What do you think is the ideal screen resolution in this day and age?
1080p- unbelievably mundane and feels outdated. Too cramped.
1440p- sweet spot in 2018. More space to do shit and not difficult to run.
4K- Obviously the future but seems like a meme right now.
Other urls found in this thread:
eizoglobal.com
twitter.com
IDK, but I want to get a better monitor, but they're all so fucking expensive, the price of a mid tier prebuild almost.
>1080p is cramped.
I'm still using 768p and it has more than enough screen real estate for literally everything except music production, where things get slightly cramped but nothing that I can't manage. Pic related.
>use 1440p
>up scale
Woah it takes the same space and I can read it like normal
Why would you need more than 1080p? That seems like the sweetspot to me, no need for more really unless you really pay attention to detail when watching movies or whatever.
>1440p- sweet spot in 2018
I've been using this shit for half a decade now
>more than enough screen real estate for literally everything except music production
It is not nearly enough screen real estate for CAD work unless you have more patience than a saint.
2560x2048
If you have a pretty big TV the difference between 1080p and 1440p is noticeable, 4K being even more. Meanwhile anything above 1080p on a computer monitor is a meme and waste of frames.
It's necessary for those in the media/creative industry. Lots of details to be seen and such.
>2560x2048
I thought anything above 1080p was a meme, but I found a good deal on a laptop I wanted and it happened to come with a 4k screen. I didn't give a shit but the price was right. And holy crap. It makes a huge difference.
Only issue's I've had are making my dotfiles support both 1080p and 4k for my various computers. But I eventually got it sorted out.
I'm thinking about buying a used 2560x1600 monitor. The HP ZR30w doesn't go for a lot on ebay and should be a nice upgrade from my 1920x1200 monitor.
1080p at 24" is 91.79 PPI. That's not acceptable at all, you peasant.
>1440p- sweet spot in 2018. More space to do shit and not difficult to run.
4K is only difficult to run if you play games, running normal programs at 4K is not a problem even for an integrated GPU. The only real advantage of 1440p is that you don't need scaling.
A 27" 1080p monitor will offer no advantage over a 21.5" one, while a 27" 1440p/4K monitor will (unless the main use for your monitor is watching movies).
>Meanwhile anything above 1080p on a computer monitor is a meme and waste of frames.
That's only true if your TV takes up more of your FOV than your monitor, in which case you're retarded.
consumerist whore
Jesus fucking christ clean your desktop
4K 24" 2x
/thread
For a laptop 1600p is enough, but higher resolution would be nice. For a desktop it has to be at least 4k not to suck.
>it has to be at least 4k not to suck
The only monitors that are at least 4k that I know of suck, either due to aspect ratio or refresh rate.
I would rather see nice 4k picture than slightly smoother but pixelated shit.
I'm not talking about >60Hz monitors. 4K UHD is 16:9, so it's trash. The IBM 220/221, the only >4k 16:10 monitors I know of, are 16:10 but the 221 maxes at 46Hz and the 220 has an even lower refresh rate. Until a 60Hz WQUXGA display comes out if it's at least 4k, it sucks.
*T220/T221
What's wrong with 16:9? If you are talking about screen space, you can have more stuff side by side. I would rather have more horizontal space than vertical.
Not enough vertical space
The buy a bigger monitor. You will get more vertical and horizontal space.
It's not just size, it's the ratio, for any given amount of vertical space 16:9 has too much horizontal space.
I upgraded from a 3x1440p setup to a 3x4k setup some months ago. If color accuracy and things like that are the same then a higher resolution is always preferable to a lower resolution. 4k IPS monitors have come down to a price-range where they are affordable. There's no reason not to get one. 4k really is a pretty big step up from 1440p, more so than 1080p to 1440p.
>anything above 1080p on a computer monitor is a meme
Try using a 4k monitor and a 1080p monitor for a week and you'll get it. I take it you don't even have a 1440p monitor let alone a 4k one so you don't get it.
>advantage of 1440p is that you don't need scaling
It's funny how utterly confused everyone on Sup Forums is when it comes to fonts. NO, we are NOT using bitmap fonts anymore. Those days are GONE, it's not 1992. Your fonts are scaled at 1080p, 1440p and 4k. I realize the immensity of this reality will be extremely hard to accept for most of you who insist that there's no scaling at 1080p and lots of scaling at 4k but the truth is that you really aren't using bitmap fonts and your fonts really are scaled.
>It's funny how utterly confused everyone on Sup Forums is when it comes to fonts. NO, we are NOT using bitmap fonts anymore. Those days are GONE, it's not 1992. Your fonts are scaled at 1080p, 1440p and 4k. I realize the immensity of this reality will be extremely hard to accept for most of you who insist that there's no scaling at 1080p and lots of scaling at 4k but the truth is that you really aren't using bitmap fonts and your fonts really are scaled.
He's not talking about scaling fonts, he's talking about scaling everything.
>There's no reason not to get one.
Are high refresh rates available with 4K yet?
Then turn the monitor sideways if you hate horizontal space that much
Then I'd have too little horizontal space. Again, it's all about the ratio, not just one or the other.
3840x1600. Ultrawidescreen, 4k blu ray native (no black bars in movies) and gives better fps than conventional 4k.
Is the jump from 1080p to 1440p appreciable or should I just hold off until my hardware is good enough for 4k?
To each their own i guess. I myself prefer to watch chink cartoons without massive black bars.
I also prefer to avoid letterboxing, that's why I have a 16:10 monitor and a 16:9 TV.
I also use a 16:10 (laptop) and a 16:9 TV. Just wanted to say that there is no problem with 16:9. Don't have a monitor but if i bought one, 16:9 or 16:10 would be fine. At least it's not disgusting square ratio.
>At least it's not disgusting square ratio
If >1280x1024 5:4 displays cost less than every car I've owned combined I'd be using one right now
1440p is indeed the sweet spot. perfect readability all the way down to 24" with standard scaling. UHD is essential for larger monitors (32" and above).
absolutely worth the jump. pic related goes for under £200 these days.
Let me know when we get to meaningful resolutions like 12K
1080p is the new 1024*768
2560*1600 is objectively the perfect resolution between 24" and 30".
it'll stick for a while, fir cheap displays in offices, public service, entry level computers etc... just like 1024*768 did for almost a couple decades.
All of my 4k's are 60Hz. Most are. If you're a gamer then you should consider growing up or buying a shitty resolution garbage-quality washed-out-color TN panel with 1080p man-let garbage-tier resolution and 240Hz refresh-rate.
Gaming's not the only reason for >60Hz displays. If I had a 120Hz monitor then I wouldn't need to set shit up to automatically change the refresh rate based on the content.
>1024*768
You know.. my first IBM XT had a 4 color CGA CRT monitor. Then we got EGA. I remember when I got my first 1024x768 monitor. It was AMAZING. These days.. not that impressive.
"Standard scaling" needs to die already. It is what is holding monitors back. It's >current year now, why do we have tolerate bad image quality?
>assuming I'm a gaymer because I prefer superior high refresh rates
i know rite, i got my first 1024x768 monitor in 1995. and i could only use it in 256 colors with my shitty 486 embedded video adapter...
i agree. unfortunately, standard scaling is still the most reliable option in current year and 1440p is the highest resolution that works perfectly without it.
1080p is fine for most laptops. Resolution is very important, but you need to specify a size.
720p is fine for phones.
For desktops, once you go 1440p, you never go back. I have not tried 4K yet. Too pricey!
>1024x768 for about 10 years
>1280x800 for about 04 years
>1920x1080 x 2 on the desktop now
>1366x768 on the x220
I tried them 4K monitors, I don't need that much, I find it a waste of space.
I'll try in about 5 years, I guess, when they actually become standardized.
Only a fool jumps on the first iteration of something and 4K is still a fucking meme, and not reality.
>It's funny how utterly confused everyone on Sup Forums is when it comes to fonts. NO, we are NOT using bitmap fonts anymore.
Except windows still renders some windows at 100% and does bitmap upscaling on them, which results in blurry fonts. It also has trouble dealing with multiple displays using different scaling levels. Idk how scaling works on linux despite it being my main OS (I was too lazy to do scaling properly), but I would be surprised if it was as seamless as you make it sound.
You can find a budget friendly 1440p monitor with a high refresh rate for around $300.
You are fuming because you have a retard-tier refresh rate. FUMING.
Stay mad shitstain.
Same. Anything more than 1600*900 it's just a waste.
>Idk how scaling works on linux despite it being my main OS (I was too lazy to do scaling properly), but I would be surprised if it was as seamless as you make it sound.
X11 supports per-display DPI, so does Wayland.
The trouble is a certain shitty GUI toolkit called GTK ignores this X11 DPI information.
I don't know why, maybe they wanted to manufacture another argument in support of Wayland.
>your desktop must look like the inside of your brain
1440x900 16:10 master race.
2000x2000 for perfectly equal square
>What do you think is the ideal screen resolution in this day and age?
Anything ultrawide desu.
You can get a 1920x1920 monitor currently. Just stupidly priced.
why aren't they square?
genuine question..
nice and organized instead of a fucking schizo mess?
just read the data sheet, they're indeed square so why don't they appear square on my monitor?
is it their site that is scaled for ultra wide displays or my own 1080 monitor that isn't 16/9?
i'm puzzled now
Are there any 1920x1280 monitors, or is this only a fancy tablet resolution?
Optical effect, we're so used to 16/9 images and formats that a square seams a little stretched up vertically on 16/9 displays.
why there are no 2000x1080 displays?
instead of 16:10 i'd rather have 16.5:9, so that there is just enough place for both 16:9 workspace and vertical taskbar
>just get 16:10 and use horizontal taskbar
yeah, no. Nobody uses taskbars as big as 1/10th of the screen, additionally using horizontal taskbar with more than 2 displays is pain in ass (neck)
>ywn have a perfect setup of two 16:9 and one 16.5:9 displays
Why do you insist on having exactly a 16:9 workspace?
what's the current obsession with ultrawide based on? I seriously don't get the appeal.
It's like having two non-widescreen monitors
all the crazy super wide monitors seem the future desu. 4k has been the standard for years now people who say its a new meme are just console fags with no money.
when will we get 16:10 4k ?
for $20 I got 2 fucking 22 inch samsung old monitors 1 is 1980x1080 or some shit and other ones the next crapper res. I could get 20 of these and probably use them all at the same time (because I have a 1080 ti) for the price of a shit 4k monitor kek
video usually comes in 16:9, web browser is comfy both fullscreen and half-screen, music player is comfy at whatever aspect ratio
visual studio's main window with all the helper windows (properties, solution explorer, etc) requires rather wide workspace, 16:9 seems okay for that and i can detach other windows with code and size them to full or half of the other displays
honestly, seems like my main problems are
- working in c#, therefore using windows at work and when working remotely (window manager that barely can split one desktop to 4 equal pieces is counter productive)
- i watch too much stuff, mpv is always open either at fullscreen or 1/4th screen, depending on how much of my workspace am i currently using
- im super used to taking a peek on my taskbar all the time, so i can't really hide it or disable it completely (and it fucks up aspect ratio of one of my displays pretty bad)
But if you care about taskbar when watching video, you're watching it windowed, so you need to also fit titlebar and - most of the time - windowed controls.
4K monitors have already been through a couple iterations and 3840x2160 has been the de facto standard since the beginning.
>I'm 12 years old
16:9
>I'm a functioning adult
16:10
21:9
>im trillion years old
Kill yourself you gay faggot
Squares when?
You can buy a square monitor today.
>game launchers and files/folders mixed together
>" - Shortcut" shortcuts
>multiple Sup Forums related folders scattered everywhere instead of sorted into a single Sup Forums folder
>autogenerated DDU logs folder you forgot to delete
>DDU installer and DDU launcher
>random readme.txt
>rar of a TV show you've probably already extracted somewhere
>nvidia 3D vision photo viewer, a remnant of the 3D craze of the early 2010s, and a program that you have never used because you don't have nvidia 3D glasses
>android programming book that you have most likely never read because you don't have android studio installed, but you don't want to delete because you keep telling yourself you're gonna read it one day
Different user, but where?
>1K second hand
Oh well, thanks for providing the information atleast.
>1440p ideal
lmao having to upscale or downscale literally everything
did he die?
I'm still running my old as fuck Dell 30" 2560x1600 haven't seen anything too compelling (while being reasonably priced) to get me to upgrade.
When the fuck are we going to have some red advances in display tech? Tiny ass phones have retarded high res yet a big ass monitor where it actually matters can't do better than 4k? Where the fuck is 8k? 16k? Fuck I want a 30" 32k monitor that would be fucking rad.
And none of this super wide bullshit either, VERTICAL SCREEN SPACE MATTERS.
nah, borderless is the way to go, especially with mpv
i even wrote an ahk script to forcibly resize firefox window when it's in fullscreen, so i don't waste any window area for borders
When will retards realize that aspect ration matters far less than screen size and pixel count? All the people whining about vertical space, the solution is to buy a bigger, higher res monitor. 1440p is such a drastic improvement over 1080p, and I imagine 2160p is great too. 1280x1024 may have a "better" aspect ratio, but the resolution and average screen size are tiny compared to most modern monitors.
The advantage of 120Hz displays is you can display 24, 30 and 60fps content all on one display without judder. Also the TV industry is about to push 120Hz hard, it's in the new HDMI 2.1 spec as well as the ATSC 3.0 standard.
>laptops are still 1366x768
Yeah yeah but 4k still expensive and for ages EVERYTHING was a downgrade from 2560x1600 because of nigger aspect ratios.
Still want at least 8k and like 120 or 240Hz or whatever while being IPS with max viewing angle and perfect color reproduction.
this.
Upscaling tech is so good nowadays that it barely matters. With MadVR even DVDs on my 1440p monitor look great.
Id honestly like some proof here, as im considering one of the meme 1440p 165 hz IPS moonitors
this is too much, 1440p is enough
Having used a 1080p and a 4K monitor for long periods of time, I just got a QHD monitor, and I can say that this is by far my favorite. Scaling on Windows is complete shit but on my QHD monitor everything seems to be just the right size for my eyes.
You can watch movies without black bars.
wow look at all that empty space.