I'm thinking of getting a 1440p monitor

I'm thinking of getting a 1440p monitor.

Is it a meme or is it some sick shit?

Better resolution is always good.

Except when it's on a battery
or on integrated graphics
or a lot of other times
actually no it's not

Should I get a 2k or 4k monitor though?

I don't know pay for 4k porn or know of any 4k games.

Depends on the size/refresh rate.

35+ inch 2k res @ 144hz?
yes

..19inch 2k res @ 60hz?
no.

I see no point in having 2k res on a tiny screen.

How good is this resolution on intel hd530? For browsing and chinese cartoons

Been using 27" 1440p for 6 years now, have dual-display setup, never going back to anything less.

>i upgraded
>i'm not going to downgrade

well no shit user.

>stated he was thinking about a monitor
>go over all of the reasons that they're bad, but none of them actually pertain to OP.

I don't think he's using integrated graphics.

In the year of our Lord 2016 the vertical monitor resolution of 1440 is a basic human right.

What the fuck do you mean is it a meme? That's fucking meaningless. Go fucking kill yourself you fucking faggot.

17.3 inch 4k user here, scaled 1.5

makes text look nice

1440p is bigger than 2k

They make

Why when you are just going to want a 4K one?

>1360

Unless you mean 1920x1440 or 2304x1440, it's a meme. Go for 2560x1600.

My austism kicked in because the OP didn't go up to 2160p so I spent 10 minutes in paint.

>Not to scale

This triggers the autism

are you autistic or do you just have a skewed sense of reality?

16:10 is fine, even a bit better than 16:9, but it's not worth paying $300+ more for it compared to 16:9.

You'd have to be literally retarded to try and justify that purchase besides just it boiling down to you being autstic and unable to deal with something you don't like.

It's a resolution, more resolution is better.

Aspect ratio is part of the equation sure, but it should be secondary to total pixels.

2560x1440 is superior to 1920x1200. It is inferior to 2560x1600, but it is NOT worth almost double the cost over 2560x1440.

it's pixel perfect to scale, are you retarded?
>257 KB, 3840x2160
so it's an image showing 768p-2160p and it is exactly 2160p in size...

That guy is probably talking about a 17" laptop screen with 4k resolution. The smallest 4k monitor you can buy right now is 24".

>my phone is quad hd
>my thinkpad is 1280x800

Between 1600 and 1920 we know this is exactly 320, yet between 1920 and 2560 it looks like double or more and it isn't.

yes it's a laptop

I'm thinking of getting 144hz monitor.
Why don't Sup Forums have its monitor buying sticky?

It's jordan, he has an alienware laptop with a 4k screen.

It's retarded because it's useless without GUI scaling which mostly defeats the point in getting a higher resolution display.

The main reason I want a higher res screen is so I can fit more content on the same panel without having to resize things from their native resolution. On a large enough 4k panel (say 38" or larger) you can fit 4 full 1080p windows open at the same time, with the same pixel density as a "normal" 20-22" 1080p screen.

On that tiny 17.3" he couldnt even open 2 full 1080p windows without squinting or sitting 4 inches away.


I dont know what to tell you user besides you're retarded.
Download the image and open it up in paint for yourself to check, but the line for 1920x1080 is sitting exactly at 1920x1080 coordinates, and the line for 2560x1440 is sitting exactly at those coordinates.

this user knows

4K

>2k
He's referring to 1440p, not 2k or its course equivalent, 1080p.

user you're retarded, I have a 2560x1440p screen and it fits to my screen basically exactly.

He scaled it properly, you're just dumb.

the lack of a blackbar around 2160p was bugging me.

>2160p but not 4K
sigh, autism

also why the fuck would you save that as jpg you piece of shit

I'm looking to buy a monitor at about 24" to 28"
4k@60hz or 1440p@144hz?
Is there even a point to playing games at higher than 60hz?

Also something like a 40" 4k tv at what they claim is 120hz is just as good as a dedicated monitor?
why the fuck are they so much cheaper if that's the case, if so the that's what I'll buy

>why the fuck would you save that as jpg you piece of shit
to trigger other autismos.

I actually saved it as a PNG then went back into paint to resave as a jpg.

feels too closed in

No they aren't just as good, which is why 40" 4k monitors cost $800-1000+

Don't bother with 4k unless you can afford a monitor (not a TV) that is at LEAST 35".

Anything smaller will require GUI scaling.

I love my 3440x1440p monitor. Sold my 4k monitor and got it instead. 1440p is the best right now. Because still sucks for 4k

***windows 10 still sucks

What makes them so shit?
is it just shit like response time?
is that really worth like $500 more

response time, input lag, image scaler, etc.

I know people who use 24" 4K monitors without scaling

It all depends on your eye sight and viewing distance

>183 PPI
>no scaling

I call bullshit unless your faggot friends literally sit 7 inches from the screen.

It becomes "retina" quality at 18", the average person sits 28-48" from their screen.

Meaning they are doing some GUI scaling, or they're super humans literally and have better eyesight than even the top 0.1% of people in society.

why?
Wait till it becomes standard before buying shitty meme resolutions that look terrible with scaling.

I've seen it, he legit has no UI scaling. I couldn't work at the size either.

(I use scaling on a 32" 4K monitor)

Include actual 2k as well, that way people stop thinking that 1440p is 2k.

>the average person sits 28-48" from their screen.
No way this is true, I sit at 70cm (~28" which is pretty much the upper limit of what I see people using. Most people are closer.

Also, keep in mind that 40" at 28" distance is equivalent to 24" at 17" distance (~40cm) which is not that much of a stretch as you make it seem to be.

TVs are usually subsampled garbage that also apply shitton of motion interpolation and other bullshit algorithms to "enhance" the image. Avoid at all costs for desktop use unless you want everything looked like a fuzzy, oversharpened piece of shit that artifacts whenever you scroll. (Pic related)

Not that I regularly use a TV as a monitor, but my TV doesn't have that problem.

>>the average person sits 28-48" from their screen.

>2 to 4 feet

14" master race

I don't think there's a TV in existence that delivers a full range, native 4:4:4 picture (like a PC monitor would), so you're either full of shit or your eyes are too shit to see it

I've had one for over a year now and I like it. Had a 1080p previously and it was always just too little room for me. 1440p meets my desires perfectly

I gave it a try but it cropped wrong, I think the original image had wrong pixel dimensions or something

I don't care enough to try again

OP here.

Fuck it I just realized even 1440 screens at 144Hz are expensive as shit. And I'm upgrading for 1080 59Hz (it's old).

Wait for OLED, it's the first game-changer technology in the world of display tech.

With OLED you can say hello to 120 Hz 4K HDR infinite contrast etc.

This, dual u2711 here

>1080 59Hz
>Old

You fucking shitting me.

I only retired my Trinitron a few years ago and it did 1800x1440 @~75Hz back in fucking 1999, with superior contrast and color.

Flatscreens are only just now, 15+ years later, finally catching up with fucking CRT's.

You were born after 1997 weren't you

Do you know if there's ever been a wide gamut CRT made?

It surely must be possible, since wide gamut CRT phosphors is what the original NTSC standard was based on, but I wonder if there's anything modern I could try buying

Also, any 4K CRTs around?

I was born in 1995...

>mfw I realize someone born in this year is not only over 18 but over 20

Fuck this gay Earth, life is unfair I want to be young again.

If it makes you feel any better I've never had sex with a girl.

Pathetic

>4K CRT
Fuck no. The best IIRC were between "1k" and "2k" somewhere though they had a fatter aspect ratio even if they were widescreen.

CRTs got abandoned a longass time ago because they were too bulky.

My Trinitron takes at least two men (preferably 3) and a furniture dolly to move, and at least one of those men is not coming back alive.

Monitor tech was nearly redone from scratch ditching CRTs, and television standards made it stagnate for said television standards.

Still right on the money. If you were 10 around 2005 or so within middleclass or lower Americana there's a very good chance you never even owned a high end CRT.

Me neither and I'll be 30 in a couple months

Well we had CRT's and VHC's and I play a couple video games in kindergarden on floppy disks.

>he's cool on Sup Forums

That 16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst 16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of association.

Practical plebeian folk judge a thing only by its immediate touch, taste, and smell; while more delicate types form their estimates from the linked images and ideas which the object calls up in their minds. Now when 16:10s and 16:9s are considered, the stolid churl sees only the two monitors before him, and bases his favour on their relative capacity to pander to his sloppy, unformed ideas of visual artistry.

On the other hand the gentleman and thinker sees each in all its natural affiliations, and cannot fail to notice that in the great symmetries of 16:9 monitors fall in with slovenly pulp movies created by peasant-burghers, whilst 16:10 monitors stand proudly with the highest art conceived by man such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and the Parthenon.

16:9 monitors are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness - the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men.

16:10 monitors are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality - the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men.

16:9 is a peasant and the 16:10 is a gentleman.

It's nothing about being cool, it's the fact that you're a 20+ year old child.

OK

FW900 at 2560x1600@75Hz
Via modding/overclock.

1,500$ on ebay, maybe less.

An LCD has physical pixels, and can't go above a maximum resolution.

A CRT "shoots" each pixel from a little electron gun really fucking fast, and that was the limitation. Lower resolutions could run at really really really high refresh rates, higher resolutions lost some refresh rate, and it was possible to go "above" recommended specs on resolution for some models.

CRTs have a resolution limit too, imposed on them by the structure of the phosphors on the aperture grille.

Yep. FW900 advertises a maximum that's smaller than the actual aperture grille.

High end CRT's had weird fucking resolutions, like 1536 vertical. But the grille often goes beyond that, allowing for 1600 for example.

Thanks I'm in therapy.

OP here. I guess I'm not getting a new monitor.

Blame television. The "HD" standard they adopted.

You won't see reasonably priced higher resolution monitors until TV adopts a higher standard.

>standards are bad
Deal with it.
>"HD"
I can guarantee you that you can't see a fucking difference in 1080 and anything higher from a proper goddamn viewing distance, you little shit. Hell, I bet it'd be hard for you to see a difference in 1080 HD and DVD quality from a proper viewing distance given a decent upscaling player.

You're retarded user, even my 2012 TV has this thing they call PC mode, which gives you an unprocessed, 4:4:4 picture.
The option is a bit hidden but works on all Samsung TVs: you need to set the name of the input you want in PC mode to "PC".

I really like mine. It's 25-26". I would have liked 27" but it was $100 more expensive.

1080p literally looks like shit compared to 1600p
go for it OP, full HD era is fortunately coming to an end

No ultra widescreen recommendations?

21:9 (marketing speak ratio)
Come in 2560 x 1080 or 3440 x 1440
+Manageable gaming res (unlike 4k)
-Bad for 16:9 content like movies

2160p ultra widescreen will be godly

p ultra widescreen will be godly
LG just announced a 38" 3840x1600 monitor.

>2160p ultra widescreen will be godly
Most GPU's won't be able to power it though.

I have two Dell monitors, both 27"

P2715Q for main
S2716DG for gayming

I've just upgraded from an old (7 years) Full HD LG Flatfron monitor this very week

I'm l o v i n g life

2560x1440 is a stellar resolution and leagues above 1920x1080

1440 is decent enough vertical resolution, aspect ratio aside.

>I dont know what to tell you user besides you're retarded.
>Download the image and open it up in paint for yourself to check,

This is not to scale. Open gridlines on paint and see. These lines are exactly 7 boxes each.

So how long until 24-27" QHD@120+Hz OLED monitors will be under $800?

Also, are the Korean 40" QFHD MVA monitors any good? A lot of the stuff I've read online say that they have problems with dead pixels, and the "minimum" brightness is 120 cd/(m^2). All I really care about is black levels / contrast / no glow from blacks in a dark room, and ghosting (to a lesser extent.)

I fell for the IPS meme before, I even fell for the 144Hz IPS meme, and I never want to deal with that dogshit again.