i have provided you with the synonyms of winning in the dictionary. if this isn't enough to convince you, then what is? you can't make unrealistic demands, in the eyes of a philosopher you are not worthy of a debate if you make demands that are not possible to be met.

>nearly the same as a word does not mean the same as a word
synonym means the same word as or nearly the same word as. i don't know why you brough "nearly the same does not mean the same as". we never talked about this, so i can only assume you want to talk about the definition of 'synonym'.

>i don't believe it to be inconsistent because i don't believe you had to lose for me to succeed at being snarky
i never said anyone had to lose. i have already addressed this here >>36786512, we aren't talking about succeeding without there being a loser, you brought this up as a distraction. you can drop it now, it's not working. the inconsistency comes forth when you say you succeeded, followed by saying there are no winners or losers. you have to concede this point.

>the rest of your premise kind of falls apart after that anon
it's an argument, not a premise. and if my argument really is that weak, you wouldn't have any issues refuting it would you?

>>36784081
I'm the kind of NEET who's not even good with electronics, so I wouldn't know what's wrong with this

>>36786751
you can't really argue that synonyms mean identical things anon, that's why we have different words and not a reduction of the same things that mean 'almost' the same thing
you claim not to think they're the same, but you would not have posted the picture in response to asking for a justification otherwise
there is no distraction anon, you stated it pretty plainly here
>>there's no winning or losing a conversation in this thread
>funny that you're saying that, in your last post you said you succeeded. so which one is it? did you succeed or is there no winning or losing? try being consistent.
i get the feeling you're projecting your intellectual dishonesty forward, which probably isn't healthy

>>36786791
If you make such a huge investment you'd rather check with your kid beforehand. Otherwise you might get something wrong.
Getting a monitor like this would piss me off because I have no use for it.
I'd appreciate a 144hz 24" 1080p much more.

>>36786800
>you can't really argue that synonyms mean identical things anon, that's why we have different words and not a reduction of the same things that mean 'almost' the same thing
i'm not arguing that. synonym doesn't mean identical things, it means a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word. (as i just showed you in my previous post. why are you trying to put me in a position i'm not supporting at all again? this is the third time you've tried this.

>you claim not to think they're the same, but you would not have posted the picture in response to asking for a justification otherwise
i claim that winning and succeeding are not the same words, but are synonymous to each other, which is backed up by the dictionary shown in this picture >>36786512.
you don't seem to understand the inconsistency that you're guilty of. you think that what i meant with inconsistency is the difference between succeeding and winning, but as i've explained to you multiple times now, they're synonymous to each other, and it's irrelevant to the conversation. the inconsistency is that you first say that you have succeeded/won, and then you say there can be no winners or losers here. how can you first say you succeed/win if there are no winners or losers by your own logic?

>i get the feeling you're projecting your intellectual dishonesty forward, which probably isn't healthy
ad hominent non-argument with no value.

File: 1434979588446.jpg (54KB, 428x604px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 428x604px

>>36786968
>ad hominem while accusing me of the same thing earlier
is this where I put the :thinking: emojis, or does that happen later?
>succeeded/won
there you go again
no matter how many times you believe them to be similar enough to be the same, they won't be
should stop trying to change other people's words, anon

>>36787001
>is this where I put the :thinking: emojis, or does that happen later?
not an argument.

>no matter how many times you believe them to be similar enough to be the same, they won't be
they are not the same, they are synonymous to each other. that's why i said they're synonymous, and not the same. do you want me to repeat the definition of a synonym to you again?

>should stop trying to change other people's words, anon
you're the one in this thread who said these two things:
1. i have succeeded
2. there can be no winners or losers

these are both your words, i'm not changing your words, these are the words you used. you are responsible for the mess you have created.

a quick recap of your posts so far:
>>36785786 you do not understand the hidden premise in my argument, and you get rebutted for this
>>36785844 responding to the person instead of the argument
>>36785925 you think you succeeded. you admit you're shitposting.
>>36786003 you again admit you are shitposting, and you contradict yourself by saying there are no winners or losers.
>>36786123 personal attack of the lowest form
>>36786172 you do not understand the inconsistency in your logic, and here you start your attempt at changing the discussion into semantics about synonyms and the definition of winning and succeeding instead of staying on topic
>>36786300 asks what i base my assertion on, and continues to use distraction tactics
>>36786563 is not happy when i tell him that i based my assertion on the defition of the word in the dictionary, creates demands that are impossible to be met.
>>36786800 more semantics

how do you think your little discussion is going so far anon?

File: 1426481532896.png (236KB, 480x479px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 480x479px

>>36787201
that's a lot of words to try to state that winning and succeeding are the same thing
i hope someday you'll figure out the difference between the two anon, it would clear most of this right up

>>36787222
winning and succeeding are not the same thing. quote me, where did i say that? i never said that, i said they are synonymous, especially in the context you used them in.

go ahead and explain to us all what the difference is between winning and succeeding, and how that makes your two statements seen below consistent and not inconsistent. while you do this, keep in mind that winning and succeeding are synonymous of highest relevance as shown in the dictionary (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/winning)

1. i have succeeded
2. there can be no winners or losers

File: 1426987341573.jpg (36KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x443px

>>36787311
i have won a game of chess, thus defeating my opponent, causing him to lose
i have succeeded in enjoying my conversation with you anon, thus leaving no one a winner or a loser in this scenario
i'm glad we cleared everything up anon

>>36784441
The integrated gpu in my i5 would be more than enough for common tasks. (video games are for manchildren and there are barely for openbsd)
>>36784081
i appreciate it, but please return it, there are better options with better colors and matrix quality

>>36787371
>The integrated gpu in my i5 would be more than enough for common tasks.
see >>36786229
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to believe that a 4k monitor can't have a web browser powered by an integrated chip

File: win.png (21KB, 633x497px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 633x497px

>>36787339
>i have won a game of chess, thus defeating my opponent, causing him to lose
the definition of winning does not say that there needs to be a loser. in fact, when i look up the definition of winning, i see nothing about losing at all, all i see is more relations to the word succeeding. so it seems like even in that regard you're not holding up well.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/win

>>36787396
>winning
>gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition.
>victory
>an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition.
anon i don't think you're trying anymore

>>36787396
>>36787414
can you two just fuck and make up already
jesus christ

File: 1470818936053.jpg (220KB, 635x720px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 635x720px

>>36787423
sorry anon, i don't have anything better to do, but here's a cute anime girl for your troubles

>>36787414
you have ignored the definition of winning i have provided, instead you nitpicked a definition off another website as yet another distraction from what i've just presented to you. the definition of winning does not imply that there is a loser, that is what the definition of victory implies. we aren't talking about victory, don't bring new words into this. you first said you have succeeded, then you said there are no winners or losers. both of those words are synonymous to each other, yet you deny this even though i have shown you sourced evidence from dictionaries.

>>36787423
exposing sophistry is important to save philosophy.

>>36784682
>UI scaling
What the fuck is that?

>>36787531
>nitpicked a definition
i picked the first one i found off of google, but if you think that's nitpicking i can't help you anon
i guess we'll keep going around in circles forever, but being similar does not mean the same thing, and even though you say you never said this, you are pushing very hard for it by including both words (succeed/win in a previous post)
if your entire response is simply that i nitpicked a definition from the same source that shows something you claimed it didn't show, then i think you're very lost anon
i would note that both the first and third definition in your own link support what i've said, but you can keep saying it doesn't if you like

>>36787568
To use an example, in a game like League of Legends the UI (health bar, skill selection, champion identifiers on the left/minimap) would all seem to be much smaller than they'd normally be on a lower resolution monitor
Even things like the home page of Google will appear much smaller than normal, and it will throw normies off

>>36787531
>exposing sophistry is important to save philosophy.
Not that guy, but it looks like you just really want to win an internet argument. No philosophy is going to be saved by overcoming shitposting (yours or his) on 4chan.

>>36787582
>i picked the first one i found off of google, but if you think that's nitpicking i can't help you anon
oxforddictionaries is not the first result on google. try again liar.

>i guess we'll keep going around in circles forever, but being similar does not mean the same thing, and even though you say you never said this, you are pushing very hard for it by including both words (succeed/win in a previous post)
i know, that's why i've specified many times now that winning is synonymous to succeeding, not that it is the same. why do you keep trying to strawman me into that? it's cheap and transparant. just stick to what i said, not what you want me to say. once again, they are synonymous. not the same as. when you say that you have succeeded, that is synonymous to you saying you have won. when you say there are no winners or losers, you are contradiction your previous statement. it's very simple, and you seem to have a hard time understanding this and admitting that you are inconsistent and dishonest with yourself. either that or you just don't want to understand it.

>if your entire response is simply that i nitpicked a definition from the same source that shows something you claimed it didn't show, then i think you're very lost anon
no, i say you searched very hard for a defintion that you like best. not only that, you completely ignored definitions i have already given you and posted your own defintion, throwing in yet another distraction by trying to get another word into this. victory is not part of the discussion. you used the words winning and succeeding. you have to stick to those synonymous words.

>>36787619
i'm interested in the truth, and i think intellectual dishonesty should be exposed. that's what i'm doing, as i enjoy philosophy.

File: thatsrude.png (43KB, 826x651px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 826x651px

>>36787753
calling someone a liar when they can prove it pretty easily is kind of silly, anon
it's kind of interesting that you ignored the last line of my previous post, but that's your prerogative i guess, but that combined with the screenshot kind of makes your post look kind of strange

>>36787829
that's interesting because that's not what i get when i google winning. i only get links to websites like dictionary.com, and thesaurus.com. looks like i shot and missed.

>it's kind of interesting that you ignored the last line of my previous post
>i would note that both the first and third definition in your own link support what i've said, but you can keep saying it doesn't if you like
there is no need to include this because we would derail the discussion into something else again, which i know you love to do. winning does not necessarily mean there are losers. i don't know why you want to talk about the winners/losers things so much, that's not what i said about your inconsistency, it was about saying you succeeded, then saying there are no winners (i'm leaving out losers because it is not relevant since succeeding and winning are the synonymous words here that we've been talking about all along). so ofcourse there can be a loser if there is a winner, but if you think that's relevant to the conversation you're completely missing the point.

also kinda funny that you immediatly point it out when i don't mention something you said that's irrelevant. now that i've answered your point that i left out, you should also address the following points that you've changed subject on, or just completely ignored because it made you uncomfortable:

1. you did not get the hidden premise in my argument at the beginning of our conversation. when i pointed out that you don't get it you wanted to talk about something else.

2. when you said you succeeded, i said you didn't because you don't even understand basic argumentation. you failed to respond to this and tried to back out with the classic "it's just a troll lol"

3. when i said that succeeding is synonymous to winning, you said i haven't provided justification for my assertion. when i did, you didn't accept it. give me a real reason why you do not accept what you previously demanded.

>>36787829
are you really going to bitch out when i corner you? what a sad human being you are.

>>36787829
kiII yourself Ioser