let me guess...you need more?

>29"
27 is already too big for me
>ultrawide
gayyyyyy
>1080p
based
>60hz
cringe, go 240hz

65
Wide
4K
144hz
I will now be ready for gaming

Why would anyone need a 29 foot monitor?

>>715973256 (OP)
29
Regular wide
1440p
144hz+
Anyone still using 1080p is coping or needs glasses
1440p is also cope btw.

>>715973256 (OP)
so a baseball stadium screen where the pixels are 5-inch squares?

I'll keep my 27 inch 4K 144hz monitor, thank you.

>>715973256 (OP)
>only 1080p

yes I need more vertical pixels
taken from ghost recon breakpoint

29" is still to big imo

I've been using 25", 2560x1080 (21:9) at 60hz for the last 11 years and it rules. Can max out basically all games with a xx70 card, and I still get all the advantages of using ultra wide for games like Counterstrike and Path of Exile. I don't think I'll ever go back to 16:9.

Why would you use 1080p in modern year, when 4k is better? even 1440p is shitty res compared to 4k

>>715974272
why would you get a 4k monitor when you're gonna have to play 1080p upscaled anyway for a respectable framerate

>>715974495
You can use 4k monitor for other things than gaming. And no you don't need to play lower res if you have good GPU.

>>715973256 (OP)
>1080p on a 29 foot monitor
yeah no thanks

>>715973256 (OP)
120hz and we are golden

>>715974715
FPBP

>>715973256 (OP)
I can do with less.

>not gaming on large 57" 7680 x 2160 monitor
>meanwhile console gamers are gaming on 55-65" 1-2k tellys
I knew PC gamers were poor, but this is just ridiculous

>24''
>16:9
>1440p
>100% text scale

>50-inch 1080p TV
>60hz
>Bluetooth Xbox Controller
>2.4ghz wireless handheld keyboard with touchpad

There is no need for anything else.

Yes, yes I do.

>>715973256 (OP)
1080p is whatever, but 60hz in big 2025 is just sad.

>>715976371
This anon understands

>>715973256 (OP)
none of this is especially good but 60hz is the biggest crime

>>715973256 (OP)
>29'
>1080p

>>715974495
No? Have you tried not playing unoptimized garbage?

>>715979485
what game is this?

>>715974495
Nobody worth mentioning upscales from lower than 1440p when they DO upscale.
>but how are you going to get 60fps?
>60
>that's a target

>>715980029
stellar blade gets me 4k 120 easy, tweaking some settings I almost got it even on remake 4. Just gotta have OS that's not bloated, and a GPU that costs close or more than 1k. I don't have best monitor tho sadly

>>715980595
>OS that's not bloated
Opinion discarded. Win 11 Pro for Workstations stock here. Switching to 12 at launch.

>20"
>1080
>60hz

>>715982620
Limit of human visual acuity yes.

>>715983396
>doesn't know 240p/14" is the limit

>>715984748
no

>>715973256 (OP)
your pixel density is shit at that screen size

>>715985139
>pixel density fag has entered the chat
>will claim 4k phone screens are more clear than a 4k TV

bump

>>715985343
so I'm not that anon, but could you explain to me how on PC, you'd not want pixel sensity that's 90 or above? if you're using 1080p on 27" or above, you're kinda throwing away screen real-estate, which means you wont be able to utilize screen-space some work apps can benefit from, if used on a higher pixel density screen / screen that is big but also has good resolution

>>715979735
Grim dawn. A boring piece of shit that falls apart after act 1 because the devs are chronically incompetent.

>>715975752
You shouldn't need a screen that big you're not a gecko

>>715973256 (OP)
gigagoypoorfag

>>715988507
it's mostly for workflow stuff and multitasking. You can use it for gaming, and I saw wukong on a demo unit in store on this monitor and pixel peeping on it was amazing, you could see so much fucking detail because you were projecting the image on such massive surface. But for non gaming stuff, I'd use it as 6 virtual monitors

>>715973367
>>715973256 (OP)
>Less or more than 144
You are absolute dumbfucks.

Also 27 for full HD is barely acceptable. You already start seeing pixels being a fair distance from the screen. If this ain't a problem for you, you ain't gaming, you are watching films.

>>715990115
Can you explain this pixel density stuff. For watching films, lower pixel density seems to be ideal, but for gaming and work higher seems to be better. Is there some middle ground? I'd like to be able to "work", but also enjoy some movie/anime, with 1 monitor

>>715973256 (OP)
>29 inch
>1080p
I rather have something that doesn't have the pixel density of a chess board.

>>715990293
How is lower pixel density good for films? Who told you that? What is the logic here.

The more pixels, the better, that's a simple equation. Everything looks better the more pixels there are. That's why phones have bigger resolutions than fucking monitors for no particular reason.
Now for ratios is subjective but it kinda follows the path of 24in-full HD, 27in-2k, 32-in-4k, the resolutions to dimension follow the exact breakpoints so it's kinda easy like that.
This is the golden zone where regardless if you sit close or far from monitoring, pixels won't be visible.

>>715973256 (OP)
24' 1080p 60hz
human eye can only see that much

>>715979735
Grim dawn. An amazing masterpiece that only gets better after act 1 because the devs are chronically over-achieving.

>>715990840
>How is lower pixel density good for films? Who told you that? What is the logic here.
When you watch movie on a sofa, on a 42-55" (or bigger) telly running 1080p, you can't exactly argue that the pixel density is "high". And what about movie theatres?

>ultrawide
I need less

>>715987865
Because 80 is the max pixel density you're getting at 55" on a gaming monitor.

>>715973256 (OP)
Yes, I need the new 5K2K LG OLED to enjoy vidya unironically. I bought the Odin 2 Portal just to emulate retro games on a 7" OLED screen on the go. PS2 has never looked so good also 10h battery.
Unlike you jaded faggots I still love vidya and want to experience them in the best possible way. If consooming makes me happy then so be it.

>>715992752
Huh? Where are you getting this from? The Samsung 57" does more, and there will be higher res monitors/TVs at affordable prices soon (hell, even that samsung 57" might receive a higher res model eventually, since that one might already be 1-2 years old now)

>>715993046
All TVs are the same res so the higher size you go the lower your pixel density will be. There are some 8K TVs but they're kinda shit and LCD. The top tier models atm are all 4K.

>>715993190
So is 80 enough? have you used that telly for any work on video, photo or audio? Is it more about screen surface size than pixel density being too high, is that the key to getting screen space in this programs?

>>715993040
steam oled is better doe

>Spend 5000 on a monstrous gaming rig
>Play games made before 2015 at 1080p 60fps (AA off)

>>715973256 (OP)
>1080p
I need less aliasing

>>715993585
Yep, the key seems to be going another direction... spend less on rig (switch 2), spend more money on display (either goot 27 or 32" 4k monitor, or a TV). Extra points if you manage to spend money on a good ergo chair or a sofa, too. With these moves alone, you'll be gaming better than 99% of PC gamers.

I wish good 4:3 monitors were still being made. 16:10 is better than 16:9 but 4:3 is the real comfy shit

I need 4K, since I use my computer for more things that just gayming.

>>715993826
for 4k, is 27" enough, or do you need 32"? I tried gaming on a 27" 4k monitor, but I couldn't see anything that made me go "wow, this is sooooo sharp" or something

>>715973256 (OP)
32"
4k
Flat
KVM support
MiniLED (cos nanoLED non-existent)
As additional HDR1000, but it's not necessarily

>>715974495
Anything above 4070 Ti and 12 GB of VRAM will get you respectable 4k performance if you target 60fps, and when it doesn't you have DLSS and FSR. Get on with the times grandpa.

>>715974495
Love me 4k

after moving to 165hz I could never go back to 60.

>>715973256 (OP)
Get a job nigger

>>715994212
But what if you have a 160hz 4k monitor? That's when a 80 or 90 GPU is better.

>>715973256 (OP)
1440p is a human right

Is there a limit to pixel density to how much human eye can see?

>>715994497
This. Even on 4k, it's best to try get 120hz or above, for better input performance and smoother motion. Higher res with slightly lower settings > lower res with everything on "ultra".

>>715991583
Read the reply, I thought you had something more insightful to say ... It's all good until you get close enough. With the above mentioned specs, the only way for you to see pixels is to be so close you sacrificing your fov. In this case you have the options, in your case, you don't. Films will look good regardless since you never watch them up close.

That's another point, the optimal position is where you fov is fully covered by the screen, any less or more and you are loosing the advantage of the screen.

>>715994212
>and when it doesn't you have DLSS and FSR
So upscaling, just like he said.

>>715997840
Sure there is.

1440p
240hz
g-sync
all i need

>>715973256 (OP)
i like 1080p 165 hz but kinda wish i just stuck with 1080p 60

>>715990840
>The more pixels, the better, that's a simple equation. Everything looks better the more pixels there are. That's why phones have bigger resolutions than fucking monitors for no particular reason.
Well, steam deck looks good despite only being 800p. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLrnaFFfSBA

>>715999183
There is always a distance where pixels would be indistinguishable, all depending on resolution and size of display in relation. But regardless of that the more, the better - ALWAYS.
>A 576 megapixel resolution corresponds to a very high resolution image, approximately 32000x18000 pixels. This is often cited as the theoretical maximum resolution of the human eye

>>715973256 (OP)
>1080p on a display larger than 24"
it's gonna look muddy.
really if you can get a 22" or smaller it'll make the pixel density good enough to make 1080p look okay
but the larger the display, the muddier it looks and you really should be looking at 1440p at least, 30" or larger really should be 4K

>>715973256 (OP)
4k does look better if you didn't need a prescription upgrade for your glasses, you see sharpness and details in random shit that you didn't even realize you could see from sitting distance. it's kind of like the difference between whatever early smartphone you had vs whenever they started getting 'retina display' resolutions where your eye can't really distinguish pixels.

problem is GPUs literally just can't handle this load still because it's so much fucking higher than 1080 unless you wanna blow like 2-3k for one which most people understandably fucking don't. lots of games people play these days don't really matter graphically that much anyway if it's like a gacha or league or whatever. only a few come now and then where people want a full max immersive experience and a 2k+ card alone doesn't justify that for most.

>>716000428
4k is only really worth it on larger displays.
if you run 2 24" 4k is kind of a waste, might as well 1440 since you're likely to be upscaling anyway.

>>716001541
basically yeah I'd say 24" is probably close to the point it'd be hard to tell a huge upgrade. it's easy for me to say "of course 4k is better" when I'm using a 32" main. but I didn't used to. one thing for sure however is 1080 looks like shit on a 32" compared to this. 1440 is as you'd expect, in between. but looks better than you'd think it might.

>>716001949
oh yeah, absolutely, if you have a 30"+ you have to do 4k, pixel density is ass otherwise.

19-24" = 1080p
24-27" = 1440p
27+" = 4k
a little overlap where 1440p is a good option.

>little brother has a 120hz monitor
>won't set it any higher than 30 because he's "used to it" and fell for the motion sickness meme
>won't let me explain why it's bullshit, just shrugs and says "eh it's alright"

>>715973256 (OP)
going from 1080 to 1440 is a big difference

>>715973256 (OP)
>ultrawide
I'll take two 27 inch with at least 1440p

>>715973367
>21:9
>gay
nah, 16:9fags are the fags

>>715974495
I mean it gives me 4k for stuff I can run it comfortably on and whenever I play modern AAAslop which isn't all that often I can just do integer scaling from 1080p (I refuse to use upscalers)

>>715973256 (OP)
1080p is disgusting and i cannot go back to it

>>715974495
>why would you get a 4k monitor when you're gonna have to play 1080p upscaled anyway for a respectable framerate
because 1080p upscaled to 4k looks dramatically better than 1080p? it's better than 1440p lol
>inb4 no it's not
yes it is, go look it up.