4k

Does anyone of you have a 4k monitor? Is it really that worth it?

Other urls found in this thread:

dreamcatalogue.bandcamp.com/album/--18
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Don't own one but I had a roommate last year who did. As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p. If you need a lot of screen estate for multitasking, then it may be worth it to buy one.

I'm not quite sure I know the answer to this question.

That depends on what you're doing. If you need a lot of screen space, you could just get more monitors, though. If you want to watch movies, get a projector instead. If you want to play games, get a 1440p monitor with 144+ Hz refresh rate.

How about general usage like browsing web and watching youtube?

Fonts are extra sharp on 4k, they look like vectors without rasterization, if you are a programmer a 4k screen is a delight.

lol just got this.

>web browsing
The fonts are really really nice. So I'd say it's worth it if you read a lot.
>youtube
There's very little content in 4k and I don't really see a huge difference between 1080p and 4k.

honestly considering a 4k monitor for my next build. I want to do a Linux + Gaming build and i heard that having multiple monitors with different resolutions (I have a 1080 and a 1440) let alone different refresh rates (both of my current ones are 60hz) is a nightmare.

Higher refresh rate > higher resolution for me.

I don't play games often, so I really had no use for the extra screen space.

Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function. Minimizing applications and such is almost second nature. Actually, Windows supports virtual workspaces natively now, so there's definitely no need for such a thing.

I have a 4k laptop but I find that I spend much more time paying attention to how sharp the font looks rather than actually reading it. I turned it down to 1080 after it started to hurt my eyes. I should have just stuck to 1080.

nothing in life is worth it

Sorry, I don't know. I wasn't paying attention to those aspects when looking over his shoulder.

>natively
Only if you're using Spyware 10
For third party, just get something like bbLean

>Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function.

I didn't need 4 windows viewable at the same time when I was 10.

Minimizing is gay shit for floating WM faggots. Also, if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?

>Plus, anyone that has been using a computer since they were 10 does not need 'extra screen space' to function.

1024x768 was the norm when I was 10. That's a trash resolution for games, shows, and productivity programs. Plus most 4:3 monitors were CRT, which take up a huge fucking chunk of your desk.

>nothing in life is worth it

>even the billboards are ultrawide

Use a 55 inch 4k tv Yes it is far superior to 1080p

No and everyone who does is a fucking retard. 4K video is actually 1080p video (ie 420) and graphics cards powerful enough to play games at 4K literally don't exist, hell even high end cards struggle at 1440p.

Get a 1440p monitor if you multi-task often or a 1080p one if you don't.

2560 x 1440 144Hz or 4k 60Hz?

I dont play games btw

I'll buy one when they have g;ass panels

They are already 4K movies and web pages look much much more sharp than on 1080p you dumb nigger

>le curved meme

Freesync 2

>Also, if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?
Because browsing the web/your desktop feels better at 144hz since it's more smooth?

>expensive over other tech available
>not much content
>will get better when they go mainstream
Probably not right now. Better wait at least another year.

>if you're not gaming, why do you care about refresh rate?
60 Hz displays can't play movies.
They only play vague imitations of the movie, because 60 / 24 does not divide evenly. Now you can probably run a 60 Hz display at 24 Hz, but then the desktop experience goes to shit. Even on-screen displays are unbearably jerky at 24 Hz.
So you choose 144 Hz.
144 / 24 = 6

Anytime I see someone mention they have 4k I automatically write them off as a gamer retard that doesn't know what they're doing

>Anytime I see someone mention they have 4k I automatically write them off as a gamer retard that doesn't know what they're doing

Why?

Actually 4K is more appealing to non-gamers due to modern GPUs struggling to render 4K at high qualities.

the fuck are you talking about? I have a GTX 1060 and it plays games like Doom 2 and GTASA at 2160p@144hz just fine. solid 144 fps, no stuttering.

This movie is over 50 years old and 1080p doesn't do it justice.
Properly made movies easily exceed 1920x1080 effective resolution.

>Comparison image
>Two different images used
What purpose does that serve

>60 Hz displays can't play movies.
Most 4K TVs on the market are 60Hz and can play movies fine.

>post 4k image
>Its just an ultra-grainy, low-detail wideshot
Literally what?

only 30 and 60 fps, so mostly TV, not 24 fps

No they don't, they look like mobile websites and have shitty material design.

>anons who fell for the 4k meme desperately justifying their purchase
when will they learn

I have a 4k-60hz and a 1440-144hz monitor and have no problems at all. The only thing is it's hard to get a wallpaper to work

on linux though?

I'm I'd suggest 4k 60 for doing anything but gaming. Thought 144hz would be a meme, but for gaming it is fantastic

Have not had Linux since getting new monitor, cannot speak of this

It really depends on what you want.

Text is great on one, and if you need more screen real-estate on a montior in less space then by all means go for it. If you want gaming, a 144hz monitor will be much more beneficial, especially if you're competitive and turn your settings down for more FPS.

that's like 90% of the issue then

>ITT: dumbasses justifying their bad 4k buy
1440p is all you need from a monitor. Monitors are designed to be used close to the user, and ones big enough to take advantage of 2160p are too large to be ergonomic.

1440p 144hz IPS is cream of the crop right now for monitors, 4k is only good for TVs.

Fucking what; almost all 60Hz monitors are / support a 59.94Hz refresh rate, which is a perfect 2.5 vsync ratio for 23.976fps movies.

holy shit this thread is retarded

>2.5
>perfect
Extremely inconsistent you mean

I have some bad news for you
The majority of movies you've ever seen have not been on a display that refreshes at an integer multiple of 23.976.

40"-50" 4k is the current productivity king if you're OK with ~100 dpi and being stuck at 60 Hz until hopefully no longer than next summer.

I went from two 20"1650x1050 to a single 27" 4k.

I do enjoy the productivity and sharpness I (mostly) get out of it though. I borrowed my brother's 1440p and thought it as not enough for my needs; coming from my two previous monitors. I also didn't want multiple monitors again as my work space is currently limited. It's pretty neat having basically 4 1080p windows on one screen.

However, my real major reservation against the switch is the lack of support of it for certain programs. Legacy programs I have will either be blurry as fuck or be a tiny box.

Gaming is a bit of a bitch too, though it looks REALLY good when it works.

I would have gone with a 1440p ultrawide if I found a decent sale last year.

No because unlike all the fagots who suck dick and follow the trendy words and shillin i know that pixel density hanst improved that much in the last 5 years.
So yes, you have a bigger monitor and a bigger image that is rendered with almost the same pixel density of an hd monitor.

is the real difference in sharpness between 1440 and 4k?

Hm?

HP Z Display Z27q
27" / 5120x2880

NEC MultiSync EA244UHD
24" / 3840x2160

Both twice as dense as regular HD monitors.

>twice

Yes.

My brother and I notice a difference in sharpness between our monitors. IMO, the difference isn't worth worrying about at 27 inches (I just went for 4k because of the stupid good deal at the time and I like my windows).

So 1440 at 27 inches is perfectly fine and probably the sweetspot for sharpness sake.

1080 at 27 inches is a sin against humanity at this point though.

>i heard that having multiple monitors with different resolutions (I have a 1080 and a 1440) let alone different refresh rates

I heard this too. I'd hate to spend a bunch of money on a 1440p 144hz monitor and a 4k 60hz monitor only to run into some goofy bugs but still I'd like to try it

I would like 4K to be mainstream at least 10 years ago, because IBM already had a 3840*2400 monitor back in 2001.
>Sup Forums doesn't allow 10240*5760
pleb limits.

Whats wrong with using a proxy/ vpn exit node?

...

>I would like 4K to be mainstream at least 10 years ago, because IBM already had a 3840*2400 monitor back in 2001.

But then again, these monitors required esoteric expensive quad GPUs or some shit.

You need two DVI cables because back then it didn't have Dual-Link.

...

1440p is the money res

They don't want you to escape the botnet

1920x1080 24" vs 3840x2160 27"

No idea but Sup Forums seems to flag any IP with a lot of outgoing connections as an exit node and gives you a 1 month ban.
When I lived in uni accomodation i'd get banned for it 25% of the time I posted, and then have to appeal and wait 3 days for the mods to unban me, just to be banned again.
I even found the exact IP range my unis internet provider used and sent it to the moderators explaining my situation, but they didn't do shit and I never heard anything back.

My VPN is banned as well.
I route sys.Sup Forums.org over my home server (SSH SOCKS proxy)

Is there much perceived difference between 100 and 144hz for goyming? I could stretch my budget and get a predator x34, but there's also the dell s2716dg that would only cost 60% as much.

>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p
Bull fucking shit. I game on my 27in 4k display and the difference between 1080p is night and day. 1080p is a blurry fudge filled mess whereas with 4k everything is super crisp and practically jumps out of the monitor.

>新しい日の誕生
Whatever weeb thought this sounded good needs to be shot.

kinda, yes

there's a lot less difference between 120 and 144 though

1440p is the sweet spot

You have dust under your screen, don't you?

>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p.

If you're legally blind, maybe.

look at your phone, scale up the fonts to match the ones on your monitor and hold it next to it. compare.

meh, I've used a 60hz 16:9 1080 lcd alongside a 140hz 4:3 1024 CRT for a few years with linux and once you've got a few xrandr scripts or Xorg.conf set up, you can forget about it.

bought a 27" 4k monitor, the only reason I bought it was to edit large photos without the need to crop
gaming is mostly no different to 1080p although 1440p is probably preferable, media (tv, movies) is mostly no different but I've always gone for the higher bitrate/resolution where available - it's a monitor on a desk, not a >40"
as far as scaling goes nothing scales well, windows 10 might do okay but windows 7/8.1 will only scale one monitor so you need to enable resolution superscaling on your second monitor to have two reasonable displays and even if you do this, and this will be a problem under windows 10, there's still those old legacy programs or some java programs or some program that just won't scale at all, under linux your best bet is to just bump the font size up but this isn't practical or reliable, maybe in a couple of years scaling will be where it needs to be but I'm convinced the only thing that'll ever do scaling well is osx or mobiles

since I did buy a 4k for a niche I can't complain too much but I'd probably have been far better off on 1440p - it's mostly the stupidly high dpi that's killing it for me but when things scale nicely it does look pretty nice

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: The more you know where something is, the less you know where it is going. The more you see the pixels, the less you see the information.

dreamcatalogue.bandcamp.com/album/--18

>There's very little content in 4k

Wat? There's lots of youtubers uploading in 4k now

>The majority of movies you've ever seen have not been on a display that refreshes at an integer multiple of 23.976.
Unfortunate that you aren't watching movies with frame doubling on a gsync monitor then.

Sounds like you need to backup yourself up because we don't believe you

What don't you understand? Gsync monitors work with weird-ass framerates but only above 30fps. You can even arcade games like Mortal Kombat at 54.7fps just fine.

Yes but youtube convert it anyway and the detail loss is tangible, they used to upload near-untouched 4k videos they looked astonishing, but it was something like 5 years ago

I think a more important concern is why the fuck 10bit or above is not supported on the desktop and only via 'Pro' shit (Have to have an expensive 'Pro' GPU (Quadro). 'Pro' monitor (Eizo) and 'Pro' software (Adobe Photoplop).

My Acer XF270HUA supports 10bpc at 120Hz and below but only via DX11 (MadVR FSE DX11 mode and HDR games if the monitor was HDR capable).

For photo editing you are stuck at 8bit and yes I do notice gradients.

But I am not going to shell out several thousand just for photo editing.

>not watching your tv with binoculars

Why even live?

This. To really appreciate 4K you are going to need a monitor that is 32" or bigger. The other down side is that if you have 4K on a smaller monitor font scaling becomes a nightmare. I have a 27" 1440P 144Hz monitor and Sup Forums's default font size is really really small when scaled at standard Windows scaling. Granted I am short sighted and have to pull the display closer to me to be able to read it. I can imagine how bad it would get if it was 4K.

Yes. No, if it's less than 40" and more than 24".

IIRC this is an older vs newer MacBook Pro.
Pre-retina and post-retina display.

nobody sits that close to a monitor

What are you talking about. The pixies are 1/4 the size on a 4k monitor of equilibrium dimensions to a 1080p one. How can you not tell the difference?

On the topic of running GNU/Linux with multiple monitors:

Resolution is rarely an issue, but having different refresh rates is still an issue on some DEs where your entire desktop GUI runs at the lowest refresh rate (e.g. 60Hz) despite one of your monitors reportedly running at a high refresh rate. From what I understand, this is an X11 limitation and should probably be fixed on Wayland. The only workaround is to disable compositing, or use a non-compositing WM.

Another notable limitation is per-monitor DPI, which you'll suffer if you're using a 1080p monitor and a 4K monitor. Also, In terms of gaming, SDL1 is terrible with multiple monitors, so you should look for games that use SDL2 instead.

>forget about it

Are you italian, camaro?

>being this fucking dumb

I bet you're a 3rd worlder who's never seen anything other than 1366x768.

>As far as gaming, you won't notice much of a difference than 1080p

I have to beg to differ. I bought a dell p2415q and I was blown away by witcher 3 @ 188 dpi / 4K / 60Hz. It ran smoothly on my GTX 1050 Ti as well.

source on this? It doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't a video player be able to resolve this at playtime?

I've got a XPS 15 with a 4k display.
I honestly don't really notice the difference.
Maybe because it's only 15"