Your monitor is shit

You need a HDR monitor now.

digitaltrends.com/computing/benq-sw320-desktop-monitor-display-ultra-4k-hdr-support/

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS
nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/.../reproduction-british-passport.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport
asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/
testufo.com/#test=framerates
testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>inbetween resolution
>IPS
>5ms
Don't think you could make a worse purchase.

>16:9

>4k
>inbetween resolution

Yes. 4320p and 6480p resolutions are end game resolutions. Achieve 300+ dpi on 22" to 27" monitors.

This isn't news, kid. 4k is a marketing gimmick.

yeah you're right
4k is a marketing gimmick to people like you who think over 120 dpi is noticeable past one foot away
why do you think stupid shit like curved monitors are coming out?
to get you idiots to think theres still progress to be made in displays
1440p is frankly the max i'd go, i'd never get a screen large enough (for my pc) that would warrant 4k

4k is for TVs and has the resolution of premium video cameras since 2006
4 times 1080p, pretty enough for a 3 meter-away televison screen.

>over 120 dpi is noticeable past one foot away
Your eyes are shit. I mean really fucking shit. You wouldn't even be able to zero a rifle properly.

Think we're talking about monitors here, champ. Not that I'm agreeing with you anyway since you're an idiot.

amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS

1ms,144hz 1440p
What's the downside?

>tfw ultrawide
feels nice actually

BenQ is united kingdom?

I've always thought they were asian

>What's the downside?

>freesync
>1440p

no i'm just not an idiot who puts his face up and squints at displays
grow up

k

k thx

I assume it's a TN panel because the word "IPS" is nowhere to be found (not mentioning panel type in description reeks of trying to hide the fact that it's a TN panel)

no height adjust, pivot, rotation, no VESA mounting

TN are faster and better for gaming because shit colours make enemies more obvious HDR would help them to hide on you.

Legit retard, 144hz does not exist in greater resolutions.
1ms IPS does not exist, it's physically impossible
It's the screen itself I'm interested in, not how gimmickly you can place it

Nothing wrong with TN.
You can just mess with contrast. And it only helps with shitty modern FPS games.

>Legit retard, 144hz does not exist in greater resolutions.

Tell me kiddo why you want 144hz freesync? Just for random big numbers?

Because 144hz is literally brain porn?
Have you ever owned a 144hz or greater screen?
I'd go further if the price gap for 200hz screen wasn't so ridiculous.

Battle Royale games too.

You're the typical consumer that has no idea what he's doing or how to use these monitors.

Freesync on most monitors is pointless and gsync is better. The only time it doesn't matter between the two is for extreme competitive environments. From what I understand they have comparable lag.
No idea what that genre or game is.

>calls someone a "typical consumer"
>while shilling nvidia
I honestly don't get you.

Not shilling. Gsync is objectively better than freesync on most monitors for the majority of applications. The only application it doesn't matter in I already stated.

I use a hdr oled tv as my monitor

>Your eyes are shit. I mean really fucking shit. You wouldn't even be able to zero a rifle properly.

i'll show him
i'll show them all

just jumping in to say that it's obviously a strawman to make this kind of argument. i don't think 144Hz is worth sacrificing other things for (like spending a great deal more money, or giving up other features), but if you put a 60Hz monitor and a 144Hz monitor side by side, i bet almost anyone would spot the difference. the question is whether the "lesser" of those two is sufficiently bad that you can't use it, and after that whether the cost of getting the "better" of the two is worth it.

if you can get a 60Hz monitor for $200 and an otherwise identical 144Hz monitor for $210, just spend the 10 bucks. if you have to give up something important, like go from IPS to TN or pay like $60 more (vs that original $200), then the most charitable thing you can say is that you have to weigh the options. I certainly wouldn't do it.

this is exactly the same discussion we keep having about 4k, high density (aka ~Retina~) monitors. there's a difference. if you put a 1080p 60Hz monitor next to a 4k 60Hz monitor with all the same other features, i'd bet anything you would see the difference. it wouldn't require a huge amount of scrutiny either. the question then is whether the additional cost is worth it for you. for some people the answer is yes. for others the answer is no. it doesn't make you a miser for answering no, or another person a retard for answering yes.

This is what I mean about people not knowing how to use these monitors. Why they hell do you care about 144hz?

i'm not saying i care about 144Hz in a substantial way, but if there's a slightly smoother movement of the cursor and/or if ~1% of the videos i watch at high frame rates benefit from this feature, then there's reason to evaluate the value of such a feature. if the only case where the refresh rate comes into play is mousing around, then obviously a sane person wouldn't assess the feature very favorably, but if you game or if you're just crazy or filthy rich, the extra cost might be worth it to you.

but this is too qualified and nuanced a position for zealots on either side to agree with, so everyone sees this argument as equivocating or "not getting it"

I am so glad I waited. Hdr is a fucking game changer. Don't give a shitabout 4k though

I think if we start to use a more meaningful metric like pixel-per-degree, we can have more meaningful discussion. Pixel density requirements vary by viewing distance and particular use-case.
Maybe VR will teach us a lot about conventional monitors.

We know the application. There's no need to go further or use a different measurement.
In actuality, the problem is people like you. The ignorant people that see only stats on the back of the box and use that for comparison. Even worse are the people that buy these monitors and don't know how to use them still.

There is objective base to support gsync over freesync. ULMB being the big one and the main reason to want high refresh rate monitors. I said most freesync monitors because some do come with strobes. However, most do not. At higher resolutions where you can’t maintain a static FPS gsync can help with screen tearing. The people saying the motion is more fluid between 60hz and 144hz are for the most part talking out their ass. While motion is more fluid it’s still plagued by blur. There is zero reason to run a game at 144hz when you can achieve 144fps static.

The other reason I stated was for extreme competitive environments where you're trying to get every bit of lag out of the chain. High refresh rate monitors are one of the biggest gains in lower lag.

>In actuality, the problem is people like you.
lol okay.

It's true. You and others like you spread this missinfo everywhere. It's become a click bait title. "60hz vs 144hz"

lol okay.

HDR is game changing for media consumption. My Vizio P UHD TV looks so good with HDR. Games and UHD blurays looks so good.

With that said, if you don't play games or watch movies on your monitor it's kinda pointless

>You need a HDR monitor now.
Nigga, you can see individual frames flicker in front of you with that shit.

Get a fucking 1440p 144MHz monitor instead.

>1080p
>144hz
Call me poor but I have 0 regrets.

Why did you make a shitty thread?

>As for HDR, it means high-dynamic range. In imaging, this technique generates extremely dark blacks and extremely bright whites
And then from the same article you read that this display has a native contrast ratio of 1:1000 and max brightness of 350 nits.
>and a higher color accuracy than the standard dynamic range.
Color accuracy is not at all related to HDR. Color gamut yes but even this is kind of iffy given how terrible the "HDR" marketing term is. What that display seems to do well is being able to display a large gamut. How accurate it is is left to be seen. Probably needs some calibration. Gamut is impressive depending on the backlight technology used.

>I have no argument because I'm a retard

No, they're British.

Downside it has freesync

No they are English & Welsh, "British" is not a legal identity.

im not the "kiddo"/user but I have got 1440p 144hz but alas I have gsync.
Now it was expensive but I could afford it so why the fuck not

Actually it is.

1680x1050 no ragrets

Pakistani is more accurate

No as thats a totally different country. Also what a wank attempt at hilarity.

>60hz
why would i use technology from the year 1996?

Only in the British Virgin Islands and other British tax havens.

5 years into the future
>your hdr monitor is shit you need a hyper reality 4d 24k monitor

>IPS
>1000:1 contrast
>HDR
Topkek

OP here, posted the wrong benQ

No it is in the UK/GB too.

you can always see any of the good korean beasty monitors..

you mean those shitty qnix you lot buy off ebay? Holy shit theyre wank

>zero a rifle
t. consumerist americuck

there are many companies that sell quality monitors....you just need to know how to spot the ones that actually sells with a pixel guarantee

nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/.../reproduction-british-passport.pdf

Hey look British passport.

No. THIS why Scotland, Wales and NI need to be consulted on how Brexit can happen (an Act of Parliament). MPs need to vote for the Brexit Act 2017.

British passport is a colony passport. The UK & NI passport does not say "British" on it anywhere.

Mine does.
Issued by United Kingdom
Type of document Passport
Purpose Identification
Eligibility requirements British citizenship or any of the various other forms of British nationality

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport
The jocks,sheepshaggers and IRA all have to use British passports.

really? so whats this then?

It say European Union on the cover. You should contact your MP and tell them to vote down Brexit.

>"The UK & NI passport does not say "British" on it anywhere."
number 3 on photo British citizen. "British"

Just like 1080p was

1080p was a stepping stone and the limit of tech at the time. Wasn't till the 2010s we had tech that could really push past that resolution.

>britcucks' passports are in french

Is there anything wrong with the BenQ XL2411 apart from it being marketed as an "e-sports monitor" which is incredibly offputting. It has pivot, 144Hz, VESA. I'm not looking to go over 1080p and 24 inches is just fine.

>350 nits peak brightness
Its shit, HDR TVs have 1000 nits.

What do you want it for? Gaming?
>brightness
How to spot a normie.

Do you want to game on it?

I didn't think people gave a shit about brightness since 2010

Gaming is a big part of it and I've been hearing about 144Hz for a long time and yet to experience it myself. Obviously it wouldn't be just for gaming but for reading, work (mostly writing related), watching movies/TV etc. as well. I don't do any sort of graphics design or anything like that. I keep seeing that the LG 24GM77 is better but I'm fairly sure it's not sold in my country.

Coming from a country we own and populated with criminals, you have no room to speak.

You're pretty much out of luck for do it all monitors. The gaming monitors are acceptable but really meant for gaming.

The Asus pg248q is probably the best out atm for gaming. Go with gsync or go with a benq. I've heard the newer benqs aren't that great but I have no experience with them.

Im using the asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/ currently, until a decent 4k gets released.
Hopefully next year they have said some good 4ks are being released.

Brightness is very important for HDR. Educate yourselves.

london?

1440p is an option. I'm sticking with 1080p for probably at least another year. Hardware can't push enough frames for me to move up in resolution.
I would give up the motion clarity of ULMB for a 24-27"8k OLED though.

Brightness does nothing but sell TVs to retards like you and kill white levels.

I've been using a Asus VK246H for more than five years. I think almost anything that's just fundamentally a decent monitor and isn't straight up busted with ghosting and shit would be enough. I mostly just want a monitor I can pivot. I looked into getting a pivot stand but one of those costs almost as much as a monitor that can pivot so I figured I might as well put in the extra 50 bucks to get a new monitor that's decent and 144Hz because apparently that's one of those things that you can't live without once you experience it in games.

You're ignorant about HDR. Stop making a fool of yourself.

144hz means nothing.
see If you want motion clarity then you use ULMB or a strobe like on benq monitors.All 144hz Gsync gives you is some head room when you can't maintain a static FPS for 120hz ULMB. 85hz ULMB can work too but I just use gnsyc if I can't run at 120hz.

Just the refresh rate jump from 60hz to 144hz (assuming you can maintain equal fps) isn't much at all in terms of motion clarity. 144hz still fails tests like the UFO and map test pretty badly.
testufo.com/#test=framerates
testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

You need 120hz ULMB to be able to clearly see those.
3/10 kid
See Rtings and then don't post here again.

Do 10-Bit Freesync IPS monitors exist?

I bought the xl2411z on black friday.

the one downside of it are the colors. they are bad. really fucking bad. I have an ips monitor next to it and looking from one to the other is painful.
that being said, I can still send it back but decided to keep it because 144hz are pretty neat for fps games and the washed out colors actually end up being helpful to spot enemies.

if you play a lot of fps multiplayer games than it's worth it but if you're more into single player stuff, I'd stick to ips.

>professional gaming monitor

LOL what the fuck does that even mean?

are you a fucking moba nerd that works at 7-11?

Videos come from cameras...

TN helps because I can get a 1440p 144hz screen for $300, IPS has the disadvantage of being $800 for that same spec

It helps for anything that isn't 60fps
I originally bought an IPS monitor and then a 1440p 144hz tn monitor, and while I can't say if IPS is a meme, paying more for IPS and not being able to get a high res screen past 60hz is a big fucking meme

>they're completely different until it matters then they're really the same

Basically to normies, high Hz is way more noticable than 4K
People wouldn't even realize they're looking at a 4K screen but they notice high Hz real quick

>24" 8K
Good luck with that, I have a feeling that will never exist ever, and if it does, it's only because retards like you couldn't think it through for more than a second

This user has the right idea.

>spending over $300 on memes

1080p is endgame for me.

At 60hz mine looks weak and at 144hz it looks much better, unfortunately I'm one of those normies who doesn't stare at a webpage frame test all day, I get my opinions from playing games at different framerates
But at least 144 is greater than 60 in my world

>32"
Too small. Pass.

ULMB makes me feel like I'm in a classroom with fluorescent lights