Have you jumped to 4k yet?

Let me know when they make a single card that can push 240 frames

sure will!

what if he only play old games?

I will if the next gen of gaming consoles are pumping out native 4k. Otherwise, I'll save a few bucks and get a big 1080p or 1444p monitor because nothing other than photography makes use of it yet.

By me.

My waif Syharo is so cute

what's the point? I'd rather get higher fps at 1440p

1440p Master Race

Attached: Untitled (4).jpg (2560x1440, 268K)

Since 2015.

It was horrible back then, no scaling, no performance, but now its very nice. Future proofed.
I play games in 4K on my GTX 960.

>ips

all i do is watch anime and play vns. i just want nice colors.

>tn

Attached: 1502147730151.jpg (312x312, 119K)

Me. It was me. I did it.

Like 4 years ago

It was a mistake then but I'm happy now

1440p is stupid unless you're at 28" and maintaining ~100dpi. 4K is all about dat retina-like 24" 200dpi.

Attached: Wrong.jpg (420x310, 22K)

i did but everything looks tiny so i use 1440p for most things

Then he has bigger issues to contend with, like moving out of his mother's house!

I haven't even jumped to 1080p yet desu senpai

>anything not ips is tn
hi brainlet

I won't even consider it. I'd love to jump to WQUXGA but I only know of two monitors and they both have pretty low refresh rates

i got 24" 4k monitors in like 2014. people with shitty operating systems that couldn't handle global scaling invariably lost their shit over "everything must be microscopic".

if you have a laptop with higher density display (like a rMBP), then you know how meaningful smoother, more clearly defined text can be when you're staring at that all day. imagine that on your desktop monitors.

I went 1440p/144Hz instead. 60Hz feels like garbage now.

I've been 4k for over 3 years now. 4k 40"+ can never go back.

>4k 40"+
lol

4k at 40" is like having four 20" FullHD monitors in a 2x2 tile

You're a big goy

Yeah man, I got the joke. All in one plane without being able to reposition each monitor so they're facing you more directly. And you don't get any benefits like greater sharpness in vector objects (fonts, etc...) or anything.

You didn't need to explain it. I thought it was funny.

What joke? I was just pointing out the usefulness of a large 4k monitor.

>waste of quints
quints always tell the truth

If you've got a 40" monitor at the typical distance you'd have a 24" monitor, then some (and likely all) of the corners are going to be at such a sharp angle that you'll be suffering worse image quality for no reason other than the fact that the bottom left quadrant of the monitor has to be parallel with the top right quadrant, because it's all one panel.

If you didn't care about pixel density (which seems to be the case, since pixel density in a 40" 4k monitor is the same as you'd get in a 24" 1080p monitor), then you could've gotten four 24" monitors and angled them each so that they all face you directly. You could organize them however works best for you (e.g. vertically for text, horizontally for media, or a mix), and honestly I imagine you'd have spent less money.

This 40" monitor nonsense is a joke. I get it, it's a funny thing about people being all "hurr durr biggur". But you're taking the joke too far, and someone's bound to make a stupid mistake not realizing that you're being facetious.

>muh sharp text
There seems to be 2 types of people, those who pay for 4k for some sharper text and those who actually see the usefulness of having more screen real estate without squinting

>since pixel density in a 40" 4k monitor is the same as you'd get in a 24" 1080p monitor
>40" 4k 110 ppi
>24" 1080p 92 ppi
Not really the same

>since pixel density in a 40" 4k monitor is the same as you'd get in a 24" 1080p monitor
You're not too bright, are you?

>squinting
What are you talking about? The text is the same size in physical space. It's just much sharper.

What work do you do that calls your attention to that much real estate? I write code for a living and I realistically can't pay attention to more than 50 or 100 lines of code. Can you show me what your average work setup is?

As for the ppi difference, something in the 90-110 range is very much in the same ballpark. You're most likely not scaling your desktop environment when the difference is 92 vs 110. You very much are talking about scaling your desktop environment when you talk about 150-185 pixels per inch.

It's also confusing that you talk about 92->110 as some radical improvement but then fundamentally don't seem to understand what you do with higher pixel density displays. Did you also say everything was squinty and microscopic when the rMBP was announced? Were you one of those people?

It's in the range where you don't do anything different with your desktop environment. I wasn't going to go calculate the exact values if the difference was going to be under 20%.

Let's talk when you're at 1.5x or 2x of a 24" 1080p display.

That's like saying 2+2 is 5 because you didn't feel like adding 2 to 2

By me.

>>squinting
>What are you talking about?
Lets see, if I had a 24” 4K screen and wanted to use it at 100% scaling shit would be so small I would have to almost squint or get real fucking close to read shit. If I did 200% scaling just to be comfortable everything would just be the size it would be if it was a 1080p screen which seems pointless to me. Get a 40+ inch screen and none of this would be an issue

>If I did 200% scaling just to be comfortable everything would just be the size it would be if it was a 1080p screen which seems pointless to me
If you went with 200% scaling at 4k you'd have a sharper image with everything at that comfy size

trips tell the troofs
quints are cunts