Does anyone on /g/ use 1440p, 1600p, 3840x2400 or 4K monitors?
What do you think of them after using them?
>>47559757
I use a pair of 2560x1440 monitors. They're great. Got them for cheap. HP ZR2840W.
I've been able to do 2048x1536 since 1999. Though 60Hz sucks so 1920x1440 @72 is nicer.
I trend to be frugal, so no. I'm also getting to oldfag age where I don't care for the latest and greatest. Imma stick with 1080p for while. You mad?
>>47561431
no, I was just thinking of getting one
>>47559757
>What do you think of them after using them?
posting from my rMBP. got it about 3 months ago after reading all the pro/con crap on /g/.
to tell you the truth, I'd never use another computer that's not retina/high-dpi. screen on this rMBP is fucking incredible. it's like reading paper. you cannot see pixels and it's all perfect.
everything else looks like shit now. it's like being spoiled by a high end car... everything else is crap compared to it.
>>47561431
1600p CRT from late 90's reporting in!
People who use 1080p/16:9 monitors because they are 'oldfags' need to GTFO
Put it this way. THe difference between a 1080p and a 1600p monitor feels like the difference between a 1280x1024 and a 1080 monitor.
Love my 4k. GPUs aren't strong enough though.
Bought a 4K last month. Actually it's a 55" TV but has good response time and 4:4:4 chroma so it's fine for use as a monitor. I haven't upgraded my video card yet but I don't play high end games so it's not a problem. I love being able to sit on the couch across the room with a wireless keyboard and touchpad without straining my eyes.
I've got a pair of HP ZR30w, 30"2560x1600 monitor and I love these damned things.
The picture is amazing, the colors are superb, I'm so glad I left 1080p. but honestly I probably won't be going 4K anytime soon.
So glad I got these as refurbs while they were on sale, still about $650/ea
Upgraded from 24" gaymen 1080p screen to a 27" 1440p Dell Ultrashit, no regrets whatsoever.
Enough workspace for whatever I want to do, yet no need to worry about scaling like with 28" 4K panels.
Games and video look beautiful as well.
>>47559757
They're fine with the proper ppi, high ppi is quite retarded however.
If I don't /gay/me, is the GTX770 adequate for 4k?
>>47562810
why not? even a gt630 is fine
>>47562810
Why the fuck do you have a 770 if you don't play games?
>>47562810
Id say the 960 is a better bet, since it can actually play 4k video.
>>47562810
>I don't /gay/me
Stop being a retard, not being into games while owning a 770 and living in the modern day is a joke
Can we all agree that high DPI is dumb?
1440p is good but you need a 27" at least, anything less is dumb!
Same for 4K at least 40"..!
>>47562937
>Can we all agree that high DPI is dumb?
We can rather agree that you are dumb.
>>47562937
No, not at all. Some people can read text on smaller high res screens just fine (sucks if you can't but don't hate others for having better eyes) and even then you can still do things like scale to 200%, a 2560x1600 screen will have a 1280x800 workspace with 4 real pixels for every pixel representing a workspace pixel, allowing for a sort of subpixel rendering for smoother and sharper text, etc.
I want 120Hz, so 4K is sorta out, even with something like a 980GTX. Can't really have both. Besides right now 4K screens don't support proper chroma at 60Hz, though upcoming ones do.
>>47562810
You don't even need a vidyacard.
>>47559757
I use a 27" 1440p screen and I feel that it's about the highest PPI that I will find comfortable without scaling. Compared to 1080p it's a dream for the desktop.
One thing I like with 4K is that you can draw everything in twice the resolution and get super sharp icons and super nice fonts. Got quiet impressed with a retina macbook after playing with the scaling. The fonts were so good.
>>47563055
I have a 27" 1440p. I think a 29" would be more ideal to be honest. Firefox's default font is really small and so are the Windows properties text.
I have to use an addon to increase the font size.
it's great otherwise.
I think 40" is kinda silly especially for a monitor if you're going to sit close and 32" 4k monitors *might* be too dense
>>47563069
forgot image
1440p here.
Really comfy having more desktop space, also vidya looks much better and I can't even go back to 1080p without it looking like absolute garbage.
>>47563069
It's easy to say that a 40" 4K would be too big for the desktop. But it's hard to know before it's been tested.
>>47563086
I mean the size of the monitor...
>>47563081
Something else is wrong there. Firefox on my windows install did not look like that.
>>47563090
Yeah, I know. But it's hard to know if 40" is too big before you have tested it.
>>47561871
is a EVGA GeForce GTX 660 stronk enuff?
>>47559757
I've used a Dell U2711 for years now. I love it.
>>47561431
I basically stopped caring once I got to 1600x900, everything in Windows is too tiny on 1080p and it all looks sharp either way, shit if my TV screen didn't have some bullshit scaling problems with it, I'd still be using 1366x768
Muh fps
>have 1440p monitor
>want to play some games but don't want to upgrade my graphics card
>play with black borders instead
t-thanks AMD
>>47563524
And how is AMD responsible for this?
>>47563524
>set games to play at 1280x720
>resolution scales perfectly to monitor's native resolution
>>47563532
I mean it's a good thing.
I can center the image to display at 1920x1200 instead of suffering sub 30 fps or upscaling my image.
>>47562925
>>47562868
>what is watching movies
>what is hash cracking
>>47559757
1440p is nice
will upgrade to 4K in a few dozen years when GPUs are powerful enough
>>47563524
Overscan then, don't blame AMD for your own incompetence.
>>47563565
there's no overscan option
>>47563549
>movies
lol
>hash cracking
triple lol
gr8 b8
>>47563456
It's just a question of being used to it or not
I recently switched from 1600x900 to 1080p.
Yeah, at first everything looked small n' shit, but after 2 - 3 days you find it better than 1600x900
