Thread 717407076

27" or 32" display for vidyers?

>>717407076 (OP)
neither

>>717407076 (OP)
21:9 ultrawide

>>717407076 (OP)
27" if you play in 1440p.
32" if you play in 4K.

Definitely 32.
t. 1080p gamer

>>717407424
Modern games must look like sludge with that pixel density and vaseline AA.

>>717407236
so which is it? 21 inches or 9 inches?

>>717407076 (OP)
Depends on the viewing distance, but if we're talking about a PC monitor on a desk, then probably 27" is the correct choice.

>>717407076 (OP)
42"

>>717407534
1440p ultrawide is usually 34

I choose the awesome power of televisions which can go up to 110 inches and even possess OLED capabilities on certain sizes/models. I don't even like the whole "monitor VS TV" debate for gaming because it doesn't even fucking matter. You want to game on a 27-32 inch display? Great, go ahead. You want to game on a 45-85 inch display? Great, go ahead.

PC players don't really have the ability to game on anything over a 32-inch size monitor, but it makes sense because it's retarded to game on a PC and desire to game on anything above 32 inches. If you really wanted a "larger" display than you might as well, go to console gaming on a TV at that point. In terms of graphic fidelity and actual power, I don't know how much weaker/stronger a TV is compared to a "gaming" monitor, but they do make "gaming TV's" or at least TVs geared more toward gaming. I would argue my 55 inch 4K QD mini LED is on par with whatever "gaming monitor" someone is using, obviously not an OLED, but a step below it, and a lot of people don't even buy into "OLED" anyway. The OLED fanbase has quickly over the years grown into a massive "I like to huff my own farts" community, and they're not ashamed to even deny it. As for latency, a lot of "gaming TV's" can achieve 1-2 M/S, so just as good as any "gaming monitor" as well.

You know what? Fuck gaming monitors. It's obvious I'm biased and I might as well just say that I prefer televisions. Fuck being happy with whatever you want to game on. No, fuck you.

1440p HDR or 4k SDR?

>>717407580
Jesus Christ...I mean she's wearing heels, but he's so insecure about her being taller than him that it's genuinely bothering him. A lot of women are obviously taller in heels, even a 5'3 or 5'4 girl can become 4-5 inches taller in certain heels. What's sad is if she took the heels off, they'd be around the same height. She might be like an inch taller than him, but it's a negligible difference.

I have a 32" and while it's visually great, it takes up so much fucking desk space. Sometimes I wish I'd gotten a smaller monitor just for that reason.

>>717407076 (OP)
Don't need more than 32.

24in for pixel density maxxing

>>717407424
>32" 1080p
It must look like shit

42

>>717407076 (OP)
12

>>717407076 (OP)
12

>>717407076 (OP)
If 1080p, 27".

>>717407076 (OP)
Honestly I hate how big monitors are nowadays. I have 32" 4k OLED and it's nice and all but it kinda hurts my eyes to be so close to a big screen and with big headphones on. I kinda wish I just had like a 20" monitor

>>717407076 (OP)
tried both 32 is just too big, tought i'd get used to it but i never did

>>717410335
27" is too big for 1080p. It looks fucking terrible.

I have a 27" 1440p display but I wouldn't mind a 32" one if I went 4K. Too big for 1440p though.

>>717407076 (OP)
I'm using 27 right now and I constantly notice how my head is turned to look at one side of the screen.

>>717407285
The only good post itt

>>717411518
Looks fine to me.

>>717411667
You must have terrible eyesight.

You don't get to choose
24 is 1080
27 is 1440
32 is 2160

>>717408907
32 is only good if you're rocking 4K and sitting a bit farther back. For normal desk setups, it's just too damn much. You end up moving your head more than your mouse. 27" 1440p is the sweet spot-text is crisp, games look great, and it doesn’t feel like you're staring into a billboard.

>>717412429
I actually have 20/20. Also 0 cavities at 31 yrs old too. Looks fine to me.

>>717407076 (OP)
24