Specifically 2560x1080 resolution ones
I got a gtx 970
only if its 144hz
>>52259166
Yes
>>52259166
>>>/wsr/
Read the sticky.
>>52259166
no
get 3440x1440
other wise it will look like shit
>>52259298
This
2560x1080 is garbage and is barley any different.
3440x1440 is far better and you get way more screen real estate that way
No they're shit. Think about it you're only getting 2.5MP, that's like 25% more than 1080p. Complete shit and it's common for application functionality/convenience to be limited by 1080 lines of resolution.
2560x1440 is 3.7MP and is the best price/performance value today.
>>52259342
yep, thats my dream monitor, 3440x1440 100%argb, and 144 refresh rate
never ever...
I am gamer mostly, I only have a GTX 970, which can barely run modern games at max setting with 1920x1080p
>>52259418
i think you might have a bottle neck if you're having trouble running those games with a 970, because it does very well...
>>52259890
Just picky with framerates. Witcher 3 runs at ultra with 45-60 frames. I assume it'll drop even more in performance when i get that monitor
>>52260158
strange, i have a strix 970 and i get a solid 60 with hair works on everything (unless its closeups in cut scenes where it will go to 40 at the least)
i wouldnt think my i7 6700k would make much of a difference
Superwide 1080p is dumb as hell. I'm using regular 1080p and I feel like my vertical resolution is cramped. If my screen were 21:9 and I paid $300+ for it, I would be full of rage.
I say go for 2560x1440 or 3440x1440. It'll be expensive though.
>>52259346
>it's common for application functionality/convenience to be limited by 1080 lines of resolution.
I don't know what shitty applications you use but that's blatantly false.
>>52260236
>$300+
you mean over 800?
>>52260158
I'm curious what your Valley or Heaven benchmark score is.
>>52259413
Acer has one that goes as high as 100Hz I think. You're almost there buddy.
>>52260286
desu i can go without a good refesh rate, im not that into gaming, but it would push it to be perfect
There is no 21:9,
only 64:27
You've been lied to via branding.
>>52260262
>blatantly false because I've tried every application out there and I'm happy with my shitty vertical resolution.
>>52260317
i dont think you know what when you have a fraction or ratio you shrink it down to the lowest common factor...
>>52260379
>thinks 21:9 is a good vertical resolution
Just about every popular application scales just fine. Go ahead and show off all your so called 1080 limited ones.
>>52260379
21:9 isnt even a resolution get off /g/
>>52260502
1080 is a vertical resolution... learn to read.
>>52260502
It's a ratio that defines a set of resolutions.
Face it you're an idiot if you think 1080 is a good vertical resolution and anything bigger is bad.
>>52259166
Don't be a retard
>>52260515
oh i thought you replied to a different post, my bad
>>52260521
yes you are, 21:9 needs to be over 28 inches which is a no go for a vertical resolution of only 1080, you need at least 1440 to make it look decent and have a good amount of room
>>52260382
try dividing 64 by 3, dumbshit
>>52260568
Are you an idiot or can you just not read?
>>52260568
Agreed 21:9 with 1080 is shit. 1440 is the lowest decent vertical res. 1200 is marginal, though there's no 2800x1200 screens out so it's a moot point for this thread.
>>52260634
1920x1080 in portrait > 1440 landscape
>>52260665
Not really. If that's a TN in portrait you've just fucked your viewing angle. Looks like shit too. Plus, are you really gonna tilt the thing back each time you want to watch a video?
1920x1080 is 2MP. 2560x1440 is 3.7MP
>>52260724
Have multiple monitors like a normal person?
Portrait mode is godlike for coding, web browsing, etc.
>>52260774
Multi-monitor is a 2000s thing - big/high res monitors used to be expensive. I'm happy with a single 1440p or 2560x1600. Takes up most of my useful field of vision, lets me run two of pretty much anything side-by-side and I can alt+tab faster than I can turn my head.
>>52260884
>Multi-monitor is a 2000s thing
Yeah no.
A big ass monitor with shitty ppi doesn't make up for several good quality monitors.
Anyone not poor has multiple monitors.
>>52261081
The fuck are you talking about? You think 1920x1080 on a 22" or whatever you're running in portrait mode has better PPI than a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 or 3840x2160 screen in common sizes?
Educate yourself pleb:
https://www.sven.de/dpi/
It takes four 1080p screens to get you as many pixels as a single 4k, and multi monitor is just a bunch of clutter, makes you look like a poor adolescent.
>>52261467
>and multi monitor is just a bunch of clutter
Not when you get proper mounts
> makes you look like a poor adolescent.
A set of good monitors cost more than your shitty 30/40"
Educate yourself faggot, your solo monitor is just a sign of being poor and not being able to afford more than 1 quality monitor.
>>52259166
>2560x1080
they suck, hard.
for the price you could get a decent 2560x1440 monitor and not be fucked by the height being to low, the ppi being smaller than necessary or not being able to enjoy proper games support. its even possible to get three 1920x1080 monitors instead and have better productivity all around for the same price.
As it stands, the only worthwhile monitor classes worth getting are 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3440x1440 and 4K.
3440x1440 is okay if its 34" and above, you get a properly sized monitor for productivity and media/gaming and the necessary pixels to support a good ppi which makes it more worthwhile when sacrificing the 16:9 gaming and media support standard.
The main issue with 2560x1080 is that those monitors are way to small unless you have your face right in them, and the pixel count being way to low. There are of course the rare trend breakers like the gaming one Dell released which was 35" in size and featured proper 144hz refresh rate. But that one feels like you were using an old tv screen with the pixel density of a mp3 player instead. And the only game you can take real advantage of while having 21:9 aspect ratio and 144hz is the Battlefield games, and they don't even have that good 21:9 support despite being one of the graphical progressors in the market today.
>>52261608
Hey you left out 2560x1600. Lots of decent ones on eBay.
>>52261081
A 40" 2160p display will have a PPI similar to that of a 20" 1080p display. Its still a niche, but large format displays are the future.
>>52261635
>A 40" 2160p display
Extremely uncommon size m8 for that res
>>52261649
not really, but even if it were that's his point. 2160p monitors are commonly 32" with even higher PPI
>>52261649
There are several brands selling large format displays now. Its still rare, but its going to become more common now that its a proven niche market. Right now a 60hz 40" 2160p monitor will run you less than $800 that's already getting into the same kind of money you'd spend for a multi-display setup. Another couple of years and 40" 4k monitors will be common.
>>52261720
You can already buy a VA 4k 40" monitor for $700. And there's TVs for non-GAYMERS for even less @ 4k.
>tfw eyeing some cheap 21:9 monitors to replace my setup
>conflicted if I should trust /g/ and aim for a new multimonitor setup or say fuck it and go straight for the ultrawide
I don't have enough space on my desk to put 2 22" 16:9 monitors, wat do? Should I go for a 27" Ultrawide?
>>52261819
2x22"
ultrawide is a ultraripoff.
>>52261819
22" 1080p is SHIT. Go 27" 1440p at minimum.
>>52261758
Yeah, I got mine for $700 a while back in a sale, but $750 is more common which is why i said "less than $800". I fully expect the price to drop in the next few years as 4k becomes more common and the hardware required to drive them gets cheaper.
The difference in user experience and workflow efficiency is really second to none. Even for gaming I don't think I've ever had a better display, though some games aren't really built to work on such a large display.
>>52261847
1440p is not cost efficient
1080p and 4k are the only good ones
>>52262067
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-Refurbished-ACHIEVA-SHIMIAN-QH270-27-LED-2560x1440-QHD-S-IPS-PC-Monitor-/141482855003
>>52259166
only if gsync
>>52261623
They are getting obsolete once 4K monitors with the same height comes down in price.
We saw the same thing happen to 1680x1050. 16:10 was good because it had the right sizes and pixel density (generally speaking) while 4:3 and 16:9 were still derping around with small sizes and pixelated screen resolutions.
>>52261819
>Should I go for a 27" Ultrawide?
absolutely not, those 27" are really small once you see one for your self. go 34" minimum
>>52262103
>used
>some chinese shit company
>giant bezels.
>>52262112
Its true, at small sizes 16:9 has a major disadvantage in the height of the display, but once you start to go larger the advantage of 16:10 really just evaporates especially with the relative low cost of extremely large 16:9 displays.
Those 34" 1440p ultra-wide displays for instance, you can go to a 39-40" 2160p display for not much more and have a ton of extra vertical space.
>>52262112
Your 4k monitors are going to end up obsolete too with the mad dash to high ppi. You can already buy a 5k monitor or an 8k TV.
And all these displays are going to be junk when OLED arrives in force.
>>52262249
Yeah for like 10x the price... and barely any gfx card can drive them.
OLED is just a meme for autists who like black
>>52262249
Okay? My CRT ended up being obsolete too. Was fun while it lasted...
>>52262249
I hope so, monitors have been stagnant for too long.
>>52262249
SED will be the next big thing once the patent expires and OLED will go the way of the africans.
It's pretty funny LG had to patent troll Canon through a third party company to give them enough time to get OLED going to get even close to what SED was a decade ago.
>>52259290
no, fuck you.
>>52262388
I want SED, but the market is full of idiots who think there's nothing more interesting in a display than how thin it is, and OLED is thinner than SED.
>inb4 144p is going to be the new poor fag monitor
>inb4 1080p on suicide watch
>4k becomes middle class rig monitor
8k is the new "in" Fad
>implying any gfx card can even run it without frying eggs and burning down
Am I reading the future correct ?
>>52262586
The big advantage for an 8k screen is that it can handle 720p, 1080p, 1440p and 2160p with simple integer scaling. So as long as your graphics card and your monitor interface can handle it you shouldn't need to worry about your graphics card melting.
>>52259166
Depends on what you're using it for. I am happy with a 2560x1080 monitor, to be quite honest. I'm using a 750 though, so anything more would be too much.
