What's the point in 5k when people have barely started to use 4k?

What's the point in 5k when people have barely started to use 4k?

What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?

5k seems very strange. I think 4k will be the standard for a while and then double to 8k.

That screenshot makes my CPU hurt though.

You can't even see past 1080 anyway

>That screenshot makes my CPU hurt though
How old is your cpu for that image to impact anything?

>5k background
>3000x1688

Cheeky bastard. I meant a city that large in cities skylines =P

1440p is top comfy tier tbqh

they somehow need to peddle new trash to consumers.

I barely see difference with 4k at 48 inch, I see no point of 8k for non-studio users.

This. I keep recommending 1440p to most people.

Big upgrade from 1080 without the huge performance hit of 4k.

Best size screen for 1440p?

5k is mostly for video editors who work with 4k

24 is comfy. Works well without having to use scaling, provided your eyesight isn't shit.

Apples 5k monitor looks fantastic, great for editing.

I'd say 27 inch

it's so people can edit in 4k without losing image quality

13

Shekel magnet for fucktards

5K is to 4K what 1440p is to 1080p, kind of.
>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
Image quality due to much higher DPI.

I use a 27" one and it's great

video editing

4k master race

tfw when 1440p switches to 4k we'll be on 8k

he's on a brescott

Dat competitive consumerism.

Are you 14?

my computer screen is 40" 4k but who cares, the eye cant see difference between 720p and 4k

"5K" is a thing because it's 4x 1440p, just like "4K" is 4x 1080p
Thankfully DELL makes real 5K at 5120x2880 and not like whatever fucked up 4800x2700 shit the rest might do.

5K is doable depending on game, and for image editing it's good as well.

What's the point in your existence?

Why would you use 16:10 to play video games? You realize most well designed games are "hori+", meaning the wider the aspect ratio the more you see.

Pic related. You're not gaining anything from using 16:10 on a 16:9 display.

>What's the point in 5k when people have barely started to use 4k?
Apple marketing mostly.
>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
pretty much none. Large 4k screens are the shit though.

>the eye
Your eye maybe at improper viewing distances

>That screenshot makes my CPU hurt though.

What kind of a cold war era CPU do you have user??

>What's the point in 5k when people have barely started to use 4k?
manufacturers processes improvements
softwares compatibility before mass-production
devs learning new things and boosting their imagination with future products

You are nothing more than a walking wallet, you shouldn't stress yourself with things too hard to understand for your brainlet and buy it.

>softwares compatibility before mass-production
Maybe you should design software that doesn't break at higher resolutions. It's not that hard.

>What's the point in 5k when people have barely started to use 4k?
5k is ideal for editing 4k content.
>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
Pretty text and clearer images. I personally prefer larger screens with a lower DPI though.

You mean most games that are designed for consoles where vertical movement is too hard for controllers?

>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
If anything, the smaller the better. I have a 15" monitor with 1440x900 resolution and the picture is much sharper than a 19" monitor of the same resolution.

So you're saying you should keep the horizontal view constant and cut off your vertical field of view? Fucking retarded. Think before you post.

5K is just a "one up" marketing term made well known mostly because Apple used to sell its iMacs. Its like, oh PCs have 4K now, lets call ours 5K and make it slightly higher res. That's how it came about.

Its not noticeable at all and IMO both 4k and 5k are shit because they are too high dpi on desktop monitors to be comfortable viewed at native res, but then still too low to truly be "resolution independent" without noticeable aliasing and blurry shit. We'll probably need to get to "8k" or whatever shitty marketing buzz word they'll call it before you have a monitor that can display graphics of many different resolutions without noticeable quality loss.

Not to mention most movies and other media will be 4k so you will loose quality viewing it on a 5k display. But I'd stick with 1440p on anything 27'' or less and larger than 15''.

Because the monitor that I took that screenshot on is a DELL workstation monitor with 16:10.
Not a good gaming monitor, but that's what I had to use to go beyond UHD without using custom resolutions.

Why does that have to do with anything related to consoles?

But you said the Dell monitor was 5120x2880, which is 16:9

No.
I said DELL makes a 5K monitor.
Mine is 16:10, but I used DSR hence the:
>but that's what I had to use to go beyond UHD without using custom resolutions.


Though it seems the UP2715K is out of stock/EOL.

They annouced an 8K one,not sure if it's 8K (8192*XXXX) or "8K" (7680*XXXX)

since most 16:10 and 16:9 monitors share a 1920 horizontal pixel count, wouln't 16:10 have an advantage over 16:9?

It should, but often the games "zooms in" for 16:10. Its shitty design, but a reality. I'm not why every game doesn't just have extreme zoom/fov controls, why they would be restricted as they are in a lot of games.

>It should
It shouldn't. 16:10 is narrower than 16:9. You either design a game to give more horizontal FOV the wider your screen is, or you crop the vertical FOV the wider it gets. You could go full retard and program special exceptions for 16:10 resolutions, but why?

It's not shitty design, it's good design. You're the one who chose to buy a narrower aspect ratio. That's how maths works.

>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
What , you want a bigger 4K display ?

The point of high PPI is to make the individual pixels be so small that they stop being distinguishable by the naked eye, aka 'retina' for some of you faggots.

A bigger 4k display gives more usable workspace. Instead of muh crisp text, you get more text on the page. The larger screen size allows you to see the text without scaling.

ANSWER ME!

>you can't even rotate past 360 degrees anyway...

(You)

>What's the point in 4k when the screens are only 24"?
Because you can still see the pixels on a 24 inch 1080p screen when viewed from 1-2 feet like sitting at a desk.

1440p is the 720p of the 2017 world why would anyone waste their money on an intermediate resolution?

Sure, if you have glioma

I say 24 inch is bretty gud for that sweet DPI. But 27 inch is also good

1440p for 24-27'' is the perfect resolution if you just want to run everything at native res. At 4k you have to dick with scaling, either things are too small or they are scaled with aliasing. In games 4k doesn't look that much better than 1440p and requires much more GPU power. You can also get a high quality 1440p for half the cost of a decent 4k monitor and a lot of the affordable 4k monitors are garbage quality.

>too high dpi on desktop monitors to be comfortable viewed at native res
That is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. The issue isn't the hardware or the reselution. The problem is shitty designers and developers not using high dpi graphics and suckling at implementing scaling.

>Implying 4K/60hz is better than 1440p/144hz

...

Guess we will just ignore 4k 144hz then?

>Implying any GPU can play modern AAA titles at 4K 144hz
I have a 1080 Ti and I can’t even get a locked 144 fps in a lot of titles.

>playing anything but 800x600 bb
lmao i bet ur not even global

nothing can even scale correctly, not even osx. anything over 1080 and in some cases 1440 is fucking useless unless you have shit tier eyes and dont notice the blurriness

What? I'm on an old ass S3 and it loads just fine

bigger waifu wallpapers
nani

1440p 24 inch. No scaling, great clarity

Apple's been pushing a lot of the milestones in spec upgrades lately. first it was the ~*retina*~ display, then it was true tone, and now it's promotion(al material).

other companies might not come up with a brand to describe these features, but achieving a certain pixel density, a certain color accuracy baseline, and a certain refresh rate are going to be the major ways that display manufacturers (and OEM consumers) will try to make advances.

a simple scaling of conventional monitor pixel density would lead to 4k at 24" because that's doubling the pixels along the horizontal and vertical axes of a 1080p monitor. it's unlikely (but certainly possible) that manufacturers will make an effort to double *that*, but the marginal gains are extremely small (people would notice a barely perceptible increase in sharpness of vector objects, which scale perfectly), and the costs would be enormous for the foreseeable future (which, admittedly, isn't very long).

manufacturers might scale to non-integral values (e.g. instead of 2x doing 2.5x or something) or scale at a value that requires interpolation (e.g. 3x), but those manufacturers would be enormous faggots, muddying things for everyone dealing with rasterized elements (i.e. everyone).

so if 4k is what you expect/should get at 24", then 5k makes sense at ~27 or 30". I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to hope to see 8k at 30" and certainly at 32-40", although the flat plane of a monitor at ~3 feet away (a pretty typical distance for desktop monitors) makes 40" difficult to work with. you'll be seeing some or all of the corners of the display at an extreme angle compared to whatever part is right in front of you.

i personally have and love a few 24" monitors that are each pointed at slightly different angles, toward my face, because otherwise the skewed perspective would be obnoxious (to say nothing of steep angle color integrity suffering and whatnot).

5K is nice for productivity, it's just such a small incremental upgrade and expensive that it isn't for the average consumer. And that's okay.

4k at 24" or less is nice for the pixel density, so even though you have to scale so that you don't suffer from eye strain, it's nice having really crisp text.

That girl is 9 years old

I just ordered a 27" 4K screen. Is the gnome scaling good enough?

What's the point in 4k when I can barely stream porn in 1080?

whats the point of having the golden gate bridge connect to an island with nothing on it

To create jobs. To jump off.

So basically 95% of games

shes my gf and shes actually 9 thousand years old

i agree
itll be just like 1080 to 4k

1440 was a niche resolution

by the time everyone settles on 4k 6 or 8k will come out and 5k will be irrelevent

Thing is 1440p is a big step up from 1080p. 5k is trivially better, in practicality its nothing, not even noticeable.

5"

while i agree its like going from 480i to 720p instead of just getting 1080p

>manufacturers might scale to non-integral values (e.g. instead of 2x doing 2.5x or something)
Many laptops already come with very weird display properties, but its all high PPI stuff.
But I only have seen that on laptops/small screens.

I guess when you make the pixels so small, even if your scaling isn't pixel perfect (like say anything that isn't 4K -> 1080p = 200% scaling) it won't make any difference since the user can't perceive that a few pixels are in the 'wrong' place.
I scale on my 4K display to 150% (effectively 1440) and I see no scaling issues because of what I just mentioned.

Even if you tried to display videos/images with larger resolutions than the display can naively display, the details that will be lost will be invisible to nearly everyone.

>What's the point in 5k
5k animes you fuckin retard lol seriously where is this website posting adverts mcdonalds baka

32, desu
same pixel density as 24 inch 1080p

Because 4k is garbage. It's too impactful to performance for any meaningful improvement that it offers, which it offers none until you scale it profoundly, and at that point you're far enough away (9' average) that it's still marginal. It's straight up a viral placebo pushed by marketing and aggrandized by built in sharpness filters and tech illiterate fucktards pronouncing it as the end all be all. Scaling beyond 4k is fucking ridiculous as well unless you're using multiple 4k monitors, and at that point you're doing some really prolific shit like industrial computing and you're only going to be running one screen.

Except it isn't. There is a wall of diminishing returns at certain scales there is no purpose in increasingly high resolutions. 1440 was fine for all computing purposes and moving to 4k at even 27" is a fools errand. I'd even posit it would've been optimal for home theatre but there are 70"+ TVs in the market that will likely benefit from increased resolution, same with projectors, sans those outliers there is no purpose in the continuity of resolution hikes. Manufacturers are simply jumping on the 4k bandwagon to appear competitive while they develop affordable panel technologies for the market to compete with.

idk m8 1080 is pretty sweet spot on 24 inch monitor. pic v related.

5k is a "retina" 1440p

4k is a "retina" 1080p

been on the internet all day and this is the most retarded thing i've read so far

and then we have samsung with their SHITTY Half Height Pixels on their VA monitors that retards buy in bulk.

t. Blindman

4k is enough of a meme in itself
basically this
I have a 4k monitor and the best thing I got was clearer Japanese text 先輩

People have barely started using 4k? I replaced all my TV's and pc monitor with 4k tvs last black Friday. There were 55in's going for $300 and 40,inn's going for $260. It's mainstream moro

>there are people against high PPI in 2017

Yeah, retards.

having whatever you fap to in 4k is pretty nice. might depend on your fetish(es) though.

5K is to 1440p as 8k is to 4K from 1080p

>TFW still no 35" 2160p 165hz IPS displays

I still use 1400x1050 and 1280x800 displays. What's the point of upgrading at all when I can still shitpost from my 10 year old laptop displays?
>inb4 muh gayems
>inb4 muh porn
You don't need a 4k display for programming and making poopoo peepee frogs in Pinta.

>not giving 8k a different gimmicky name and using Ultra again
dropped

1080p stopped being enough a few years ago and hardware that can properly take advantage of 4k is a few years off. That's a pretty big intermediary period.

U U U U

All the 4:3 resolutions result in the enemies looking identically big, so you might as well pick the highest one of them, instead of using 800x600 like a mong.

There isnt one. 4K is a dead resolution and will remain so for a while simply because the most common way to consume media is through streaming, but only a fraction of all consumers has the internet power required to properly do so. As long as that isnt fixed, any resolution above 1080p wont ever be mainstream.

5k isn't for consumer plebs, and 4k doesn't make too much sense for them either due the prices. For a professional, the more pixels the better.