What is the best monitor as of 2016?

What is the best monitor as of 2016?

The 4K meme? 1440p? 16:10 1200p?

Other urls found in this thread:

tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Dell

Is 4K worth it?

no

this kind of question is incomprehensibly stupid to the point of being impossible to answer.

4k resolution comes in lots of pixel densities. there are lots of other factors, like if your operating system is dog shit or not. "worth it" is completely subjective on different dimensions. are you using it for work? what's your budget? etc...

Eizo CG318-4K

MFW I have that monitor and have been gaming in 4K for the past year.

there is no best monitor, it is always a question of what you gonna do with it

I would also take 4K over GSync/FreeSync any day even if it's 40-60fps. Don't bother getting anything less than a 27inch you won't even appreciate the extra detail/pixel density. It also can be a pain to adapt to a single monitor if your use to multiple monitors.

I miss watching TV and Gaming at the same time, I guess I'll buy an ultra wide or another 4K 27inch monitor and a larger desk.

>It also can be a pain to adapt to a single monitor if your use to multiple monitors.
>Don't bother getting anything less than a 27inch you won't even appreciate the extra detail/pixel density
i don't know any operating systems that do scaling better than os x, and 2x is the cleanest implementation of it. that means scaling whatever screen size you expect at 1920x1080 so that the resolution there is 4k. in my experience, that's 22-24".

i ended up getting that and alongside my rMBP it's really fantastic. i wouldn't ever switch back, and certainly wouldn't mix and match approximate pixel densities on the same desk. 27" 4k monitors seem like some cheap stopgap measure.

For high end gaming? 2560x1440@144hz
For standard gaming? 1920x1080@144hz
For productivity? 4k, 5k or even 8k.

Same. Shit's great, yo.

4K is bullshit and you shouldnt believe the hype. The real next step in resolution is 2K, not 4K. These companies just want you to waste all your money on their bullshit hardware when you could be getting a perfectly game-able 1440p monitor for half the price. 4K is NOT the standard, and it wont be for a while.

21:9

Eizo Foris

Dell U2717D. Beautiful and comfy

Ditch the dual monitors and get a curved ultrawide 34".

>everyone who uses a monitor uses it for gay men
Fuck off Sup Forums

I considered that, but two 25" 1440p 60Hz IPS monitors were $265 each on sale, So I paid ~$540 for 5120x1440 total res, and they have a very small bezel.

Or I could have spent (at the time ~5 months ago) $850-1000 for a curved 3440x1440p IPS 60hz.

So for 5-6 months ago at least, dual 2560x1440 was a much better value, I saved several hundred dollars and actually have more resolution available than if I had gone for a curved ultrawide. And sure I have the bezel, but it's not like im exactly upset about 2560x1440 res for a video/movie/game.

I will get this one family, it costs less than dell and is better at the same time

fuck pol and their "buy dell meme"

That's what I have as well, trying to figure out if I should buy a 1070 or a 1080 for them.

resolution manlet detected

I have a GTX 960 for them right now and it's def. not enough if you're a serious gamer (I am not).

That being said, I personally am not upgrading to a GTX 1070 unless the price starts to drop and we see a permanent fix for the DPC latency issues people have been having. And even then i'm tempted just to wait for Vega and the 11xx series.

omfg

I AM NOT EVEN JOKING

DELL ULTRASHARP 1080P 23.8'' IPS monitors

>people unironically buy 24" 1080p 144hz $400 monitors
>people unironically buy 24" 4k monitors
>people unironically buy 144hz monitors when their card can barely do 60fps

...

Yes, I will never go back to using a non-4K monitor.

My intel integrated graphics runs 4k and 60hz.

Not at the same time though :^)

>What is the best monitor as of 2016?
Probably the Sony BVM-X300

Depends

this

Yes at the same time.

>2K
>1440p
lmao

also nobody fucking uses 1440p apart from Sup Forums gaming manchildren. It's all either 1080p or 2160p

>unironically buying a gaming monitor
if you're gonna pay the premium for eizo, at least get something from the coloredge series

I own a Dell U2410 1920*1200 H-IPS
very nice but it's a bit thick

>1080p
>not 1200p

There's a plebeian among us

>1200p
not a resolution

>implying that 24 inches isn't the gold spot for size and that the pixel density isn't god tier

Any love for 32" 1440p?
Almost the same pixel density as 1200p @24"

>What is 1920x1200

Looking at displaylag.com for one. Anyone familiar with this?

Want to save up for the 4k meme @ 50+ inches and not going to affect vidya game play.

Pick the one with the lowest lag. Profit?

Or am I missing something?

WUXGA

100hz ultrawide IPS for gaming
40+" 4k OLED for everything else

If you're going to look at a website, look at tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm

They actually know what they're talking about, which you apparently don't. (Not that I expect a gamer manchild to understand technology)

really? well that just motivates me more to get a 27'' 1440p.

right now I have 1200@24'' and would like some smaller pixels tbqh.

but I will definately skip over 4k meme. fuck 4k at 27'', my eyes are not good enough to see this

Under 500$ OLED monitors when?

Equally informative as you are condescending.

Never change Sup Forums this is the only way I can tell your not fucking with me.

When it starts becoming about cheap to manufacture as backlit monitors.

I bought a 4k 40" BDM4065UC about a year ago.

Can't really complain, really liking all the extra space toe tile my work around.

My only real complain is that it's not curved, which actually would make a difference since I can definitely tell a slight color difference when I look at the far side from an angle (I mainly sit facing the center-leftish side). Aside from that it's pretty nice, would buy again, would definitely buy curved model to hopefully fix the slight color offset due to angle.

Oh also another complaint (not the monitor) is that windows thinks it's a 800x600 everytime I come back from sleep for some reason and fucks with all my window sizes and locations. I've tried to fix this via guides but to no success, fucking windows.

i got a 120hz 26" asus 5 years ago for $200
its fucking great

yes

Whatever you do don't get an Asus MG279Q, I got it and out of nowhere I got a green vertical line in the middle of my screen after 2 days. (And no it's not my GPU which I also just bought, I've tested it on my macbook and ps3).

Same monitor here, love it! Have you found a solution to windoze resetting the hz the monitor sets itself at every time you reboot? Mine always defaults to 59 and in my visual autism I can actually discern a difference between 59 and 60.

It's 59.97Hz, Windows just rounds down to 59hz.

>saved

Whatever you do, don't buy anything directly from LG.

Their outsourced firmware (identifies as “Goldstar Company”, topkek) is the devil's arse. It's buggy, shitty, likes to crash, only syncs to 60 Hz and you CAN'T FUCKING TURN OFF THE SPEAKER

>My only real complain is that it's not curved, which actually would make a difference since I can definitely tell a slight color difference when I look at the far side from an angle
This is why you buy IPS

IBM T221

you would be asking for head aches if you want a screen with dpi / ppi far from 96

Goldstar is actually LG. They started using the LG brand in 1995.

What about shit scaling?

Streaming video buttons on websites and vlc dont scale right on my surface pro 4. Tiny buttons. Its resolution is 2k-ish, so I imagine 4k worse.

2560x1600 monitors

With 4K UHD you can scale to 200% and everything onscreen will be exactly the same size as a FullHD monitor of the same size.

...

Yes, I'm well aware. But the matter of fact is, they're shipping firmware that identifies itself with a name that hasn't been used SINCE 1995.

This only has three options:

1. The firmware is actually from before 1995, which is practically impossible.

2. LG programmers themselves are unaware of the name change, which is practically impossible

3. It's outsourced to a shitty non-english firm who somehow doesn't care enough to get the name right

I would like to add on to this post that this information should assume a constant DPI across all four. Replacing a 24" 1080p monitor by a 24" 2160p monitor will do absolutely jackshit to your productivity.

Fundamentally, the only thing that limits your productivity is the amount of effective space you have (viewing area), which is a function of the display size and viewing distance. (But we can assume the viewing distance is constant)

So in other words, the more productivity you want, the more you should increase your display size. If you assume a constant display size, the resolution only affects the visual fidelity - nothing else.

Autism

And therefore you will have gained absolutely nothing other than text being slightly sharper and images being slightly blurrier*.

* because most image scaling implementations are shit

Double the pixel density is absolutely worth it. If you ever need more workspace it's not like you can't switch. None of these settings are permanent, user.

I'm torn between 1440p ultrawide 60hz or 1440p 144hz. What do?

Your effective workspace size is limited by how small you can make text and still read it. This is almost independent of the resolution. (Even on a 96 dpi monitor you can make text too small to be comfortably readable)

>None of these settings are permanent
That's nonsensical. What size you buy your display at is permanent - there's no going back and saying “oops, turns out I would have preferred 27" over 24" - let me go fix that in the monitor settings”.

Matter of fact is: Increase display diagonal for work space, increase resolution for quality.

Some want the best of both worlds (like myself), which is why I bought a 32" 4096x2160 display.

>That's nonsensical. What size you buy your display at is permanent - there's no going back and saying “oops, turns out I would have preferred 27" over 24" - let me go fix that in the monitor settings”.
You're a fucking moron, I was talking about scaling.

You are fucking retarded. If you want more workspace move the monitor closer to you and make the fonts smaller.

Yes, and what scaling you need to operate your display at is a function of four parameters:

1. Display diagonal
2. Resolution
3. Minimum comfortable reading size
4. Viewing distance

My point is that most of these are set in stone when you purchase your monitor, so they ONLY way you could change your decision about scaling is by changing your viewing distance, which is not something that most people are really going to do (especially because moving close enough to a 4K 24" display for it to be comfortable when using unscaled fonts is going to be very uncomfortable for your eyes for other reasons).

>You're a fucking moron
Next time please put more effort into actually thinking about what you're saying rather than simply name-calling.

Yes, good job destroying your eyes by moving past the comfortable focal plane. By all means, please go ahead and do that.

Meanwhile I'm going to be here actually planning in advance about what DPI I need to buy to get a 1 pixel/arcminute fidelity at a comfortable viewing distance (hint: it's about 150 dpi) and then specifically purchasing a device with that density.