What's Sup Forums's monitor recommendations?
>Size
>Resolution
>Aspect Ratio
>Manufacturer
>Whatever else is important
What's Sup Forums's monitor recommendations?
Elijah Barnes
Nicholas Scott
Depends what the use case is for.
Most monitors can be recommended, just depends what exactly you need/want from your monitor and what your budget is.
Dominic Smith
>monitor
>not glorious 80-column teletype
Go back to Sup Forums please
Blake Gonzalez
anything above 1080p is a meme
1024*1280 is good except when developers cant into scaling
60hz is trash tier
Joseph Ross
the human eye can't see past 720p, 1080p is just a placebo.
Ayden Nelson
i was being serious, have a 1024*1280 and a 1440p monitor which looks pretty much the same at 1080p
native 1080p would probably look better
15 moar hurtz>>>moar pixels
Leo Nelson
Depends on size. For ~23/24 inch panels, I'd more or less agree with you. Above that, the PPI of 1080P is pretty shit.
Brody Hughes
16:10
1920*1200
22-25 inch
75hz
Aaron Jones
8K minimum according to human vision
Wyatt Barnes
And IPS
Isaac Evans
>I'll take monitors that don't exist for $1000
Gavin Walker
>27"
>4k
>16:9
>IPS
>60hz
>freesync
16:10 would be better but that does not exist, not in most retail stores anyway. 4k because it's 2018, not 2010. 1080p is so last century. IPS because really does look much better than TN. The only exception would be a computer that will only be used for "competitive" gaming ever. 120hz would be better than 60hz but you won't find a 4k IPS doing 120hz anymore than you'll find one that's 16:10. Freesync does help if it's 60hz.
Joshua Fisher
>16:10 would be better but that does not exist
You'll find it under label 8:5
Brandon Flores
144Hz if for gaming, with G-Sync if you have a high budget, without if not.
TN panels are not horrible these days, and they are MUCH cheaper than IPS models, you can get a 1440p, 144Hz, Freesync monitor for ~$250-$300 with a TN panel. Equivalent IPS is like $500 at minimum.
I prefer 27" displays, it's a good size, not too large, not too small. I've even used 1080p 27" that worked just fine, I don't think
Also, 144Hz is NOT a meme. The only people that say this are those who have never used a 144Hz monitor in their life. The difference is astounding. I have 2 1440ps, one a 144Hz and another 60Hz and there is a noticeable difference in the speed of just doing ordinary things like scrolling a web browser, or moving a window around, and there's definitely a noticeable difference in video games at high framerates.
William Hernandez
forgot to finish my sentence; I don't think that 1080p is too small for 27"*
Caleb Wright
Eli Lee
>27" 4k
Too small. Get a bigger panel so you can admire those nice, big pictures. Or, ya know, do something productive with the space.
Connor Foster
A Dell monitor from 2012 with 60hz refresh rate?
That doesn't meet the requirements
William Bennett
>24"
>16:10
>ips
>144hz
>above 1200p
>clean business styling
Does it exist?
James Lopez
Nope and it likely never will
Maybe a projector might some day manage to do that
Chase Morales
Aiden Edwards
>16:9
Parker Jenkins
Sebastian Jackson
DELL P2214H
21.5''
1920x1080
16:9
IPS
8ms
I like it fine, haven't really noticed it's supposedly slow response time. My biggest complaint is the lack of HDMI. I'd like to use a PS4 on it but it seems like thats more complicated than its worth.
Parker Anderson
2 main points here are that:
1) No one monitor technology does everything well
2) What you should sacrifice depends entire on your needs.
The really basic breakdown is that for fast response times and high refresh rates, usually needed for competative gaming, TN panels with medium resolution around 2560x1440 are best, no more than 27" to keep the PPI high.
For graphic design and things where colour reproduction is important, or for screens that are very large or you might view from an angle, you want IPS, larger screens benefit more from higher res like 4k.
I personally own 2 monitors that essentially hit both of those needs, my main is a 32" 4k IPS 60hz 4ms, and I have a backup I sometimes (rarely these days) use for gaming which is a 24" 1080p 120Hz TN 1ms
Juan Miller
No longer produced
Jaxson Phillips
nailed it. the death of 16:10 upsets me too, so i'll have to be satisfied with what you're describing. there seem to be mostly LGs in this category, anyone know how they stack up? as long as the coating isn't too aggressive i'm happy.
Gabriel Russell
forgot pic, not gonna wait unspecified time to delete post
Austin Morales
I'm using an LG 43UD79-b and it's a good panel. Similar to a lower end dell ultrasharp quality. Can be improved with calibration but is decent from the factory.
Jordan Morales
4:3 is God's intended ratio
Tyler Allen
it may be a good panel, but bro, it's a fucking TV
Easton Hughes
Nope, similar pixel density as a 22" 1080p panel.
It's literally 4 * 21" 1080p panels in a 2*2 grid without bezels.
I've got mine at 3 feet and it's fantastic for productivity. It's a bit hard to understand until you use it, but it's fantastic monitor and I simply can't go back at this point unless it were to a super high pixel density HMD (VR headset)
Nicholas Peterson
27"
1440p
IPS
165Hz
Currently the best you can do for general usage and will likely remain so for a long time. Anything much bigger is too big for a desktop monitor (32" is tolerable, but inferior), and at those sizes 4K is unusable on the desktop without scaling. And scaling is an unreliable mess.
1080p is disgusting for desktop use. Everything feels so fucking cramped. I'd never go back. 1440p is the perfect compromise between space and legibility.
Jose Scott
>43"
>I've got mine at 3 feet
my neck hurts just reading that. anyway, that's your business. what i meant was that i'm not sure how fair it is to compare the quality of panels of such different sizes.
Nathaniel Long
27"
256x1440
16:10
don't care
244Hz
sadly I don't have the 244Hz
Jaxson Campbell
that was meant to be 2560 x 1440
Jose Stewart
It's basically flush with the desk, neck pain isn't a concern.
And it's same panel type as the smaller panels and they generally have similar specs, coatings should also be similar or identical.
Jeremiah Russell
2560x1600@30"
Evan Jenkins
anamorphic?
Austin Price
24" is the minimum desu
Grayson Torres
want to go 3440x1440 with g sync. I'm inbetween the alienware for 1100 and the hp omen that's now listed at 800 on newegg. The alienware seems like the cream of the crop from what I can tell, and most of the other g sync monitors aren't that much cheaper. But this new listing of the omen is a lot cheaper than most of the other options. Is it that much worse? I'm seeing spotty reviews.
Oliver Walker
What size? Acer Predator 27" is 4k, 144Hz, G-Sync but only $685.
amazon.com
Nathaniel Sullivan
He said 3440x1440
So 34-35"
Juan Ward
This might help the retards
Jeremiah Ortiz
24" 1440p @ 120hz master race
Aiden Barnes
It won't, they ignore it or claim they don't trust the math from some random guy on the internet
Benjamin Rivera
nice quads
I use a 40 inch at 4k.
that shit is insane.
Sebastian Green
16:9 is an abomination. 16:10, 3:2, or 4:3 are the only way to go.
Joshua Kelly
Those don't exist at reasonable prices and resolutions
And until they do I'll continue purchasing 16:9
Luis Myers
>not owning a 32:9 aspect ratio monitor
>fucking caveman
Austin Robinson
It's literally just a 65" 4k panel cut in half horizontally.
Ryan Jackson
Yeah I want 21:9. I have a 29 in ultrawide now. I'm actually ok with the 2560x1080 in this size and just want a higher refresh rate and g sync. But there's not much of those out there, everything is 34 inches. But at that size I don't feel like 1080 is going to look that great anymore. But with my gtx 1080 and an 8700k will I be able to get higher refresh rates anyway at 3440?