Are ultrawide monitors actually worth the money or am I about to be keked?
>>51849740
For work? Sure
For gaymen? No, you'll never find support for it.
>>51849740
No, its all about square monitors now
>>51850186
Who even makes a square monitor?
Wait until CES
>>51849740
I personally wouldn't get it because I've never seen something higher than 1080p with that form factor, but it looks good for video editing.
If you don't do serious video editing there's literally no reason to get one of these, it's shit for everything else (feels weird)
>>51850186
It's a shitty format and 4:3 or 5:4 is better but at least theres decent vertical resolution
>>51849786
This.
I have an LG 29'' ultrawide. It rocks the fuck out of my workflow. Running my VM through the second HDMI input on my monitor so I get dual screen on the same monitor.
>Supreme edgeless design
I have to use some stupid ultrawide fixer shit to play any games though. And the support for videogames is based on "does enb support it?"
It's worth it, though, if you do a lot of real work. Also awesome for graphics design & photo editing. The picture quality is often top-tier.
>>51849740
ultrawide = ultrashort vertically cropped with marketing to make you think you're getting more.
if there was something like 5120x2160 that was actually wider than a common standard and not just shorter, maybe I'd consider it.
>>51850306
just get a real 4k/UHD you poorfag.
>>51850306
So are ultra wides 2 panels?
Why has no one told me this? ._.
I always wanted to get one but I thought window management was going to be a pain in the butt Windows XP style dragging around since aero snap can only go on 2 sides
>>51850328
>ultrashort
You're getting the same vertical resolution.. It's ultrawide because the aspect ratio is more heavily biased towards the width...
Saying stupid shit like
>ultrawide = ultrashort
implies that the vertical resolution is somehow less than a 16:9 counterpart.
>>51850361
The LG panels are setup to be used as dual panels. They call it PBP or some shit. You can assign the left half & right half of the screen to whatever input you want. My 29'' LG Ultrawide had 3 inputs (DP, 2xHDMI)
>Major pain in the ass is that it never remembers you had PBP on when the monitor turns back on. Temporarily fucking up your resolution.
>>51850361
No. I have one, but for all it's worth just get dual screens. My parents bought me this without telling me so I use it. I find most games actually support ultrawide, just not in cutscenes and sometimes stretched in menus. Have not used PBP, what's the difference if it's from the same computer though?
>>51850405
Can you stand LG monitors up so that the width is vertical?
Is it possible to 'stack' them to more vertical out of 2 LG monitors?
>>51850440
Vertical ultrawides look completely retarded.
Stacking: why.
>>51849740
Yup. Worth the full $900 I spent on my Ultrasharp 34"
>>51849786
Aside from Bethesda games and Dragon quest heroes, all games support the resolution
>>51850434
>get dual screens
I went that route. I had to return about 7 monitors before I gave up on every monitor pair I picked up coming out with a slightly different hue.
It's fucking infuriating getting mismatched panels. Anyone you see rocking dual screen, tri-screen, quad-screen, likely have panels that slightly vary in hue, which cannot be fixed through onpanel controls.
>>51849740
no reason to buy one get a 4k display instead
>>51850465
Yeah, I have a U3415W now, selling 3x S2415h monitors. When I was in 5760x1080 with the three, the right and middle matched perfectly while the left was ever so slightly off in color
>>51849740
I'm considering one for actually being able to run two applications side-by-side and use them productively.
>>51850186
the biggest thing about 4:3 for me is that god damn near everything supports it and in portrait mode you get something that approximates the dimensions of real paper. This just looks kind of pointless.
>>51850368
2560x1080 is more like a cropped 2560x1440/1600 display than a widened 1920x1080 one, especially when you look at the prices.
3440x1440 is like a gimped UHD.
>Ultrawide dual screen
>>51849740
https://soundcloud.com/fecshrooms/696a
>>51850500
>get a meme resolution for retarded media consumers instead of something that actually serves a useful purpose in real work
>>51850523
you should have just gotten a 16:9 1440p you retard.
> or even better a 16:10 1600p but you appear to lack the good sense to even know they exist
>>51850540
it's all about the pricepoint anon
>>51850540
you get more pixels for less money retard
>>51850556
Honestly this comes down to
>can you afford xyz
>strapped for cash?
>what do you want
But what you think you may like. If you dont like it, return it for something else. Stop taking retarded reccomendations from children that cant afford / have never owned xyz
>>51850507
I feel that pain bro
>Spending $400-$500 on monitors.
>Wait a week for them to arrive to your doorstep
>Assemble them with glee
>Reassess your excitement when one of the monitors is visibly more red than the others.
>Fiddle with the onpanel colors for hours trying to get them to look right
>No matter what you do, it just doesn't match
>Try to convince yourself it doesn't matter
>Realize you liked the $500 way more than your monitors
>>51850523
>running windows 10 and window 7 on the same monitor
what
>>51850555
>Higher resolution panel with the same physical dimensions as a 24'' 16:9
That doesn't actually equal more screen real estate when everything needs to be scaled to fit the higher resolution.
>>51850625
VM on the right. I use a VM for work. I need a sandboxed OS that I can verify to be clean.
>>51850632
not him but you're actually retarded, go read up on the pixels of the ultra wide screens
>>51850599
Yup. And nvidia surround sucks dick. Just switched to a dell ultrasharp ultrawide 34" and went to red team with Fury X. Wayyyy happier. The only people that say ultrawide isnt worth are people who cant afford to spend $900 on a monitor that doesn't suck.
>>51850708
Are they somehow different from regular pixels? What are these new type of pixels? Do they have a name?
>Also, not him, but you're certifiably mentally incapacitated
>>51850734
>your reading comprehension
-10 IQ
>>51850734
3440x1440 > 2560x1440
>>51850186
>1:1
holy fuck did they hire the design team that was fired from blackberry last year?
>>51850752
and 3840x2160>3440x1440 and the 4k display costs less
>>51850752
Yeah 21:9 is pixel area more than 16:9 at the same vertical resolution.. What's your point?
We were talking about how 1440p at 16:9 begets more screen real estate than 21:9 at 1080p... which isn't true when everything on the screen has to be scaled larger to fit the new higher ppi... unless you enjoy incredibly tiny text.
>>51850813
>not running text at 3840x2400 22 inches
>2015
>not enjoying tiny text
>>51850785
Ultrawide isn't fixing the problem of "more pixels." It's fixing the problem of not enough physical screen real estate for people that would regularly buy 2 monitors.
If I bought a 1440p 16:9, I'd still be stuck buying a second 1440p at 16:9
>>51850843
Okay? a 1440p 21:9 display still makes no sense because they all cost $1000 when you can get 40" 4k displays for almost half that
>>51850813
>everything on the screen has to be scaled larger to fit the new higher ppi... unless you enjoy incredibly tiny text.
incorrect again
-10 IQ
>>51850829
Seriuosly tho, tiny text really isn't that big of a deal imo if you have good eyesight anyway. In my experience you get used to it because its sharper than tiny text in a low-res monitor.
>>51850893
Form factor. If someone that has the money for it and finds it useful for work, they'll spend the money on it.
Ultrawides are infinitely less stressful than gambling on getting matching dual screen monitors.
>>51850945
Tiny text is a problem if what you're working on needs to render correctly for end-users. Nothing says professional like size 16 font for regular screen text.
>>51850948
No you just buy one good big 4k display and you're set for life
>>51850993
I can't game on a 4K unless i send another grand on a memePU
>>51850993
>set for life
>not understanding the optimal ppi is ~300
>>51850893
>>51850785
Broke ass teenagers
If someone wants it, has the money, they buy it. Simple. You just cant come to grips with my fury x and ultrasharp 34" ultrawide being worth more than your entire computer and monitor combined
>>51850993
>Buy 32'' 4K monitor so you don't have to buy ultrawide
>Form factor doesn't lend itself to a virtual dual screen setup
>Still wind up spending $850.. $200 more than you would've spent on a 34'' Ultrawide at 1440p
Only with pivot, I wish there were decent large square monitors
>>51850987
This is true. Depends on use case I guess.
>>51850578
what if you're looking at the form factor instead of maximizing your DPI placebo e-dick?
>>51851063
>Not trying to maximize your dicks per inch
>>51851021
It's 16:9, if you can't push 4k just drop to 1080p
The point is you basically never have to buy another display again and GPUs that are more 4k capable will be getting cheaper
>>51851054
you think 32" is big?
40"+ UHD is the current patrician choice.
3x 1280x2160 virtual splits is much better than 2x 1720x1440 for most workflows, especially being able to put the "main" stuff in the middle instead of a virtual dividing line.
>>51851110
Are there any companies that sell those that aren't noname chink shit?
>>51851101
I'm a UHDfag, but even I won't pretend that it will last me more than 3 or 4 years.
I frankly hope 8k hurries the fuck up. ~200 dpi at >40" will be great.
>>51851134
philips has a 40".
2015 UHD TVs with HDMI 2.0 aren't bad either for workstation use either, but they have poor latency on upscaled 1080p for gaymen.
>>51849740
16:10 > 16:9 > 4:3 > 21:9
>>51851054
Sorry it's not a dual display, it's 4 1080p displays, so much better
>>51851147
Why would you ever need to replace a 4k display?
>>51851215
16:10 > 16:9 > 21:9 > 4:3
square shit
>>51851215
Don't 1600p displays current cost more than 4k displays?
>>51851225
>Why would you ever need to replace 1080p?
>Why would you ever need to replace 1440p?
>>51849740
I bought a 2560x1080 29" AOC for $550 about six months ago. Don't regret it, it was one of the best purchases I've made for this build.
It's absolutely wonderful for both gaming and productivity.
>>51851225
I mean, I got my 4k for 180 bucks and it actually measures extremely well.
4k is pretty cheap if you know where to get them.
>>51851225
>Why would you ever need to replace a 4k display?
because my ~40" UHD is nice but I'm still jelly of the sharpness of 27" 5k monitors but don't want to give up any physical area.
large 8k will be a worthy upgrade, but it's not even a sure thing that DP 1.3 plus DSC will be sufficient, so it might be a while.
> crazy nips wanting super hi vision broadcast olympics or whatever might save us all
>>51851279
Neither of those have the screen real estate 4k gives you, do you not understand exponential growth?
>>51851318
All those pixels are doing is wasting screen space to render font sharper
8K is too far away to be very viable
>>51851337
>Neither of those have the screen real estate 8k gives you, do you not understand exponential growth?
>>51851365
8K would require displays sized much higher than 40" to be very usable with minimal upscaling,
and companies are still a good ways away from producing even 4k content.
Let's take the fact that we only have 1080 vertical pixels and make the problem even worse by stretching the monitor sideways.
What a fucking awful aspect ratio. What an awful fucking monitor. What an AWFUL F U C K I N G IDEA!
>>51851404
40"-45" with ~200 dpi with simple 2x scaling is the next big step up.
you can look at it like 40" UHD with double sharpness or scaled-up 5k 27" displays, it doesn't matter.
>>51851404
>companies are still a good ways away from producing even 720p content
>companies are still a good ways away from producing even 1080p content
I'm getting quite bored of this lack of forethought, now why don't you rethink your belief system and get back to me when it's more coherent. It's not stopping at 8k btw.
>>51851404
>and companies are still a good ways away from producing even 4k content.
Isn't the whole point of 2k/4k/8k is more pixels => more workspace?
Who actually gets a 4k monitor to only watch 4k videos?
>>51851491
Ultimately it's going to be the average consumer buying 4k displays that brings it's cost down and has people producing more 4k content
>>51851337
I expect we'll see 8k displays before 2020 for the same reason that we're seeing 40" 4k displays now. It will be too expensive to maintain a fab turning out displays with PPIs below 200.
>>51851464
>It's not stopping at 8k btw.
it might or it might not, at least for the foreseeable future.
some people can see pixellation at 200 dpi at nomal monitor viewing distances, but they're in the considerable minority.
most people can pretty readily see pixellation at 100 dpi.
shit like 500 dpi in newer smartphones is retarded even when looking at something 3 inches away.
>>51851584
Like I said, the optimal PPI is ~300. Once we hit that PPI on monitors, they will become larger to match that PPI.
>>51851627
"optimal" is not an objective thing. It depends primarily on the distance as well as a few other factors. Your smartphone might benefit from higher pixel densities, but a desktop monitor might not (and a TV that sits 10 feet away almost certainly won't unless people go right up to the TV occasionally, which we shouldn't necessarily rule out in the future; maybe it'll happen if - for instance - touchscreen interaction becomes a thing for some reason).
>>51851675
Optimal ppi is objective; the ppi where you couldn't see pixelation from inches away, but not a waste of too many pixels. In the few cases where you get up close to the screen, it becomes useful, which is why it's not suboptimal.
>>51851627
you are retarded.
manufacturers primarily target form factor than dump later improvements into pixel sharpness for muh marketing.
hence 1440p and 2160p 5.5-6" smartphone screen nonsense.
UHD TVs are primarily the same.
3D, "smart", and other flavor-of-the-year improvements got stale, so 4k UHD got rolled out to forestall plummeting TV sales.
The nips are only going for the 8k shit out of pride and because they are desperate to maintain relevance.
In turn 8k TVs will push monitors to reach that resolution as consumers demand the new content in other form factors.
>>51851791
There's one other advantage to going to really high pixel densities, and that's dead pixels. The smaller the pixels get, the less noticable a flaw is. If you build a 200ppi 8k display and it has too many flaws to sell as a 8k screen you could sell it as a 4k screen, or even a 1080p screen because the flawed pixels would get drowned out by their neighbors.
>>51851791
So you're figuring out how supply and demand works? People want higher resolutions and are willing to pay a premium for it, therefore I am retarded?
>>51849740
>Are ultrawide monitors actually worth the money
No. If you don't have a 40" 4k monitor you probably shouldn't even bother having a computer.
>>51850361
Windows 10 handles the two screens very well. You can snap to both sides of each screen.
>>51851765
I think you're either misreading or not reading my post. The only sense in which "optimal" can mean anything is the point at which two pixels are indistinguishable from one another, which depends on myriad factors, some personal but mostly situational.
As a deliberately ridiculous example, if you had a bunch of 1cm black cubes and you put them all a mile away, you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between 2 juxtaposed cubes and 1 by itself. This depends on your eyesight and the distance (and visibility), but the principle here scales accordingly.
If you're using a monitor at 2-3 feet away (as one might with a desktop monitor), you reach a point where more pixels don't add meaningfully to sharpness. That point is much sooner than the corresponding point for a smartphone, which is generally ~1 foot away from your face, and sometimes *much* closer (especially if you use it in bed, for instance).
I'm not saying that it's impossible that people will lean in and stare at a desktop monitor from 2 inches away, but that those people - like people with 20/10 vision - are in the relatively extreme minority, and excluding those folks we can identify an "optimal" pixel density for monitors using a function primarily decided by the distances from people's eyes.
I would argue that we're probably reasonably close to optimal at 185 pixels per inch on a desktop monitor, which is lower than the corresponding optimum for a laptop (which people use closer to them) and lower still than that of a smartphone.
I'm sure companies will push 8k and higher into 24" monitors and herald it as something we all need, but I'm not convinced that it will represent anything more than frantic spec oneupmanship.
>>51851908
They're still a bit immature as a product, and the QC on the Phillips displays in particular is a bit disappointing for such an expensive item.
I can't blame people for not being early adopters, but if you are holy shit its good. I really never want to go back to a small display again.
>>51851945
Again you're saying we're fine with a suboptimal PPI because it's "good enough" compared to the optimal PPI. That's an independent argument.
I think they're more usable than 4k right now.
>>51851879
no, you're retarded for thinking PPI is the central driving factor and not recognizing that this is manufacturers largely wagging the dog.
PPI growth will be an incidental effect of 4k/5k/8k displays being made for the 24"/27"/~30"/etc. display segments.
There will always be a substantially larger assortment of display sizes and pixel sharpnesses than overall resolutions, since content production generally happens in only a few resolutions, and nobody likes looking at scaled content on LCDs.
>>51852193
>no, you're retarded for thinking PPI is the central driving factor
false presupposition
You seem to have very low reading comprehension and writing skills, if you want to provide a counterargument that is actually consistent with what I said I welcome it.
>>51852250
>false presupposition
what presupposition? you seem to be ignorant that 40"+ ~100 dpi displays already exist.
by the above logic, we shouldn't have seen them until 10k or 12k became a thing:
>>51851627
>optimal PPI is ~300. Once we hit that PPI on monitors, they will become larger to match that PPI.
>>51852324
>you seem to be ignorant that 40"+ ~100 dpi displays already exist.
false presupposition
>by the above logic, we shouldn't have seen them until 10k or 12k became a thing:
defective logic
One more of these LQ posts and I'm done btw.
>>51849740
Yes, there are actually a lot of games coming out that support 21:9 now, I'd say about 70% of games support it, or there's an easy work around through config files for the game.
Once you go ultrawide, you never go back.
Oh, they're also good for work too I suppose, but who the fuck works am I right?
>>51852375
the only possible antecedent for "they" in your sentence that wouldn't be completely wrong would be "resolutions", which wasn't named to in either your post or the one it referenced.
if you want me to believe that your grasp of proper english is retarded instead of your technical opinions, I suppose I could compromise on that.
>>51851048
This right here. Now that I have graduated from college and am a salaried employee I bought a 980 ti and a predator x34. The children can stay mad, but 4chan is mostly populated by children
>>51853143
sorry, I'm not a student nor anything close to a poorfag anymore, and I can tell you that 3440x1440 is nothing but a shit compromise platform.
It's literally just for people who want more than 1440p but can't afford the GPUs to drive UHD and are too stupid to consider running letterboxed gaymen.
You're going to feel retarded when Pascal/Fury2 hit the streets next year and all the big boys are doing UHD@60+ fps.
Frankly I'd recommend anyone who doesn't upgrade monitors every 2 years or faster to just wait for the UHD@120Hz w/ adaptive-sync displays coming out in Q4'16, which will completely shit on any current 21:9 display.
>>51850186
Why is it the 1:1 monitors look longer vertically and don't actually look square? Is there a word for that effect?
3440x1440 34" looks amazing and I have had no problems finding fixs for most games
>>51853330
optical illusion?
your ceiling is not that low
stop wasting workspace
shortscreen is not an advantage
>>51850186
this teebh
>>51853308
Nigger, my u3415w was $900... My fury x was $650....how can I not afford a gpu for 4k again?
>>51853653
should have bought a UHD and 2x FuryX or 980Ti, poorfag.
now you're just stuck with a monitor that'll be completely wasted when 14/16nm GPUs come out.
>>51853714
You're projecting really hard here
>>51849740
You are about to be keked. I'm not going to try to convince you about my feelings, but let me give you an experiment to try.
Try a 27" 16:9 with 2560x1440 for awhile. Now think to yourself, "Would I really use more width than this?"
Also, if you're talking 29" ultrawide you're looking at 1080 height. That's pure shit.
you're only kekked if you buy a 1080 one. The 1440 ones are god-tier.
>>51854100
hardly. already on UHD, will probably upgrade in 12-18 months to 120Hz UHD when they finally roll out, since it's currently assumed they'll all have some variety of variable sync.
I expect that to last me 3-4 years, depending on when 8k reaches the realm of mere mortals.
Traded my Eyefinity setup with a LG 34UM95, love it.
>>51850434
I think you can have it from multiple computers, like your desktop on one side and Macbook or whatever via DP on the other side.
>>51853308
Have Predator x34. No flaws other than ips glow in the corner which disappears as I move farther than 2 feet from the monitor. I'm happy, and whenever the ti version of the top tier pascal gpu comes out I'll get that. 2k ultrawide might be retarded to you, but the vast majority of people game at or below 1080p 60fps, which I was. I'm not going to wait forever to get the next best thing, as the next best thing is perpetually around the corner. I thought that 2k ultrawide 100hz (in my case) would be a huge upgrade, and it was. I have zero regrets, even though you say 4k 120 hz is coming out in less than a year with no citation.
>>51853330
you're used to looking at 4:3 and, to a lesser extant, 5:4 as a square. that image looks weird to me, too, especially since I'm using a 5:4 monitor as a second display.
>>51849740
I recently bought a 29" LG panel for $250 at microcenter. I suppose it's pretty nice but the improvement was minimal as I've been using dual 1080p monitors for a very long time. The one thing that does feel amazing though is being able to have two full size text pages next to each other or a single screen. The main con with getting a 21:9 monitor nowadays is that windows 10's snap feature works well enough to make them kind of unecessary
>>51856198
>even though you say 4k 120 hz is coming out in less than a year with no citation.
fresh news like this shouldn't need sauce (was discussed widely here a week ago), but I'm feeling generous...
DP 1.3 hype train already started, even though Pascal/Fury2 won't likely hit till next summer.
>>51858773
tn panel
oops
>>51850599
/b/ro,
1- You need to pay attention to color accuracy in the reviews before buying.
2- Even with a shitty screen, and a color probe like an i1 display pro, you can get pretty close and accurate screens. Buy/Rend/borrow one if it matters to you.
I had one until my cat chewed the usb cable.
cheers
>>51850223
Eizo
>>51850186
4:3 is literally better in every way
>>51858836
says who?
>>51849740
Made irrelevant by cheap korean 4k monitors
>>51850361
Because it's not true. I own a ultra wide LG monitor and I don't know how anyone would assume that it consists of two panels. It is one wide panel and PbP is just a feature done in software. Many TVs support PiP (Picture in Picture), but you don't assume that there is a smaller panel within the normal TV.
And btw: most games can handle 21:9 quite well. Some need a quick edit of some ini file, but most run out of the box. Games that need mods or other software to work are very rare, except for Bethesda Games because they are retards with an engine from the stoneage.
>>51851908
>buying 40inch 4k
>not getting a Korean monitor
>>51850306
>I have to use some stupid ultrawide fixer shit to play any games though.
The fuck are you talking about? Go into your video card drivers and change scaling to "Preserve aspect ratio". Or fullscreen if you don't mind the slight stretch. Done. I have zero issues with playing any games on my ultrawide.
>>51849740
It seems like it would be less versatile than just getting two (or more) normal monitors.
>>51861428
more monitors are usually technically more "versatile", but this usually never matters unless you have multiple sources you're constantly switching between.
otherwise, nobezels is pretty nice, and you can get clean virtual splits with DisplayFusion on Windows or any number of tiling window managers on Linux.
ultrashortfags can get wrecked though.
40" UHD is better in every way unless your life revolves around watching movies (but not TV) on your PC and can't stand black bars.
>>51849740
fuck it 4:3 was best rest is shit on desktop.
i just bought one of those korean 1440p monitors yesterday for $200
They look really cool, I dont think theyd be very nice for gaming though, which is the only reason id get one. Might get one for the office though
>>51861669
to be honest, 16:10 was bretty gud too, family
got a 34um95-p kinda recently
would never go back to 16:9/16:10 and it's way better than 4k IMO
>>51861946
>way better than 4k IMO
in what way could <4k possibly be > 4k?
>>51851337
>All those pixels are doing is wasting screen space to render font sharper
Late 2015 iMac 27" here. It's using 4:1 (@default scaling) pixels. It's not just the fonts, it's the whole interface that gets sharper. Same for my SP4.
Once you go high PPI, there is no turning back. It's just ridiculous how good everything looks.
>>51862480
Sharpness is nice, but usable size is still king.
> sauce: my rMBP
>>51863631
Well you can set the scale to have more screen state. It just looks to small for my taste and I have pretty shitty eyesight though lol.
(though not bad enough to hate my 24" 1080p screen now).
>>51850186
>taller than it is wide
>square
>>51863975
nice b8, m8
Why would you want one? Except for video or music editing, vertical real estate is more important.
>>51858448
wrekt
>>51863631
>TFW My aspie friend tried to carry an argument with me that my 27" 2560x1440 144hz monitor was worse than his 13" 1920x1080 drawing tablet (not 100% sure on the numbers, but roughly like that) because of the PPI
He just couldn't understand why having a screen of a usable size was any good and how if the PPI isn't over 200 before distance is considered, then its no good, and I'd need 4k to make the screen even usable.
Then when I found out that I sit exactly on the sweet spot for screen size x pixels : distance (on 'isitretina') and shut him up good n proper.
He seriously believes that 4k is essential, even for people who play games and want to maintain a reasonable FPS.
>>51863959
>It just looks to small
Thus the entire problem of wasting money on too small a screen with too high a resolution
>>51865341
It's not a waste when the image looks so crisp on the default scaling.
>>51865364
But there's no point in wasting pixels to see something sharper
>>51864337
speaking of which.... I don't want to get back into PC gaming until we have somewhat affordable 4k gaming. How is the hardware at the moment?
I don't mind paying a premium, but I don't want to spend +$1000 for a monitor and +$1000 in GPUs and raising my electrical bill.
>>51865392
>wasting pixels.
What does that even mean?
Well some people see the value. Honestly, once you see it, you don't go back. It's like the difference between an old iPad and retina ones, or old android phones with shitty ppi and new flagships.
But, to each its own. Say if you are a gamer and want to spend that premium on additional hardware, that's great too.
>>51865421
On a mobile device especially the high resolution is useless since it requires more power to render thus shortening battery life.
It's stupid on the imac because why have a 5k screen where most of the pixels aren't usable without scaling, it should at least be like a 36" display, then it could fit real workstation hardware inside it as well, it's just too bad apple doesn't design good products.
>>51865481
because it makes the image look crispier and better. may not convince you but it makes a difference to some people.
agreed about the hardware though. The RM390 starts to choke when you have many many many windows opened.
Why do nugunz think that "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS OLD SO WE SHOULD REPEAL IT"
>>58388736
Mk Ultra dump
Pretty comfy with my T450 Cinema Edition
>>51865597
not just the image - in fact I would argue that's a secondary thing, especially since visual media scales poorly (compared to text).
If you primarily code, write, read, etc... and you have a choice between anything and a higher pixel density screen, go with the higher density screen. Anything else would be an impulsive, childish mistake that you'd come to regret.
I have a few high density displays and I would buy them all over again if there was a housefire and I lost everything. I have a fair amount of stuff that I could take or leave, but I would make the same decision about my 4k 24" monitors in a heartbeat.
>>51865643
I don't think you can understand how much stuff you can fit on a proper 40" 4k display and still see it
>>51865815
I never said that wasn't the case. My point was completely independent of yours; I'm saying that sharper text is more important. I'm not reading several pages at once, nor do I need to visually glance at multiple pages at a time. I read about 1 page in my field of view, and that's roughly what a 24" monitor gives me. Given that I do that more or less all day, higher densities of pixels - and therefore sharper text - turn out to be important.
>>51865643
Yeah, I'm a programmer and work from home, the reason I got the 27" 5k iMac is because how crisp the screen looks and the added screen state coming up from 1080p.
I have a secondary monitor, in portrait, but it's a 1080p TN panel. It's a world of difference.
>>51850465
>>51850507
Do you guys even ICC/ICM?
>>51866050
> portrait TN
do you hate your eyes, or are you just retarded?
>>51866770
Meh, I just to position it in a very specific way depending on how I'm sitting. It's not that bad.
I mean, sucks as much as having it landscape.
>>51854209
>UHD
>not 4k
Kil yourself
>>51849786
>For gaymen? No, you'll never find support for it.
Thats not true though. I have a LG 29" Ultrawidescreen and 99% games work in 2560x1080p, even ancient games like Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 & 2. Just install Flawless Widescreen and check pcgamingwiki.com and wsgf.org for compatibility and solutions. Or just google game + 2560x1080p Or mess around in the .ini files.
One super wide and one completely square.
>>51867545
> 16:10 already dead
> wants to go even wider than 16:9
look at this faggot
>>51867707
3440x1440 is almost defensible given the scarcity of GPUs that can drive UHD near 60 Hz.
What faggotry possessed you to get 2560x1080 instead of a sane man's choice of 1440p or 1600p?
>>51867781
Because its double the price. Im currently studying and only have a shitty half time job.
Honestly, I dont give a shit about my monitor anymore because Im saving up for a VR device now since all I play are cockpit games anyways, also porn.
>>51867914
So just google cardboard. Or are you so college broke you're saving up $35
>>51868061
I would but I only have a $150 chinkphone that doesnt have gyro and I dont want to upgrade since all I do with it is browsing /g/ while taking a shit and reading books.
>>51861720
/thread
>>51865401
Depends whether you expect 60 FPS on all the latest games. A single 980 Ti will run a lot of games with acceptable settings/frame rates at 4k res.
>>51864218
winrar
>>51850785
3440x1440p 100hz >> 4k 60hz
Just upgraded from 4k
Inb5 human eye 12 fps
>>51868242
You spent $1400 on a display? I'd rather have 2 40" 4k displays for that price
>>51865401
4k is nice but it has its issues outside of just having the horsepower for it. Certain game just do not like 4k. Most games don't really blow your mind in 4k, the sharpness of the ui will be more noticeable than the game itself.
>>51868260
70" 4k tv takes care of that. Buy your seiki poorfag trash bro.
>2015
>using 40" tv for monitor
Tell us about your amd build
Worth every penny for video editing
>>51868337
Oh bby eugh yea
>>51868321
>low dpi
>giant screen
enjoy your shitty 'tv'
>>51868356
It's a 70" 4k tv, why would I want a small tv besides being a poorfag?
Is it cool to have small tvs now?
>>51868321
What?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPXdOpaNUtg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZAoF9nw0Mo
>>51868395
>he thinks its cool to have shitty low dpi screens
>>51868408
Again, I have a 28" samsung 4k 60hz monitor. Making it a 40" ebay model isn't blowin my mind.
>>51868420
It's a fucking tv for watching tv.
R u downs?
>>51868488
R y blind?
>>51868468
28" is too small to properly use a 4k display
>>51868506
According to???
>this thread
>first world problems
>>51868497
Poorfag is poor
>>51868555
ppi calculations? that puts it at around 150ppi which means you need to be fairly close to use the display without scaling
>>51868565
>>51868575
You are this dumb
>>51868488
Dubs
>>51868576
Do you sit 3 feet back from your monitors? Do you have bad eyesight?
>>51868488
Checked
>>51868621
No and No, if you have a large 4k display you don't have to scale things and you can fit much more stuff on the screen
>>51868652
You clearly have bad eyesight if you have to scale on a 28"
>Itt poorfags tell you what they would have bought if they were not poorfags.
>My 20" 1080p 60hz is best
>>51868670
>>51868670
hurr durr
>>51868899
I believe I had mine at 124% on the os. 125 broke dayz for whatever reason :/
>>51868899
>talks about 4k
>post a pic of 27" 5k
>>51868997
>talks about 4k
>has only seen 4k at local walmart
>>51869033
>talks about 4k
>actually thinks his 5k qualifies as an argument against 4k
It's a pity you're retarded
>>51868899
>>51869051
Not me anon
>>51850465
Just get a fucking spyder 5 if you're so fussy about it.
Ultrawide is a meem. Just get a 40' 4k.
if you don't know what your own needs are and how they could be met you've already been keked
>>51869121
So I should buy a 40' TV for something i'm 1foot at most away from?
>>51869121
>2k ultrawide for $200-300
>4k 40' easy $800-$1200
>>51869154
Yes
>>51869433
So If I'm not using a $600-1000 graphics card i'm fucked because hdmi 1.x sucks?
>>51868506
>28" is too small to properly use a 4k display
>>51868555
>According to???
4k is a fucking waste at <35" unless you're a graphics designer (GTFO, shoopfags).
For coders, it's vastly better to be able to have more visible text, and it doesn't matter how jaggy it is.
For anyone with at least average corrected vision, you can get 240 visible LOC on a ~40" UHD display at a normal sitting distance, while most people would need around a 1' viewing distance to be able to read a font that small on a 28" display.
Obviously more pixels = better, but if more space above a usable minimum sharpness threshold is probably more useful until AT LEAST 40".
>>51869452
Buy a new GPU as well
>>51869452
Club3D just released (u)DP 1.2 -> HDMI 2.0 active dongles for ~$30.
But really, any GTX 960 or better has HDMI 2.0.
It's only the AMD cards and older Nvidia that are stuck on HDMI 1.4.
>>51869462
So instead of just buying a 4k monitor with dp I'm going to have to invest $1500+ just to see this meme?
>>51869490
Yes
>>51869498
are you dicking me?
>>51869528
no
>>51869490
Just buy a Wasabi Mango UDH420
>>51869458
that's why you scale you fucking dumbass. Both W10 and OSX can handle scaling rather nicely.
>>51869615
what about a non-shitter OS?
>>51869490
go get a samsung un40ju6500 (VA) for $600 or an lg 43uf7600 (IPS) for $700 and get the $30 adapter dongle for 2160p60 if you're an AMDfag.
the 40" philips is generally OK, but it has non-square pixels.
fuckhuge 4k workstation displays with usable dpi are already here for extremely reasonable prices if you're willing to think outside the box and are willing to get yelled at a lot on /g/.
> pic related is lg 49uf7600, which is probably slightly too big for most, but I wanted to use 6x9px bitmap fonts in vim/IDEs, and the ~91 dpi was more legible for that than the ~102 dpi of the 43" model.
>>51869665
that looks nice.
>>51869665
Holy fuck how blind are you?
>>51869665
i have a 32" next to my monitor and its way too big, a 49 would be retarded. I literally have to move my neck to look at the corners.
>>51869758
>that looks nice.
thanks. would recommend to anybody except hardcore-/v/ folks who need 120+Hz.
>>51869803
>how blind are you?
not very (20/15 after LASIK).
this UHD screen is literally the same as a 2x2 grid of 24" 1080p screens with no bezels.
43" model is likewise equivalent to 2x2 21.5".
>>51869892
this was to replace a 20"/30"/20" 4960x1600 PLP setup.
it's actually less neck turning now, but I'd only suggest the 49" model for people with low desks and/or > 6' personal height or you'll have some neck craning.
it's obviously not for everyone, but it lets me keep a shitload of source and documentation onscreen at once.
>>51849740
Hell yeah they are.
>more view in most vidya
>looks great for wide screen movies
>good for programming/video editing
>human vision is horizontal
>>51869458
Fuck off with your eye cancer shit. I wouldn't buy a 4k display with a >27" screen because I don't sit across the god damn room from my desk. If I wanted more workspace I'd buy multiple monitors.
>>51869945
>this UHD screen is literally the same as a 2x2 grid of 24" 1080p screens with no bezels.
My 24" 1080p screens don't show text that looks like ants
>>51850599
Never thought I'd be happy to be red-green colorblind enough to not give a shit. I'm of the opinion that color correctness is mostly irrelevant to me.
>>51870029
my text is for ants because my vision is augmented
or maybe you just think that's a tiny chair in the photo?
in any case, you can choose whatever larger font sizes you like, friend.
4096x2560 240Hz when?
>>51870259
probably never-ever?
DCI 4k is getting steamrolled by UHD 4k, and the only other resolutions on the horizon are 5120x2880 (5k) and 7680x4320 (UHD 8k).
8k@120Hz is the best we'll see in the next 10 years, but even DisplayPort 1.3 plus Display Stream Compression has nowhere close to the needed bandwidth at this point.
16:10 is already dead, and we'll be lucky just hanging on to 16:9 as sad as that sounds.
>>51870454
nah man, 16:10 is tits for editing for 16:9, even if its just for industry use, it will linger
i hope
After reading this thread I'm even less sure about what to buy.
>>51870699
smart money is to wait until next year when DP 1.3 displays start trickling out, since they will have so much more bandwidth.
If you're not a richfag and absolutely need something now, get the cheapest stopgap that will suffice for the next 9-15 months.
In general, you should throw more money at good displays than about anything else since they should last you close to a decade, but things are expected to shift pretty dramatically soon, so be warned.
>>51870847
Thanks for the advice. I'm definitely not a richfag and am in no rush, just that the Korean monitors were becoming enticing.
>>51870847
Who needs up to 144Hz+? Are these made for gaymer crowd?
>>51870847
> tfw not normally into gaymen or trash TN displays, but dat 1440p240. holy shit.
>>51870961
primarily, but even desktops feel pretty fucking plush scrolling and dragging windows around above 60 Hz.
>>51850625
8.1 he is still being bugged to upgrade to win10
>>51849740
These are smaller than you might imagine, and they are overpriced. I opted for a curved 4k tv instead.
>>51871002
That's because your shit monitor is dropping lots of frames.
>>51870961
Why do you fags denigrate FLAC all day but allow this refresh rate nonsense?
"muh IPS 5ms so slow"
What is this faggotry?
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
https://strawpoll.me/6271398
DO YOU SUPPORT THE CURVED ULTRAWIDE MEME?
>>51871202
That test is completely flawed and based off the response time of your monitor
>>51871234
Also the input delay of your mouse
>>51871231
poll sucks donkey dick.
needs third option for "ultrawide is shit regardless".
>>51871231
2:1 curved screen is not a meme
case closed
>>51871234
>>51871258
There has never been a 2 digit ms reaction time recorded by a human being reacting to any stimuli. The Olympic regulations regard any sprinter leaving the blocks within 0.1sec (100ms) as a false start because it is physically impossible for the sound waves from the pistol to reach the sprinter and register in his brain in 100ms. It takes 80ms just for visual stimuli to process in the brain. Some are certainly faster than others, but not to the extent that a 1-2ms would be a significant difference from 5ms.
You're going to tell me some neckbeard is more superhuman than Olympic athletes?
>falling for the ultrawide meme
I have triple 1440p displays.
>>51871438
So 102ms is a false start?
>>51871234
That doesn't matter, it's not measuring average but peak times, and after 24 million clicks, the fastest time anyone has gotten is 102ms. There's no way a difference of less than 10ms between panels would skew the results heavily, much less even be perceptible to humans. Eye blinks alone take 100ms on average.
Getting a 40-42" 4K TV/monitor is probably better than the 34" ultra wide.
You can set custom resolution to 21:9 3840x1620 which is more pixels than 3440x1440 and wider.
It's easy to switch back to 16:9. I haven't tried it myself but I'm thinking about going this route.
>>51871202
>>51871512
time to react to stimuli may exceed 100ms, but you can certainly feel persistent latency much lower than that.
> open a FPS
> move mouse around repeatedly in fast, relatively tight circles
> notice phase difference between your hand and what you see, like moving mouse up while view still turning to the left, etc.
I can start to perceive at around 30ms, and anything greater than 50s feels like laggy garbage, simply because my brain can notice differences in visual input and tactile response.
>>51871665
Geez man, you must be playing on screens made from grandma's underwear. Go here:
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
and look at the lag rates above 30ms: They're almost all big TVs. By 50ms, you're getting into plasma territory. Nearly all the monitors are under 30ms, most of them under 13ms and usually 60hz.
This 1-2ms response meme is the same as 24/192 audio. It's just not possible to affect humans to that resolution.
Also, I highly doubt that 102ms is a proper response time. That Olympic rule has been enforced before:
>"Christie's reaction time on the third start was measured at +0.086 s, with the IAAF tolerance being +0.100s.
Christie was deemed to have reacted too quickly after the gun was fired. In other words, he wasn't reacting to the gun at all but instead anticipating it."
Just for kicks I did the exact same thing trying to predict the green and got 195ms within seconds. That ostensibly makes me the 70th fastest person in the world, and I'm on a "garbage" 60hz 18.4 TN laptop panel. So yeah, the test is heavily flawed, but not in a way that helps your argument.
