im glad i never fell for the 4k is a meme meme
1440p is unplayable and unusable after going 4k.
>>55512786
don't get me wrong, 4k's benefit is most noticable while programming and reading
>>55512797
Ok I can believe this
Somebody want to counter this argument because I really don't know
>>55512779
>going for more resolution instead of more fps
240hz monitors are upon us and instead you're jerking to more pixels.
DISGUSTING.
>>55513937
>exclusively gaymer boi
>>55512779
>1440p is unplayable
interesting, I guess my 1440p windowed games are just fake on my 4k monitor with videos playing and web browser open in the other ares of the screen
`
>>55516219
Maybe if you stopped playing at 1440p on a 4k monitor and actually start playing at 4k on a 4k monitor, you'd feel the same as OP.
>>55512797
Is it? Doesn't it make text absurdly fucking tiny unless you do DPI scaling? But if you do then what space do you gain from it?
>>55519058
Better text rendering.
![skICf[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/VQSQjpY.png "skICf[1].png")
>>55519068
Seems useless to me. Plus you get buggy DPI scaling at one point or another. Seems like it's just a hassle with no benefit to me.
I'm thinking of upgrading from my 1080p monitor to 1440p or 4k. If I play videogames I just play one game and I played it recently with the nvidia upscaling feature (dsr) which allowed me to run it at 4k. Are there any differences between running a game natively at 4k or with the dsr feature performance wise? If I can run the game just fine with the 4k upscaling, can I expect it to run natively on 4k aswell?
>>55519103
Get a 1440p monitor and go for 144hz, way better benefit than higher resolutions
>>55519120
That was not my question
>>55519132
Yes it was. You wanted 1440p or 4k. I told you 1440p.
>>55519137
A question is usually indicated by a questionmark
>Are there any differences between running a game natively at 4k or with the dsr feature performance wise? If I can run the game just fine with the 4k upscaling, can I expect it to run natively on 4k aswell?
That part would be my question
>>55519102
>Doesn't it make text absurdly fucking tiny unless you do DPI scaling?
Well, don't use Windows.
>>55519103
It's the same whether it's native or dsr. In both cases it's a huge waste.
>>55519120 is wise, going for higher framerates will have a much more noticeable benefit than trying to run 4k well
>>55519102
good thing I don't use a goofed OS like linux called windows where things have been completely developed and the user isn't expected to do half the work.
>>55519150
But Linux works the same way.
Fuck you if you think I'll get a mac.
>>55519154
That screenshot is of Visual Studio, anon
>>55519155
Well, you're free to use outdated technology of course.
>>55519151
>In both cases it's a huge waste.
Why? If it greatly increased the image quality, why would it be a waste? I already have a 144hz 1080p monitor.
>>55519145
I don't care.
Going for 4k whether DSR or otherwise is a colossal waste of effort and money for very little noticeable gain. Your money would be better spent going for 144hz instead.
>>55519174
Will do.
Your portless huge bezeled tiny keyboard travel distance garbage will make itself outdated outright too, just wait.
I don't understand why Mac just got rid of its coolest feature, the magsafe charger, for the sake of getting rid of ports
>>55519182
do you even know how nice text and other things look on 4k?
>>55519195
The same but rounder?
So fucking what? I never even once thought "Gee, this font is too pixelated" All I wanted is more screen space, which is why 1440p is my happy maximum, anything more and I'd have to use DPI scaling which always looks like shit and reduces screen space
>>55519182
319GBP for 4K freesync monitor. 400+GBP for 1440p 144hz monitor. Glad I went 4K.
>>55519206
just imagine if what you saw IRL was limited to the same DPI that your monitor has. How much would that suck?
>>55519226
How is that at all relevant?
What we see IRL involves focusing on things in the distance, which you don't have to do on screens unless you're squinting at tiny text, and seeing a much much wider area of vision than a computer screen provides
>>55519214
That probably means your 4K monitor has way worse gamut and contrast desu
>>55519249
It's Samsung. I read all the reviews before buying. It's amazing, idgaf.
>>55519190
>new macbook
>huge bezels
Wat. Sure, they aren't super small but hardly huge by any sane definition. It's nice to have something to put your finger on when adjusting the display.
>magsafe
Didn't save shit for me once, while it disconnected randomly couple times. It was a cool gimmick that made macbooks different, nothing more.
>>55519206
If you would use 720p all your life and newer know any alternatives, you wouldn't reach to the same thought either. Similar shit with an SSD.
>>55519255
But that's because 720p has sorely limited screen space especially compared to the 1600x1200 monitors that came before. I never thought it was good enough even back when it was new.
>>55519226
Rough calculations put my 1440p monitor at about 110 DPI. A 4K monitor with similar features has about 145 DPI. I think it would suck either way.
>>55519255
>If you would use 720p all your life and newer know any alternatives, you wouldn't reach to the same thought either. Similar shit with an SSD.
No, it's similar to upgrading to an SSD because it eliminates the biggest bottleneck: in this case, screen area.
Going from 1440 to 4K is more like going from SATA 3 to something faster. Sure it's technically way faster, but is it even going to be as noticeable and gamechanging as going from hard drives to ssds even on sata 2?
Fuck 4K. When are 3:2 desktop monitors going to be a thing? Especially at 144Hz?
Screen area > resolution
>>55519295
nop. all you need is small high DPI screen + binoculars (i.e. VR headset)
>>55519304
>(i.e. VR headset)
But those have shit resolution
>>55519278
>especially compared to the 1600x1200 monitors that came before
Now imagine you never saw them.
>>55519288
If we're doing it in SSD terms, 1440p would be a slow ass sata 2 ssd with 250mb read/write, while 4k would be PCIe.
>>55519295
Meh, 3:2 works on a laptop, for desktop 16:10 is fine, even 21:9 is viable given a big enough screen.
>>55519309
>1440p would be a slow ass sata 2 ssd with 250mb read/write, while 4k would be PCIe
Objectively, in terms of pixel count, the difference is more like SATA 2 vs SATA 3.
>>55519308
i was just making the point that the closer you are to the screen, the less screen size you need. If you sit only 70cm from your screen as most do then you only need 24" to fill your non-peripheral vision.
>>55519309
I would hate it. I would constantly be wishing "Shit, I wish I had more room on the screen to do things, this sidebar in Eclipse is taking up half the fucking screen"
But on the other hand if it was all we had forever, software would actually be designed to fit it, so it probably wouldn't be miserable in that respect after all
>>55519309
Too bad there's no 16:10s that do 144hz
Literally, not fucking one
>>55519182
>I don't care.
Bravo assclown
>>55519315
8294400 4k
3686400 1440p
2073600 1080p
While sata 2-3 is just a 100% increase, ideally.
>>55519326
>But on the other hand if it was all we had forever, software would actually be designed to fit it, so it probably wouldn't be miserable in that respect after all
So just like 1080p cancer by now.
Though given Apple is the only ones who got HiDPI screens and scaling right so far, it does make sense to wait with updating if you want to use another OS.
>>55519380
Yeah, that's the main reason. Everything on Windows and Linux looks like shit with DPI scaling right now. I'll just wait. 1440p is plenty.
>>55519367
It's not an exact match, but:
SATA2 vs SATA3: 100% increase
1440p vs 2160p: 125% increase
SATA2 vs PCI-E 3.0 1x: 238% increase
>>55519462
D-doesn't that make my original suggestion even a bit overly optimistic for the hdd/ssd?
PCI E is about 300% faster than SATA2 (not sure how you got 238%, wasn't it 985-1k mb?), while 4k to 1080p would be a 400% boost.
Sorry if I missing something obvious, didn't sleep in a while.
Wtf I keep getting banned for nearly the same reason
The only reason you need a fast monitor for is for fast paced video games.
But there are no good games like that out apart from quake live.
So you benefit more from 4k 60hz because of all the other games and other thing you do at the computer.
>>55512779
Sorry but all this post made me realize is how fucking useless relative date formatting is.
