Do you think 1920 x 1080 is too low for a 27” screen?

Do you think 1920 x 1080 is too low for a 27” screen?

Thats what I have and it seems pixelly to me.

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/amp/s/techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/amp/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

its OK as a secondary monitor,

it's not ok to read for long periods of time

1080p is pretty much maxed out by 23" or so.

This, I'd spring for 1440p at this size desu

5k is what you want for 27".
4k is what you want for 21-24", or 30-36" if you're going low DPI

I didn't type anything wtf wordfiltered to desu

Yes. 24 inches is max for 1080p, otherwise you start seeing pixels
1440 is a meme. 1080 or 4k. Pick one.

Have 1280x1024 19" at work and pixels are too big but you get used to it.

1920x1200 is fine for 24"

>1080 or 4k
What about people who don't want 60hz and don't want 1080p?

You buy an ips 144hz g sync 1440p monitor like a white man

Not that it is pixelly, who cares.
If it is for that reason just don't sit 20 cm from the monitor and you'll be fine.

The real bad part is that you'd lose potential screen space for applications. A bigger resolution would allow you to see more of a document, spreadsheet, or whatever. I think a 27in monitor allows you to see two A4 pages side by side in real size, and with more pixels you'd get more comfortable fitting stuff around them.
If you don't specifically use the computer for that tho, 1080p is fine.

I'm keeping 1080p for at least the the next 5 years. Good to wait until all the hdr vision stuff gets sorted and standardized. Besides no reason to pay a lot for a tv.

Newfag detected.

>1440 is a meme. 1080 or 4k
You are acting like 1080p was ever acceptable, when 16:10 exists.

yes OP. i have 4 computers. 3 at work and 1 home. and i had to spend extra to get all o f them 1440p.

after you work on 1440p, you wont go back. its that much better

if you want fancy things stop being poor

>acceptable
>16:10
if i wanted half my computer screen to be black id watch ir porn

8K would be the perfect resolution but we all have to make due with 4K monitors until the 8K ones come down in price.

1440p monitors is straight up poverty-tier. Even phones have 4K res screens now.

Find me a consumer 120hz 4k monitor.

I'd say 24in for 1080p max.

I have 27 inch for 1080p but I'm upscaling using custom resolution tool to 1440p. This is the proper resolution for 27inch.

There isn't a demand for high refresh rate 4k monitors yet. GTX1080 can barely run 60 fps on 4k.

Everything over a 6" screen is pixelated on 1080p.

How long are your arms?

1080 is nice for my phone
That should say enough.

>And when 8K monitors actually exist for consumers, phones will have 16K screens. Checkmate

>tfw you try to btfo someone and you fuck up your post

>if i wanted half my computer screen to be black id watch ir porn
Not everyone here is a child. There are other uses for computers besides entertainment. Extra screen space is always welcome.

27" 1440p is literally the best monitor right now, 4k monitors are all way too big A 40" or 43" monitor is retarded, it's basically a TV at that size.

1200p for 24"

1440p for 27"

4k for 42"

1080p is meme garbage, like ultrashite.

1080p is fine for 24" only if the screen is more than a meter away from your face

The issue with 1080p is the low vertical resolution. You need at least 1200 vertical pixels for most productivity work, that means either 1920x1200 or 1440p. 1080p is terrible for desktop monitors.

2560x1600 would be great but unfortunately those monitors are ludicrously expensive.

Yes. For 27 you need 1440p.

27 inch 4k monitors are thing ya know, pajeet.

>You need at least 1200 vertical pixels for most productivity work,
What the fuck are you talking about?

Not worth unless your sitting 10cm away from your screen.

see
>"If the average reading distance is 1 foot (12 inches = 305 mm), p @0.4 arc minute is 35.5 microns or about 720 ppi/dpi."

google.com/amp/s/techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/amp/

I dont understand what youre trying to prove to me. If you dont have money/want 144hz buy a 1080p monitor. if you have money/dont need 144hz buy 4k. 1440p is a dead resolution

>if you're poor, buy a GT 1030. If you have money, buy a Titan Xp.

i have a 27" 1080p samsung curved quantum dot 144hz monitor which i got for 350€ i believe.. the dpi is just acceptable at normal distance i was always used to. a 1440p monitor would be better though for decreased physical pixel density at 1080p and plain text but this just costs too much

>waah black bars
>gets a screen that makes pillarboxing even worse

Yeah I really hate those black bars when I watch my silent movies and 20 year old TV shows

i had 1440p and traded it with 1080p quantum dot lol

the xbox one x is a true 4k console though so there is demand

All this talk about screen res is like audiophiles.

>tfw need 8K because I have Golden Eyes

I have two 1080p monitors, a 24" landscape one, another 23" one at portrait. I can't say I can see much pixelation with the landscape monitor, but I can see it with the portrait one.

I use 900p on 19" monitor. You'll be fine with that

I use a 32 inch 1080p TV as my main monitor. Its fine I see no issues with it desu

>30fps

Lol dont listen to this guy

My display is smooth like butter. It's called the CRT master race where pixels blend together to create a beautiful, organic, and high contrast image

>pic related

thx senpai

1440p is the only acceptable option of monitor choices as things stand. DP1.3+ can push it up to 240hz, you don't take a supermassive performance hit for gains that are way beyond the boundary of diminishing returns. 2160p is nothing more than marketing jargon in the monitor market, pushing people to adopt a new standard for what boils down to basic consumerism. It does make sense for TVs and graphics/photo editing applications, but outside of that reeks of an attempt to refresh a market that is incapable of delivering advancements in technology for the wider consumer market.

27"/28" 4K monitors are completely unusable on the desktop without scaling.

wtf wordfiltered to senpai

>1'
>12"

Who the fuck in this world is sitting that fucking close to the monitor, ever?

im sorry, but how do you see 4k as not advancing in technology but 1440p is "acceptable"? How smooth is your brain?

For usable desktop real estate 4k at 40-43" is perfect. Same DPI as a ~20" 1080p monitor

I'm entirely fine with it.

4k is not an advance, it's plain and simple. The display manufacturers and marketers were using high PPI displays in 2007, they just started scaling them into bigger panels which was never a challenge. They did this to move consumers into a new standard and generate sales. The whole of the market should be much more modular. 2160 on a phone is straight retarded, 1080 and even 720 are well within the parameters of acceptability depending on the display size. 1440 on a 27" monitor is again well within the range of appreciable difference (when compared to 1080 at the same size.) 2160 on a 40"+ TV is perfectly reasonable. Jamming 2160 into a 27" monitor is fucking retarded, especially given a good slice of the content will be subject to shitty software or hardware scaling until hardware catches up, and even then OS scaling is shit. Moreover content itself for 2160 is somewhat limited, though not as much as it was in past years so much of the available content that will never be delivered in 2160 will be scaled as well and as such heavily artifacted.

Even at 2 feet that would mean you still require a PPI of 300 to not notice blocky text.

That's still 8K res for a 30 inch monitor.

>thinks it scales linearly
This is wrong.

The "nobody needs more than 110ppi" fags here are the dumbest people on Sup Forums.

1440p 144hz is better than 1080p 144hz, retard. That was his point. He wants the highest resolution you can get at the highest refresh rate.

Then do the math you fucking nerd. All I know is I still notice blockiness on my 30 inch 1440p monitor.

I'm not that dude but bigger than 27 inches requires more than 1440p

it is. 1080p looks decent up to 24" then you need at least 1440p if you don't want it to look like shit. If you go 32", go 4K

1440p is ideal for 27"

I don't understand. Are you memeing or is 1440 really shit? I'm a consolefag trying to put together my first build and was aiming to go 1440. Should I just spend moar and do 4k gaymen?

Unless you have enough money for a 1080Ti, 1080 or Vega 64 4k gaming isn't worth it. 4k isn't a meme, games look very good at 4k, but it's expensive and you'll probably have to drop settings to get 60fps. 1440p is just more balanced for gaming right now, you get a higher res than 1080p, but higher graphics options as well.

To be fair you need a 1080ti to push most things at 1440@144hz.

Downsample to 1440p my son

You should sit the fuck back retard, you're going to burn out your fucking retinas and destroy your back.

Nobody has used CRT monitors since WW2.

it was too low for 27" 5 fucking years ago

...

>You need at least 1200 vertical pixels for most productivity work
I survive just fine on 1680x1050 and I would consider myself a reasonably productive person. And most everyone else I know gets by with 16:9 in some form or another. And I will never understand how they use something that squatty.

Even 10 years ago it was common for TV shows to be 4:3

been using 42" 1920x1080 for near a decade now.
its fine.

>want sync'd refresh rate monitor
>goysync tax so extreme it makes the GPU purchase pointless vs AMD
>the only non-TN gsync monitors cost more than the GPU itself
>meanwhile in freesync I can get a quantom dot VA for

It's fine for every day use unless you are autistic for font rendering or play games which shouldn't be a thing on g anyway.

Get some cheapo korean 1440p panel if you must but imo useless

>he doesn't have a 9k 10"

>1440 is meme
Call me when 4k 144Hz IPS is a viable option.

8K is not a resolution, though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution

it's entirely personal. if it's too "pixelly" for you (and by the way the word is "pixelated", you fucking idiot), then yeah, it's too low for a 27" screen.

i have a pair of 4k 24" displays and i wouldn't go any lower in resolution if i could help it. so clearly our thresholds are way way different.

>1920x1200 is fine for 24"
it's 2017. we've had high pixel displays in mainstream desktop/laptop devices for more than 5 years now.

nobody's saying that your eyes will crawl out of their sockets and drown themselves at 1920x1080, but if you're not aiming for 2x density on your desktop monitors by now, it should be because you're a professional gamer or an IT professional supporting legacy hardware.

4k at 60Hz is a thing. it's been pretty widely supported for like a year or two now. or am i misunderstanding your post?

>I don't want a 60Hz monitor nor a 1080p monitor
>hurr get a 60Hz 4k monitor

clearly i'm not understanding your post; i thought the point you were driving at was that you couldn't have your cake and eat it too. the greentext bit wasn't especially helpful but i was able to suss out the point you were struggling to articulate. next time just clarify your point with normal words like your parents do.

I'm not the guy you think I am. I'm just clarifying the easy to understand post that you misinterpreted.

Just don't sit too close to the screen.

>buys 4k monitor
>lowers resolution to 1440p
>screen flickering like crazy

I have a 25 inch ultrawide 2560x1080 monitor. It's pixely enough for me that I wouldn't mind having a 2K monitor instead.

I hate having to zoom in 1800% just to see the pixels.

>not doing everything on an 18K 2.4” flip phone
Fucking loser