Average screen resoultion

Phone posting is more prevalent than you think, 1440p would likely be the 2nd most common after 1080p.

The steam hardware survey would suggest it would be 720p after 1080p, but that's mainly only for computers, once you include cell phones, of which the majority of flagships from the last 3-4 years have been 1440p (16:9, 18:9, etc)

4k and 1080p. Regret buying the 4k

80x25 character terminal, unlike gooey faggots

>Regret buying the 4k

Why, out of interest?

1440p is the sweet spot at 27" monitors. 4K maybe look as nice at 32" or more

Probably got some stupid 27" 4k that he scales to 150% just to be usable.

See
Also it has lots of problems with wangblows not recognising it as a device when I put it to sleep.

>Also it has lots of problems with wangblows not recognising it as a device when I put it to sleep.
what brand? because that doesn't have anything to do with the resolution but with shit QC or branding.

I'm glad I went to microcenter to see some monitors in person. After using a few different 27" 4k I knew it simply wasn't worth it.

Then I used a 42" 4k monitor, and it was fucking great.

I ended up picking up a 43" LG 4k and couldn't be happier. Takes up a ton of space and so requires a large desk, but not a problem for me.

Samsung

I use a 27" 4K monitor that has G-Sync, it's pretty nice for playing games but I really don't play PC games much at the moment.

not him but is pretty spot on, 125% on a 27" can be fine if you increase font size a tad but you'll probably be using it at 150% most of the time, plus you'll occasionally use a program which doesn't scale at all or only scales icons or text, java programs are a nightmare for this
plus most gaymen are far more optimised for 1080p/1440p, 4k is pretty resource intensive to begin with and it's a little more bandwidth heavy than 1440p at 120hz but you'll have far better luck getting games to run at 1440p 120hz than you will 4k at 60hz
really though a 4k 27" scaled by 150% is identical to a 1440p 27" which are cheaper and usually higher quality

Exactly this

4k, can never go back to being small res again

29 or 30 with 2560x1080 is the best setup overall imo but.. my brother gave me a 3440x1440 monitor and i have a 1060 so when i get 60+ fps is wonderful and no sttuntering..

1080p here, and will probably keep this display for some years.

My monitor is a 34" 3440x1440

Maybe try scooping up screenfetch threads in the archive
The image size will be the user's resolution
Easier than asking and getting a lot of bullshit responses

do you play any games? aht gpu do you have? how many fps do you get, any sttutering? i have that 100hz 34 asus 3440x1440 and if i could have, i would gave it back and buy another 2560x1080 monitor, even if it doesn't have g-syinc

thanks for any upcomming answers btw

It'll probably be more slanted towards the linux average compared to the global average.
An interesting surver would be how much screen space (between all monitors) the average Jow Forums user has, compared to the average 4channer, compared to the average computer user.

32" 720p (upscaled to 1080p), then a 1024 x 768

Yeah, I don't game very often but it works great when I do. I have a gtx 1080. Not really sure about fps I haven't checked in a long time and all my games run smooth. No problems there.

Have you had problems problems with your monitor?

3x 1080p

I have a shit monitor for my main pc, it's 1280x1024, so basically 720p,

>No excuse

Uhhh, being a poorfag like you mentioned?

>Have you had problems problems with your monitor?

none whatsoever but since i put once to run a 10hz (but since i can't run things properly past 70fps like pubg [cousin gave me, i'd never buy it, but since everyone is playing i play a couple of matches with them] i went back to 60hz, and now it takes like 15 seconds before my keyboard and mouse get to work before, which was like 2-3 sec max.

ah, and i fucking hate the stand it came, too bloody big and i need to make a new table into the corner of the room because its simply bloody massive, wish they'd simply made a simple small block but no, 3 point thing that took all the space on my desk so i just put it on 6 books and the thing touchs the wall.. its better this way.

Do any of you think the market will make more 29/30 2560x1080 monitors 21:9 in the future? honestly i think this is the best size, not anywhere small, good to work with things and play, but not massive big that you can't even watch movies and videos wondering where you should look because of such massive monitor..

If only my brother had not bought the monitor from such a dammed of a company.. couldn't return it =(

but yes, it works 100%, its just my personal taste that i'd rather have a smaller.

but 21:9 is the future.

autism

>4k
Turns out most of the 4k benchmarks are wrong because testers usually keep AA on and a 4k monitor will have higher pixel density

That's not correct at all. It depends 100% on the monitor size they are using. If they are using some big 38"+ monitor than they don't get that benefit.

uh what? it will still be higher pixel density

With all the /tpg/ faggotry I'd guess 720p isn't entirely out of the question, but realistically speaking I'm thinking either 900p or 1080p.

impossible they dont make desktop monitors lower that 1080p anymore

Where do you think you are? There are people here unironically using 20-year-old laptops. 720p/900p is a very real possibility.

>I'm thinking either 900p
lol no

No phones use 900p res, so you exclude ALL mobile users immediately with that. Further, it was never even particularly well adopted among laptops.

Steam hardware survey puts the following percentage for resolutions
1440p: 3.5%
1080: 72%
900p: 2.4%
720p: 9.9%

So 900p is nowhere near the highest used res for Jow Forums

>there's a 1:1 correlation between steam and Jow Forums!!!!11
Don't hurt yourself with those mental gymnastics there.
>No phones use 900p res, so you exclude ALL mobile users immediately with that.
Remember, we're talking average resolution, not median. There's an important difference, but I bet I'm talking to someone who never took even an introductory probstats class, so I'll let that one slide.

Lol nigga, so if 50% of people use 1080p, and 50% of people use 720p, just average those out and 100% of people use 900p...right?

No it won't. It is once again 100% based on the monitor size. A 43" 4k screen does not have a higher pixel density than say a 20" 1080p screen.

8k

obviously we're talking about monitors of similiar dimension, dude. In what real world situation would the choice be between a 20" and 43" monitor?

get a 40 inch tv to use as a monitor see how that fits you

I've been using a 43" 4k monitor as my primary daily monitor (not a TV) for the past 8 months.

>just average those out and 100% of people use 900p...right?
That's not even close to how this works. That's not what the average means at all.
I mean, we're talking common sense at this point, not even probstats proper. How could you possibly take an average to mean "literally 100% of the dataset is nothing but the average?"

actually impressive, at what distance user?

about 3 feet. Maybe slightly less or more depending on what i'm doing, it's wall mounted and I can move it forward by a full ~15 inches.

pardon of me asking but.. isn't it actually hard to see things at that distance? Like words, web browsing?

I tried to use my 34 ultrawide but simply can't at a longer distance because i can't see and imo defeats the purpose of the bigger monitor, but also i see myself having losing focus while wacthing movies because the screen is too bigger near me.

thanks for answering btw

I generally don't use it for text, but when I do, I just move it a bit closer. Gets to about 2.5 feet when fully moved forward.

Remember, it's identical pixel density to a 22" 1080p monitor.

So text looks identical on this as it does on a 22" 1080p, just 4x larger panel.

Attached: 2018-04-22 23_49_39.png (1036x619, 53K)

Me uses 1024x768

>2560 x 1080
>1080

>tfw no oled 21:9 monitor

I use a Asus pb278q 27
rez: 1440p
...soon to be 2 of them, good shit

i'm using 1440x900 here

>So text looks identical on this as it does on a 22" 1080p, just 4x larger panel.

But user, that big of a screen near you doesn't bother you? Like, depending on what you're doing you should move near/out otherwise it's either too on your face to get the whole picture (like a movie or Youtube video) or too far away to read comfortably?

This is my impression with my 34, so far I've settled but when i return to my older 29 lg 2560x1080 it's so comfy idk, maybe I see yhe point in higher resolution but bigger monitora idk.

Like I said, it's wall mounted and has 15" of range back and forwards.

It's not at all an issue. Again, it's been daily use (10+ hours a day) for 8 months.

16:9 is an abomination

use an lg 27ud69p-w 27" 4k60hz IPS @ 150% scaling

should have just bought a 27" QHD IPS

I have no need for 2160p, I'm more than happy with 3440x1440.

Volunteer bias is going to load it with all sorts or widescreen fags and proud-user-of-stuff-that-was-obsolete-10-years-ago fags. In order to get a proper statistic, then you'd have to be the web server (sure people can mock that data; but do you really think they would?).

I guess 4chanX or whatever could mine that data and risk pissing privacy nutjobs off, but that in itself is a substantial bias.

>I'm more than happy with 3440x1440.
Only cause you don't have 4k.

Attached: Resolution comparison.png (3840x2160, 80K)

My desk isn't big enough for a monitor large enough to really benefit from 4K. I might get a 4K monitor in a few years, but as of now I feel no need for it, and I far prefer ultrawides for gayman. There's also the fact that no GPU on the market is good enough for 4K@100+fps at high settings.

>There's also the fact that no GPU on the market is good enough for 4K@100+fps at high settings
That's okay, since there are no large panel size 4k monitors with greater than 60hz refresh rate.

The current crop of high refresh rate 4k monitors are 27-32"

Maybe late 2018, or 2019.

I think I'll wait for 2160p ultrawides at high refresh rates, actually. Don't want to go back to 16:9.

>i hate 16:9 because it stole my precious vertical resolution I had with 5:4 and 16:10!!!!

10 years later
>might as well get something with even LESS vertical resolution

wew lad

either 1280x800, or 1450x1050. 16:9 is a cancer

It's not lower vertical resolution, though, it's higher horizontal resolution.

Huh?

Ultrawide 2160p is just bullshit 5k.

5120*2880

And you're suggesting 5120*2160

again, you're just taking 16:9 and removing even MORE vertical space.

user, that kind of logic is how the jews win.

1920x1080 (2) and 2560x1440 (1)

People generally go from max 24" 1080p monitors to at least 27" 4K monitors. You simply don't get the 2x increase in pixel density needed to justify turning AA off in the average use case.
t. someone with a 27" 4K monitor who tried no AA

Yeah there is
It's called "my os doesn't scale properly because it has had garbage tacked on to it since the 90s without any sustainability in mind"

I've been at 4K for a couple of years now. Using a 40" panel for so long makes using smaller displays at work and elsewhere feel so cramped. I should probably buy a few more before everyone moves on to 43" (that's just a tiny smidge to big).

This motherfucker gets things done!

dual monitors. one is 1024x768 and other is 800x600.

t. poorfag

Attached: hammer.gif (487x560, 898K)

21:9 and 16:10 here ya go

1920x1080

Most likely less than 1080p because of the thinkpad shitters

43" 4k @ 60Hz + 24.5" 1080p @ 240Hz (G-sync)

Attached: 1522868315817.gif (800x371, 183K)

I have
3*x1080 ,2*x768 and 2*x1440
that I actively use.
So for me, it is 1920x1080