What even is the point of 1440p? It scales both 4K and 1080p like shit.

>>105994323 (OP)
What is the point of satania?

>>105994323 (OP)
having a higher resolution for a larger screen?
do you use your computer exclusively for watching videos or something?

>>105994323 (OP)
It doesn't matter how many pixels are in a monitor if the aspect ratio itself is shit. 16:10 is closer to the golden ratio (aka God's ratio aka literal perfection). You're focusing on the wrong problem.

The point of 1440p is that you don't need scaling

>>105994323 (OP)
Holy fuck since when was Satania this hot?

>>105994323 (OP)
>scales
found your problem, you appear to be consuming videoslop!

>>105994323 (OP)
What's the point of 4k if at the size where it makes sense, scaled 1080p will also look like shit anyway?

what's the point of 360hz monitors when the human eye can only see up to 24hz

>>105994323 (OP)
Its the final resolution for PC gaming.
4K is too computationally expensive for the literal non-difference to be worth it on any screen less than 42", and you lose so many frames that even if you have a card that does 4k120hz, you'd still be better off getting 1440p240hz+ instead.

>>105994323 (OP)
HD

>>105994664
>It doesn't matter how many pixels are in a monitor if the aspect ratio itself is [...]
Why?

>>105996172
He literally explained it in his post

>>105994323 (OP)
nakad4shitania sexo

24" 1080p is too blurry
32" 4k is is too small
27" 1440p is just right
t. someone who upgraded to 32" 4k recently

>>105996920
If you don't run your monitor at 100% scaling, you're a FAGGOT.
>b-but muh pixels
Nobody cares. More space is more important.
4k 49+ inches is peak computing.

>>105994664
why is it called 16:10 if you can call it 8:5

>>105997061
visually easier comparison to 16:9
better question is, why aren't 4:3 called 16:12 when comparing to 16:9 or 16:10

>>105994323 (OP)
it scales 720p to double-size without blur

>>105994323 (OP)
It looks good on a 27” screen
its 200% version is 5K and that also looks good on a 27” screen
when gamers stop getting limited by what their GPUs can put out and care more about pixels, they’ll see how nice it is

>>105996920
21" 1080p, you don’t need more

>>105994323 (OP)
Where are you even getting native 1080p content from these days? Streaming video is so low bitrate that is does not even have 1080 worth of detail, so the additional scaling blur is insignificant.

>>105997782
>Where are you even getting native 1080p content from these days
>Streaming
retard

>>105997791
Streaming is so low bitrate that the actual resolution of the video does not matter, its a pile of mush with significantly lower effective resolution. As such scaling does not make much difference, its blurry scaling or not.

>>105997883
completely misundestood the point
streaming has NEVER been about getting good, or even acceptable quality out of anything. It's always been about convenience, which wins for the average normienigger 100% of the time. If the only source of media you can think of is streaming then you have no right to complain about quality, you're the cattle who is already being catered to.

>>105994323 (OP)
easier to run than 4k, better looking than 1440p

>>105997921
Where else are people getting 1080 these days. 50GB blue-ray rips? Are those even still a thing?

>>105997934
na but i get most of my shit from soulseek, a few of the movies were like 60gb rips and i never bothered to find something else instead. Good place to start at least, some people have great libraries

>>105997934
Yes? Why wouldn't they be?
HDR color grading on 4k blu rays looks so dogshit most of the time that the 1080p rips often look better

>>105994366
she's the queen of the board, you heathen!