What type of monitor(s) do you have Sup Forums?
ive currently got a 1080p Acer G276HL. its decent but ive been thinking about upgrading for a while.
saw this recently
amazon.com
what do you think? is it worth it? its by far the cheapest 1440p 144hz ips monitor ive seen.
i know 4k 144hz monitors are coming out soon, but those are rumored to cost over $1200!!
Syncmaster 305T-plus
old 30" 16:10 QHD 60hz 6ms
Still does fine, but I had to modify the housing and add a cooler to the bga on the logic board
Ever since I got my first 1440p monitor, 1080p is unbearable to use.
AOC 2470Sw
AOC E2270S
LG Flatron W2453V
Mg278q . 1440p 144 hz
Imagine going on 4K then. I'm using the 1st gen XB280HK 4K Gsync screen. 28" TN, I don't care about IPS, I had IPS shortly and didn't notice any difference in terms of image quality.
4K 144Hz Gsynced would be a dream, but I don't have the money for that, even my 1080 Ti runs most current games with 50-60 FPS. Games like BF4 run with 100 FPS, BF1 75-90, and no, I won't turn down settings on my 900 € GPU. I'll probably buy the next Ti and see how it works out, if there are any affordable 4K screens in the 600 € range then I'll buy one.
Always note, currently there is only one GPU that can handle 4K without much compromise, and most people won't spend 800+ on the GPU only. Two years earlier there was no GPU that could handle 4K with maxed settings.
4K will become more mainstream until 2020, allowing 144 Hz 4K to become the new "luxury" high end option like 60 Hz 4K is now.
god it hurts being a eurofag
all high refresh rate 1440p monitors are too expensive here
>Always note, currently there is only one GPU that can handle 4K without much compromise,
You can always just game at 1080P since the scaling is perfect on 4K monitors for it.
Honestly the pixels are so damn small you hardly notice the scaling artifacts if you choose to play (and scale) different resolutions such as 1440 to 4K
You gain the benefits of a high PPI display when you're not gaming and can still game on it with either high FPS at 1080p or low fps at 4K depending on the game
3x dell SP2309W
and i hate them all but they were cheap
It isn't. 1080p scaled to 4K looks blurry like hell. I used to have this screen with a 780 Ti. Don't remember me of that time... I played Witcher 3 on lowest possible settings with 30 FPS.
Also you don't buy high resolution screens to play 1080p on them. Thats retarded money burning. I would probably have chosen a 2K144 screen if I knew my shitty Titan X GPU would fail after 3 months, but I already had the expensive 4K model and had to deal with it.
Now everything is fine. My advise: Only buy 4K if you already own a 1080 Ti, otherwise leave it. I also had the 1070 on 4K and its not fun to have medium settings at 45 FPS. Even the 1080 has drops, the Ti can maintain at least 50 FPS in current AAA titles. Don't betray yourself with resolution scaling. I've tried everything.
>not using a thinkpad
what the fuck happened to Sup Forums
>amazon.com
>pixiogaming.com
Something stinks user. That's not what's listed on their site. Does look nice though. Good colors, brightness, contrast, VA panel, response time is 4 ms which isn't the greatest but not bad.
4K gaming is dumb. You need at least a 32" screen for 4K to be noticeable and at that size you need to be a few feet away to see the whole screen which defeats the purpose.
>It isn't. 1080p scaled to 4K looks blurry like hell
it only looks blurry as hell because you've lost 1/4 of the pixels, shit looks only blurry because you've experience the crispness of 4K beforehand
it's a new revision that's why it has new in the name
pixiogaming.com
Yes, thats what I talked about, why should someone get an expensive 4K monitor if his system doesn't have enough performance for it? I suffered from this for two years and recommend anyone to avoid it.
No, you are dumb. You'll notice anything to be sharper on a 4K screen, plus native antialiasing. 1080p looks very "fuzzy" compared to native 4K, if you add some SMAA or even MSAA there will be almost zero aliasing. This is the main reason to play at 4K.
> You need at least a 32" screen for 4K to be noticeable
Measuing PPI is a ratio of a screen size to resolution.
4K/high PPI can be noticeable on any screen size but its all relative to how close you are to the display, this is why like laptops with 4K displays and those retina macbooks look great (besides the brightness set to 100%)
Phones have been pushing high PPI for a few years now and yet no one is making the argument (except maybe you) that you need to be several feet away from the display for the benefit to be noticeable.
Getting a large (lets say 40 inches) 4K display as a monitor defeats the main purpose of high PPI, which is to make the pixels so small that is becomes impossible to distinguish individual pixels with the naked eye
40 inches at 4K = like having 4 x 20 inch 1080p displays in front of you, congrats you can see those huge ass pixels again because you are sitting ~3 feet away from the display.
BENQ RL2455HM oc to 75Hz
Got one for 50 burgers
thats the same one im looking to get a pair of during tax season
color reproduction is usually shit on cheap monitors like this, that is usually the biggest compromise.
yeah it just came out like a month ago. I can't even find reviews on it
>Getting a large (lets say 40 inches) 4K display as a monitor defeats the main purpose of high PPI, which is to make the pixels so small that is becomes impossible to distinguish individual pixels with the naked eye
40 inches at 4K = like having 4 x 20 inch 1080p displays in front of you, congrats you can see those huge ass pixels again because you are sitting ~3 feet away from the display.
What the fuck kind of backwards think is that? The whole reason to increase resolution is so bigger panels can be made without awful physical scaling. Moreover the benefit grows increasingly diminutive as the display shrinks. And you're correct on your assertion that distance is the key feature, but from a purely PC monitor perspective in a normal use case it's more reasonable to use the intermediary 1440p resolution as it offers better virtual scaling while maintaining most of the performance of 1080p. Because most monitors only extend to 27" it also inherently scales better since it is the practical threshold of diminishing returns at 108ppi. Increasing monitor size, dependent on workload only stands to limit productivity, push the field of view, or force an increasingly large distance between the user and monitor which in part defeats the purpose as the apparent pixel distance becomes increasingly homogeneous.
I'd posit the performance tradeoff for the inherent antialiasing capacity of 2160p displays are far greater than that of any other method of AA. To call it that is also somewhat of a misnomer anyways since you're actually increasing the sampling fidelity plain and simple, more pixels and more realestate to create finer lines, the aliasing is still extant at the resolution, just less visible.
Should i go with this LG ultrawide, or spend the extra and get a dell ultrasharp 25"? I am mainly using it for graphic design / video editing productivity, and some gaming.
Currently have an Asus PB258, just ordered two Pixio NEW PX277. Looking forward to my massive display area with freesync.