What is best Sup Forums?

what is best Sup Forums?

4K resolution or 21:9 aspect ratio?

assuming an equivalent refresh rate

Other urls found in this thread:

newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100160979 600255029 600030958
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

both are meme setups, 1080p 16:9

21:9 is objectively awesome

This is why you're my girl

this, at 60hz.
Everything else is elitists placebo bullshit, that turns you into worse and worse graphics+performance whore.

this, the real question is color accuracy vs higher fps. 1440p is probably all right though if you enough power, but you can never have enough power so...

4K. I has more pixels and a big one blows any 21:9 monitor because the screen actually has height instead of making it seem like you're watching shit through a bunker window.

I would (and want to) get a 1440p 21:9. Look really good for productivity, and a nice balance for both performance and resolution between 1080p and 4K.

I bought a 21:9 Acer x34 and returned it because I actually couldnt stand going from 144hz - 100hz.

I ended up buying a vg279q and I really like it

can't agree here, 144 fps panels are pretty tits. even in windows. i hated low motion resolution lcds so much. finall were nearing something that feels like crts resüonsiveness again.

21:9 is best for most games and movies, 16:10 is best for browsing and work, 16:9 is required for some games and movies and it's objectively not good.

More width is better than more height in almost any game. It also feels better.

2560x1440
144hz

you fucked up, should've bought the lg 24gm77-b instead

Sure it is, if you like cropped games.

I'd get 144hz to not rely on shitty vsync, but I can't actually think of games where I'd rather play at 60+fps instead of making the game look a bit nicer.

Physical size and viewing distance is more important than 16:9 vs 21:9. I would rather have a 20 inch 4:3/16:10 than a 20 inch 21:9, though. More screen area for a given diagonal measure.

Literally any shooter/driving game

>21:9
>:9
>BY NINE
They aren't cropped, you're getting more width.

A lot of games have FOV setup retardedly but even 16:10 can be better than 16:9, in those cases you would gain width and lose nothing.

Unless your face is less than 10 feet from the screen, neither

>more vision
>cropped

What ?

meme ratio

playing FPS games on 21:9 must feel weird and unnatural. like you literally have eyes on the sides of your head.

yeah that's all fine and dandy, but what you're missing is that even if you don't play at 60 hz, the panel is just faster. it's just fucking faster and therefore all motion will look sharper. it's not hard to understand but everyone misses out on this. it's made for 144 hz...

21:9 or three monitor setup. Especially if you're a racefag.

4K wins if refresh rates and screen width are held equal because they incorporate a letterboxed 21:9 display by simple mathematics.

Now that's not actually the case because 21:9 monitors give you much better refresh rates and features than a 4K TV of the equivalent size. Monitor-sized 4K displays are still not worth it because of of low refresh rates and small screen size.

>but what you're missing is that even if you don't play at 60 hz
*even if you don't play at 144 hz

FPS games are best in 4:3 plebe.

What you describe sounds like legit placebo.

response time and motion resolution sound like placebo to you? okay friend. those are the like the real physical sepcs of the panel you buy. like what?

how is more than double the framerate a placebo?
what kind of sugar do they put in the pills in your country?

4K is great if you don't mostly play games.
UWS is good when playing 3D games, espacially driving games and FPS, but often has compatibility issues and is useless if you're not playing a 3D game.
If I had to choose I'd rather get a 4K screen. But if I could have anything I want I'd rather get a 1440p144Hz screen with Free/G-Sync.

He was talking about how even if I play at 60fps on a 144hz things would feel better, but I really doubt I'd notice a difference.

If anything playing at 60fps on a 144Hz screen is worse than on a 60Hz one since 144 is not a multiple of 60.

>ratio or resolution
you're an idiot

best cheapest 1440p monitor available?

Yeah but what game can you really play at 144 fps ? Even more so on a 2560x1440 monitor

Dota ? CS go ? Overwatch ? Rocket league ?

i didn't say it feels better. it doesn't. but the image is sharper because the panel is fast. it's able to draw almost twice the frames at a quality that's considered marketable for good reason for christ's sake. it's a faster panel that a 60 hz panel = sharper images when displaying motions. not that hard to understand dude.

Oh, okay, sorry, except 144 hz panels do have better G2G response times than panels of the same display type only capable of lower refresh rates.

oh yeah, in the age of variable sync they definitely haven't figure that one out. that's why my monitor offers 144, 120, 75, 60 hz etc. oh wait 120 is a multiple of 60. weird...

Depends on your hardware, but any competitive multiplayer game will benefit. Very few people who only play single-player games would choose >100 hz over higher graphics settings, though, it's true.

A lot of 60Hz screens have ultra low response times too, though.

Apparently women prefer girth over length. Not sure what this has to do with the thread but it popped into my head so I thought I'd mention it.

Yeah, like which ones? I'm talking about G2G response times, not input lag.

newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100160979 600255029 600030958

>not just getting a 1080p 60hz monitor and downscaling everything from 1440p

It depend, Do you want screen real estate or pixel density? Having both in one monitor is expensive. My wife has a 4K monitor with superfluous ICC presets that she don't use for color grading and I have cheapo Taiwan tier 21:9 for doing excel. I never use it for gaming because it's not that sharp but text and number sharpness are adequate.

1080p with supersampling isn't gonna look as good as native 1440p.

That's true, but I don't own a 1440p capable monitor yet

Did you notice where I said panels of the equivalent display type e.g. TN, IPS, etc? You can't look at the quoted response times. Check display reviews at tftcentral.co.uk.

Refresh rate matters. Panels that are designed to only operate at 60 hz are slower.

Holy shit you're a retard. The numbers mean nothing. 21:9 is a marketing term, properly it's 7:3.

That's not true for most games. 1440p doesn't offer that much AA.

yes, they get better all the time. but it is not always a focus depending on the panel. you are not guaranteed satisfactory results in that area with every new 60 hz panel on the market. and manufacturers used to lie about response times a lot, not talk about input lag at all. so one would have to rely on review for reliable info. also response time =/= motion resolution.

anyway, my original point stands. 144 hz are nice even if you don't run your game at full 144 hz.

Overwatch is one I play it at 4k DSR at 144hz.

Batlefield 1 once it enables SLI ill be able to play it at 120 fps.

Not that guy, but actually properly it's 64:27.

I don't think I like Sup Forums anymore, many of you are dumb and don't know much about anything. :(

Probably means devs are lazy fucks and most games, even AAA games don't have 21:9 resolution support so you get black bars. Or they do support it but very lazily so shit like the HUD isn't right like DD:DA where the fucking HUD is fitted to 16:9 and cut off the top/bottom.

>many of you are dumb and don't know much about anything. :(
amen, the way it's always been

21:9 is stupid. You will regret it since 16:9 is more supported.

Both of you are dumb fucks.

1920x810.
>1920
>somehow cropped compared to 16:9 which would be 1920x1080

21:9 is the ratio, deal with it.

>what are multiple monitors

what current gpu do you need to run 144hz 4k games on high?

Doesn't exist.

You're literally wrong, you know that, right? No, wait, you don't because you're dumb. :'(

A couple Pascal Titan Xs.
But I don't think any type of connector supports 4k144Hz yet.

>21:9 is the ratio, deal with it.
So is 4K, it has almost 2,000 times the ratio
I really don't see the point in 21:9 when you can have much so more pixels per cubic inch for almost the same price

why you crying user

A $1200 titan X can barely do 4k 60fps witcher. 4k is still a massive meme.

>what current gpu do you need to run 144hz 4k games on high?
>4k 144hz on high

dis nigga serious? with aaa titles try 2x GTX 1080 or Titan XP

Wider fov, more immersive gameplay, better movie viewing. And 21:9 monitors are 3440x1440 so you aren't losing that many pixels. The wider fov helps you focus less on aliasing too.

I guarantee that in a few months titan X would not be enough for 60 fps. It's already not enough for MD, expect even worse optimization these days

>21:9 is the ratio, deal with it.
21:9 is just used for marketing, because it gives the idea of an improvement over 16:9. The actual ratio is 64:27.

2 pascal titans on sli will come closest.

you can get decent speed with at 4 top Nvida cards.

>inb4 some retard says DSR isnt true 4k

No shit. But running a game like is is more taxing then even true 4k.

FPBP

Poorfags need to leave

Unless the screen is absolutely massive, I'll take 4K 16:9 every day

Why are we comparing resolution and aspect ratio? I'm pretty triggered right now.

I'm assuming we're meant to choose what we'd rather have.

144hz or 4k pick one. I think it will be fine to game at 1080p at 144hz or 4k @ 60hz supersampled on games with capped frames with a nvid1080. So a 1080p 144hz IPS is ideal.

Less support.

>21:9

I can't even imagine a more impractical setup.

Wait for OLED. It will be the new crt.

Well then the answer is obvious, 21:9 with the 4K pixel count.

My turn, do you prefer a banana or a good set of speakers?

>falling for the UWide meme

As person who doesn't see shit i definetly prefer 21:9 just because on 4k i have to move my head to see something.

>at 60hz
Congrats, you just pissed away the one reason to stick with 1080p in this day and age.

literally neets rationalizing their poverty. lmao

I'm considering buying a curved monitor but I feel like outside of gaming it would be a shitter for browsing the net and whatnot. Even then, is the premium on the feature well worth it?

>what are multiple monitors

Banana obviously. Shoving a set of speakers up your ass is a lot less pleasant.

>expect even worse optimization these days
why does it happen? is it because they rush the development or nvidia/amd gimp their cards on purpose to sell more? graphics card don't even last a year now without being forced to upgrade.

>People arguing over 4k or 21:9
>tfw haven't even bought a 1080p monitor/TV yet
I've yet to try gaming in full HD

Where did the 21:9 thing come from?

Did horses take over monitor development?

I think it's mostly because they figure the flagship GPUs can crunch a lot of numbers so it doesn't matter if they get sloppy.

>the burn-ins
Nah. There's a reason why nobody really makes big oled panels.

>Get a 1080p monitor
>AAAAWWWW YEAH THIS IS GOING TO BE FUCKING AWESOME
>tfw still just play old games, flash games, or just about any game that doesn't even bother to utilize 1080p anyway

Shit sucks, because I bought that monitor when it was the cutting edge of technology and was expensive a fuck at the time.

Like literally any game where you need twitch reflexes, user?

>21:9

Can't even support Dota 2, why bother?

just keep playing star control 2 user everything will be fine

This is one of the main reasons I haven't actually bought one honestly.

That and the price for an actually good 1440p one.

Standard aspect ratio in which films are recorded in. When LG first came out with their 2560x1080 displays they really pushed the idea of watching movies without black bars.

this. Overclocked mine to 75Hz and paired with a 390. Works perfectly fine. A 4k/1440p21:9 setup would have cost me almost $1000 extra? If I'm playing the same game at the same ultra/high settings, than why pay $1000 more for a resolution increase?? A complete meme.

4K would be very good when higher resolution film comes in, since most restorations are done for 2K or 4K to resemble the film more accurately; but it is almost undistinguishable for a manageably sized monitor in the case of videogames. 2K would be the way to go, I think.

21:9 monitors are laughworthy on almost all accounts unless you want to do extreme multitasking.