Thread 723175515

At least post new picture.

i can't even imagine using a non 4k monitor anymore even for regular use

>>723175515 (OP)
They all look the same before I click the image.

>>723175515 (OP)
1080p doesnt look like that

4k is peak
1440p is minimum
60hz is enough, above that is mostly a gimmick
oled is an insane improvement

>>723175651
idiot. 4k users put magnifying glasses in front of their faces for ENHANCED ZOOM.

>>723175651
This. My eyes aren't good enough to care.

>>723175515 (OP)
Now put these images in 1 square inch.

Oh WoW. This seems like a GREAT WAY to help me from STRAINING my EYES on those LATE NITE gaming SESHes. Oh boy, but in THIS economy WHO KNOWS right?

>>723175515 (OP)
24" - 1080p
27" - 1440p
32"+ - 2160p
Simple as.

>>723175515 (OP)
27 inch monitors are a fucking psyop.
The standard used to be 20 inches, then it was 22, then 24, now its fucking 27, all so they can justify higher resolutions and price tags. 27 inches is too fucking big and not practical since you can't see everything on the screen all at once which makes competitive gaming impossible. Sure you could put the monitor 4 feet away from your face but most computer desks aren't deep enough for that, and what's even the point when you could just get a smaller monitor?
22-24 inches at 1440p is ALL. YOU. NEED.
ANYTHING MORE IS JEWISH CASH GRAB

I don't get why this matters. I use 1080p and it works just fine for me. Are you harmed by my refusal to go higher?
What motivates someone to argue over the resolution of a monitor they use? What is there to gain?

It's the same picture

>>723175515 (OP)
higher resolution has... HIGHER RESOLUTION?????????

>>723175515 (OP)
who the fuck plays with their face 1millimeter in front of the monitor

>>723175978
Zoomers

>>723175851
It's like with phones. Bigger = "better".

>>723175515 (OP)
It kind of is. Like 1080p is good enough that it's clear but 4k gets to the point you can see the ugly as fuck blemishes and on people to an insane degree. Like it's almost too much pixels.

>>723175824
Eh, this myth is really bizarre.
You should push for 4K at all sizes unless you can't afford it or it doesn't exist at a high enough hz.

And the former isn't much of a reason when you can get 144+ 4K monitors for $300 nowadays.

>>723176129
>you SHOULD
Why? And I also SHOULD play in 1000hz and buy new CPU every month? Because otherwise... I am le poor?

>>723175515 (OP)
There's a lot of cope going around regarding 4k because barely anyone has it, and people who don't have it downplay it.

For me the best part of 4k is the clarity and stability. You won't notice this if you're used to 1080p or 1440p but they produce hideously unstable graphics. Like you can see the pixels shifting and vibrating as your character or camera shifts angles or moves a bit too much, and there's always a faint blur depth-of-field effect around stuff that's not immediately right in front of you. With 4k everything is perfectly stable and you're able to immerse yourself without being reminded it's all a bunch of shifting pixels, and everything in the foreground is clear.

>>723176329
>Why?
Because it's better? If you're in the market for a new monitor, you should aim for the best you can afford, no? No need to arbitrarily do what >>723175824 is suggesting.
>And I also SHOULD play in 1000hz and buy new CPU every month? Because otherwise... I am le poor?
Depends, are you looking to upgrade? If you are, I don't know why you'd consider a worse model if you don't need to.

>>723176383
>You won't notice this
So it doesn't matter?

>>723175739
My eyes are good enough to care and I still don't.

>>723176465
It's better? Better at what? People seem to be having fun just fine with their poor 1080p monitors. And if you want performance and competitiveness, 1080p wins in that.

>>723175515 (OP)
480p chads rise up

it's weird how 4k guys and crt guys are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum and yet they act exactly the same

>>723176580
>t's better? Better at what?
Having more pixels per inch, which leads to increased image clarity. I don't, uh, think this one is subjective, anon.
If you're buying a new monitor, it doesn't really make sense to intentionally choose something worse unless it's outside your budget or you have some exigent reason to.
>And if you want performance and competitiveness, 1080p wins in that.
I'm not sure what you mean by competitiveness, but resolution is literally a numerical evaluation of performance, so I'm not really sure why you think that.
And 4K monitors have gotten a lot cheaper recently. I had to upgrade recently because my older monitor broke, and I found a refurbished one for about $200.

>>723175651
keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek OP (who is a fag) BTFO'd yet again

>>723176472
It matters, because... it just does, ok? Your poor, you're opinion doesn't matter.

>>723176383
>barely anyone has it
holy fuck this really is a predominantly indian and mexican website

>>723176828
It's not "intentionally worse" if it is enough to satisfy their needs. It's one of those things in life that just don't matter, but if you wanna do it, then do it. But why keep telling others to do it too? Like aren't you happy with your choice or what.

>>723177053
I mean, the resolution isn't some arbitrary number. It's a measurement. You can compare the two numbers to see which is better. This isn't controversial, anon. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that 2 isn't bigger than 1.

>>723175515 (OP)
it's not about the number of pixels, it's what you do with them imo
16-bit sprites can often make the human brain feel things more effectively than a hyper detailed 4k image. "fidelilty" in 2025 is a creative dead end

>>723177147
Yes it is "objectively better", but like I just tried to explain, it doesn't fucking matter. Or sometimes it matters negatively, like it's going to require more computing power to run games or the monitor size is too big physically because the sizes go mostly with 24, 27 and 32.

>>723175651
im sorry about your eyes bros, even the thumbnail you can see the jaggies in the left image on the red color

>>723177147
>It's a measurement. You can compare the two numbers to see which is better. This isn't controversial, anon

>>723177240
>Yes it is "objectively better"
And if we can both agree on that, I don't see why you were confused by "intentionally worse".
If you're buying a new monitor, there's no reason to pick the lower number unless you have an exigent reason to.

>>723177290
Textures aren't a direct numerical comparison.

>>723175515 (OP)
bro plays with his face up against the screen so he can count individual pixels

>>723175651
I just realized I don't have that 2 panel reaction image of a guy about to say something but then he thinks about it, anyone have it?

>>723177391
monitors aren't a direct numerical comparison either. you're comparing a measurement

>>723175515 (OP)
1080p 60fps is all you need

>>723177523
Yeah, there are other factors that go into a monitor's quality.
But this whole discussion is about specifically resolution, and those other factors aren't dependent on it.

>>723177391
>And if we can both agree on that, I don't see why you were confused by "intentionally worse".
Because 24" is what I like and 1080p looks good enough without requiring me to stress about having to run some games in lower fps than I want to. Why can't you accept it that this is how many people think about it?

>>723177609
and that's why you think the right texture is objectively better, right? it has the better measurement

>>723175515 (OP)
if there's a real difference then why can i see the 4k one on my 1080p monitor

>>723175515 (OP)
Eaglebros...our response?

>>723177767
>Because 24" is what I like and 1080p looks good enough
Then it doesn't sound like you need to upgrade.
But if you were in the market for a new monitor, it wouldn't make sense for you not to get a 24" 4K monitor unless there's an exigent reason for you not to.

>>723177797
>and that's why you think the right texture is objectively better, right?
Huh? Did you quote the wrong person? I didn't say that.

>>723177927
I know you didn't say that, you're refusing to because you're TERRIFIED of the implications of your retarded statement

>>723177927
>But if you were in the market for a new monitor, it wouldn't make sense for you not to get a 24" 4K monitor unless there's an exigent reason for you not to.
I just listed the reasons and I think many people will agree that they don't wanna bother with the 4k requirements. And like I said the resolution usually goes with 24", 27", and 32". If you buy 24" 4k monitor it's either worse than proper 1080p monitor or giga expensive (and still worse).

>>723175718
Kek they really do

>>723175971
kek

>>723178061
What implication?
There's more that goes into the quality of a texture than just its resolution.
And the same measured parameter can mean two different things when used on two different objects.
For example, my oven can reach degrees of 600 F, which makes it better than most ovens that cap at 500 F. But you would be pretty alarmed if your CPU ran 100 F hotter than the average CPU!
Same parameter, different meaning. In monitors, a higher resolution is better. I'm not sure why this is controversial to you.

>If you buy 24" 4k monitor it's either worse than proper 1080p monitor or giga expensive (and still worse).
Why would it be worse? That's silly.
You're right that it used to be more expensive, but they're definitely more affordable nowadays and only getting cheaper. That $200 4K monitor I mentioned I got is only 27", for example.
And if it's still out of your budget, that's a perfectly valid reason not to get one. But not being able to afford something doesn't make it worse.

You guys are really difficult, huh?

>>723175515 (OP)
I had a physical reaction when I saw my computer running in 4K120 for the first time (up from 1080p60).

>>723178439
im not reading all that

>>723175515 (OP)
yeah now post the
1 square inch of a 27in monitor viewed from 1mt away, retard

>>723178439
Post the monitor name.

>>723175515 (OP)
All look same

>>723177285
The jaggies on the left actually make it look cooler. The one in the right looks washed and like it has one of those crappy emulator filters.

consume
spend more money
don't marry or reproduce

>>723175515 (OP)
4k monitors STILL have those godawful fucking jaggies on diagonal black lines?

If it lets me minimize all the rendering cancer like jaggies, dithering, TAA, etc, I'm using it. Native 4K + DLAA looks so clean on my 32" OLED in games that have DLSS4

>>723178997
>The jaggies on the left actually make it look cooler
consolebabbies are the jeets of the vidya community, they take pride in wallowing in shit

>>723175697
60hz is MINIMUM, and I say this as somebody who uses a 60hz display. it's perfectly usable, looks good even, but 90/120+ is visibly better and comes with benefits like BFI.

idrc

>>723180415
visibly better, but i forget i use it just after a moment, same as with 60. i don't even think about it

>>723180427
ycetp

>>723175651
OP BTFO

>>723175515 (OP)
>1 square inch
Literally a nothingburger.

>>723181120
>>1 square inch
>Literally a nothingburger.
That's what she said.

>>723175651
oh no no no
OPsissies, how can we ever recover?

>>723175515 (OP)
We're quickly approaching the point where games are so poorly put together that 1440p 60fps will be out of most people's reach without upscaling and framegen and this retard is out here advocating for 4k.

The fuck am I going to do, play all my old games again in 4k that actually work?

bitches don't know about 3200x1800

In modern graphics, having higher resolution monitors is way too good because of DLSS/FSR. I get better graphics and better performance at 4K DLSS Perf than I did with 1440p native. Any game too old to use these things is a game I can run at native 4k.

>>723182340
Guess what has even better performance? 1080p

>>723182603
>Bro I need the extra pixels so I can use AI to make shit up and fill up the extra pixels and still perform worse than regular 1080

>>723175515 (OP)
But what's the fps difference between each of these?

>>723182735
it also looks like shit. imagine using a 20 year old resolution standard.

>>723175515 (OP)
>game on 1080
>sit further back
>looks like 4k

nothing personal retard

>>723182858
So does having a low framerate retard

1080i on an HD CRT is all you will ever need and still looks better than all this shit

>>723177515
here u go friend

>>723182994
1440p exists.

>>723182825
Actually it'll look approximately like 1800p while performing as if it's approximately 1200p.

>>723175651
STOP NOTICING THINGS, FUCKING STOP!

4k is a meme because the GPU needed to run it NATIVELY does it at like 30 frames nowadays

I literally can't perceive any difference between 1080p and 4K, and anything above a 36 inch monitor just seems way too big.

>>723183980
You don't have a 5090.

>>723184317
>You don't have a 5090.
I have eyes and know how to search for benchmarks without upscaling and fake frames.

>>723183980
So it wouldn't be a meme if it worked, even if it cost you your kidney?

>>723176129
Isn't going for 4k just going to put more load on my GPU and as a result lower my FPS?

>>723184620
>So it wouldn't be a meme if it worked
precisely. If you were guaranteed top-tier performance at 4k (120+ FPS for half a console generation) without resulting to meme tech like upscaling and fake frames, a 5090 would be a no-brainer
We used to have this not too long ago.

>>723184881
So if you had to pay 5k for it, it would be a "no-brainer". k

>>723184445
Yea benchmarks at the highest settings, but even then I don't know where the fuck you're getting 30fps from. With a 5090, I run even cyberpunk at native 4k/120+fps with optimized settings.

>>723184445
>I have eyes
and I have a 5090 and can run nearly everything 4k maximum settings 60fps or more.

I don't get people who stick to 1080p, you have to actively go out of your way to still use it now. even as an ultra-poorfag you can buy 27" 1440@170hz monitor for like $250, and it's not expensive to drive it either. years old mid-range cards can do 1400p just fine.

>>723186356
Because I'm a girl and 27" is too big.

>>723175515 (OP)
2160p will be a meme when the 2880p monitors get released that have dual mode for 1440p 480 hz too. 2160p will be obsolete. Imagine browsing the catalog at 2880p.

>>723186356
>$250
Why would I want to spend this much on a monitor?

>>723186558
27 inch too.

>>723175651
yes, because we all know thumbnails are known for their uncompressed visual fidelity

>>723185984
>maximum settings 60fps or more.
yeah, sure you can. LMAO
>>723185867
>I run even cyberpunk at native 4k
last gen game that's almost 6 years old at this point. you should be able to run it well. not the case for unoptimized moden slop

>>723175515 (OP)
Ok so now zoom back out to a distance you'll actually be playing at.

>>723175651
fucking kek

>>723187475
>retard who watched a youtube knows more than someone who owns the gpu
is this how you poorfags cope?

>>723182825
in the future all games will have an AI filter on top of them so you'd better get used to it

>>723184620
>even if it cost you your kidney?
Already sold it three times.

>>723185867
Optimised settings are low settings. If you want to run it at high settings (they call it path tracing), then it runs below 30 fps.

>>723188176
a 5090 runs pathtracing 60fps at 1440p.

>>723175515 (OP)
4k is a meme, tho
you can own the best hardware in existence and it will still struggle to play modern games at 4k
>b-but dlss
that's not even 4k then

>>723188243
>it's not 4k
It looks better than 1440p native.

>>723175851
THE ONLY LVCID ANON

>>723188243
>that's not even 4k then
I don't need it to be as good as 4k, I just need it to be better than 1440p while running better than 1440p. Which it does.

>>723175515 (OP)
Gaming in ye olden 480i days must've been actual cancer for you, how ever did you survive?

>>723188243
it's not a meme and you've never experienced true 4k in your pathetic life

>>723180597

Not me. Anytime my fps drops to 60-70 I can instantly tell

>4k
never heard of her

>>723182603
The moment you play modern games your opnion is null in this board

>>723175515 (OP)
>-e
I play at 720p and games look great

>>723175824
for me it's 24" monitors. using 1440p 24" IPS until a 4k/1440p 24" oled exists.

>>723183310
dlss exists

I either play at 240p or 4k, no cope resolutions inbetween.

>>723188049
>is this how you poorfags cope?
the only cope ITT is your sunk cost fallacy. a 5090 is simply not a good puirchase unless you need to use it for things other than vidya

>>723175697
Anything under 120fps is unplayable.

>>723175515 (OP)
can my gpu run 4k?

>>723188956
>I'm not poorfag coping
oh yes you are. silly poorfag
>it's not a good purchase
because you can't afford it.

>>723188956
people shouldn't have nice things

>>723175851
What kind of subhuman fag cares about competetive gaming?

>>723189005
Low key 100 is very acceptable.

>>723175515 (OP)
I don't understand this meme. I get that "ACK" is the death rattle of someone committing suicide, but why would they do it mid-sentence?

>>723189183
why would anyone say ack anyway?

>>723189152
sure is

can you do 4k at 60 fps

>>723188708
If you don't play modern games then I don't understand why you're even in this discussion, because something turbo cheap like a used 3060 can run all oldshit at 4k native without problems.

>>723189564
no :(

>>723175824
This. The ratios of standardized step sizes and resolution are perfect balance for most variations in screen to face distance. Faggots who sit more than 5 inches wouldn't care regardless but those turbo artists who do actually sit that close, and I used to be like that unironically, these rations are still very much acceptable. It simply a golden ration written in nature it self.

>>723175824
27" is for 2880p monitors.

>>723175651
old v trede

>>723189816
>1080p vs 1440p

>>723189816
>2160p vs 2880p

>>723175824
24" is too large for 1080
pixel density is dogwater
problem is, there are no ~20" 1080 monitors

>>723188686
>capture overlay forgetting the process name
Good times.

>>723188941
That's 480i thoughbeit.

>>723188686
>so high res that you can see the game ripping at its seams

Whats the point of adding detail past the point where a user notices that detail? I am not zooming into parts of my screen, so I don't need shit to be ultra crisp if I would need to blow up a tiny piece of my screen to notice the difference. Even with 20:20 eyesight past a certain distance you won't see a difference on a high enough ppi.

>>723175718
Non-4k doesn't know the feeling of leaning in on your monitor to look at something and actually see better.
And working outside games is so much better with higher resolution.

>>723190020
In this case it is actually correct.

>>723190172
No psx game runs at 480i, that is ps2 territory.

>>723188941
comfy image

>>723175697
I wouldn't mind using 1080p instead of my 1440p but I would never go back to 60 Hz.

>>723175697
agree except for oled. that is a meme and you WILL get burn in.

1080p is the highest meme resolution, refresh rate is all that matters now.

>>723189056
No.

>>723190198
>I can see a fault when it's zoomed 1600% on my 1080p monitor

>>723190435
>you WILL get burn in.
do you think people who buy OLED don't know about this?

>>723175697
>>723177576
>>723180415
>>723180597
>>723184881
>>723185867
>>723185984
>>723188229
>>723189005
>>723189152
>my meme refresh rate is accept-ACK!

>>723190636
this response is confusing so im guessing you don't even have an 8k monitor lmao

>>723187203
You might be the most retarded anon in this thread.

>>723190339
It's 480i regardless. 240p would result in scanlines or whatever you want to call them.

>>723188665
so limit the fps

>>723190814
>this response is confusing
to you retard

>>723190753
this is what i hate when playing games above 60 fps

>>723190753
Anything below 40 kHz and 34560p is trash, but we don't have the technology for that. We must aim for the best hardware available and make no compromises. Any games that have a frame time longer than your refresh time is worth uninstalling. Make no compromises. Aim for the best.

>>723190942
if you had an 8k screen then you'd know that you can see every detail
that's the entire point of getting an 8k screen

>>723175651
op:
>-ACKKKK

>>723190279
You will notice the image quality improvement in a macro sense. You won't notice every tiny little detail but everything will seem clear and constant and stable.

>>723190951
It's worse at lower framerates.

>>723191097
no? it's easier to see the individual "shards" because they're further apart on lower fps

>>723190814
>you don't even have an 8k monitor lmao
I used to have an 8k monitor. I now use a 4k monitor.
Also, you're retarded.

>>723191145
If things are moving fast enough, maybe, but then you're not seeing everything inbetween.

>>723191174
see >>723191006

>>723191145
o rly

>>723191358
I used to have an 8k screen. I don't need to read someone else's opinion of it. I know what it's like from first hand experience.
8k was nice. The FPS wasn't.

>>723191585
Playing older games with 8k is the peak of retardation. You'll just notice every imperfection that the devs overlooked because they themselves were developing the game on low res monitors.

>>723191735
I wasn't playing old games. I was playing things like Division, Dark Souls 3, Forza Horizons etc

>>723191821
Why are you replying to me then? lmao

>>723191965
you said I don't have an 8k monitor.

>>723175697
I am no longer comfortable playing at under 100fps. Like I'll notice "hey this game looks choppy" immediately and I'll check and it's at like 70fps or something. I'd run 1080p/100fps over 1440p/60fps any day. Obviously higher numbers in both categories are better but most people can't afford a 4k/144hz monitor and a machine that can run modern games at those settings so you've gotta prioritize.

>>723191735
>Playing older games with 8k is the peak of gaming
fix'd and I know.

>>723175515 (OP)
I swear 1080p never looked that bad 10 years ago.

>>723175651
checkmate 4k sissies

>>723192065
What Unity asset flip slop is this?

>>723192065
Zoomers who didn't struggle to play these games back in the day on shitty comps and consoles will never understand. Being able to play games at a stable framerate, high resolution, and draw distance like this are all modern luxuries.

>>723191260
i don't need to see anything inbetween, 60 is enough

>>723192035
that's crazy. for me i just get used to either frame rate really quickly. under 60 is painful for certain games though

>>723192457
I played that on low settings at 120-10x24 and got 20fps on a good day. The mission where you have to ram a F150 off the road was excruciating as all the dirt effect the wheels would kick up driving over the grass would tank performance.

1080p165fps here
I am content

4K is not that expensive and it's so much better than 1080p or 1440p gaming.
You can buy 5090 for $2.5k
and you can buy a 42 inch oled tv for $700
Total amount you need is like $3.5k
That's only a monthly salary

>>723193031
i wish it was a monthly salary

>>723193031
It's like you designed this post to make me want to kill myself.

>>723193031
And none of that monthly salary go to anywhere else that month?

>>723193194
The average first worlder earns 6 figures. Why can't you spend so little for so much?

can people not budget or something?

>>723175515 (OP)
You don't need 4K to play The Game.

>>723175651
TPBP

I don't even make a lot of money, but imagine spending years and years on a hobby like videogames, staring at your screen all your life, and not saving up to get a good screen. Imagine wasting 20-40 years of your life on videogames and doing it all from the cheapest worst shit possible. Abhorrent cockroach tier psychology.

That's great but I'm never upgrading from AM4 and 1080p 144hz.

My monitor is literally as vibrant as an OLED and my 5800X3D/6700XT can play any good game I want at 100fps+

Yea I'm just not upgrading, sorry

>>723193492
nothing you wrote is true

>>723193450
That is true. 4K is a luxury for who can afford it. Like how you don't need a Rolex to tell time

>>723193528
You don't believe people can be poor and run things at poor quality, poor resolution and poor framerate?

4K is not a meme
144hz is not a meme
HDR is a half-meme
Ray Tracing is a meme

>>723193464
to be fair, it's never enough
you'll eventually get used to it and it will become your new baseline
you get maybe a few months of fun before the 'new' feeling wears off

>>723193334
Mayhaps I am not your average citizen. On average people also have families and children at my age.

>>723175515 (OP)
>I spent a bunch of money on my gaming hardware and it didn’t make me happy
Meanwhile Jose from Brazil in the favela is happy gaming on his PS2 in 2025.

>>723193669
144 hz in 2025 is a meme. Soon, 2160p will be a meme when the 2880p 240hz monitors come out with dual mode 1440p 480 hz support. 27 inch too.

>>723193669
hdr got so fucking shafted by so many angles it's absurd, when it actually works it's amazing, but it only really works on consoles and media players, windows support is total ass and different for everyone and unless you have an oled tv it's not even worth it

>>723193528
I literally cannot tell the difference in my gaming experience between a 1080p 21inch gaming monitor and a 4k screen in enjoyment

>>723193680
Do you ever get tired of good food?

>>723193824
>I've never played at 4k
yeah we know

>>723193824
>i'm clinically blind

>>723176081
Oh
So that's why zoomers get dizzy when fov sliders don't go up to 280 degrees

>>723193942
You can get good enough food without going the expensive route.

>>723193942
why does he have fiberglass on his hand

>>723188941
Based

>>723190435
Have had an OLED monitor for a year and a half now and I don't see any semblance of burn-in, image retention or whatever the fuck. Maybe it's because I keep the brightness at 20-40% cause more than that strains my eyes after a while(and that's at SDR) Or maybe it's just a non-issue for these newer panels unless you spam the same media all day every day at max brightness

>>723175515 (OP)
>if I blow up this image far beyond what anyone should ever see, it looks like shit!

>>723190435
Yeah but I'd rather have four years of an OLED monitor than 10 years of a shitty IPS (I've just had 10 years of a shitty IPS and I don't recommend it). My TV is OLED and it was probably the best purchase I've ever made, I just can't decide on 4k or 1440p because I'm not going above a 9070 xt or 5070 ti but I think I'm perfect for 4k because I don't care about super high fps and only play single player and a lot of not demanding games.

>>723193942
no but also indians eat literal shit and they seem to like it
again, your standards just keep getting higher and higher, but I'm sure you will never be as happy as a child playing with a stick

>>723193031
I can afford a 5090 but I can't justify spending more than an entire 9070 xt/5070 ti build for it, it's ridiculous. If they'd kept it at 4090 prices I would definitely have splurged for it

>>723194631
That's your cope mechanism bro. I’ve been using 4K for over three years now, and I still enjoy how clear everything looks at this resolution.

>>723175824
This
There are not real normal visible improvements of 4k on a 24'' or 27'' display. (only if you zoom in to each individual pixel.

>>723194857
at 1440p i can still see pixels on my 27" display, at 4k they're gone

>>723194857
4k 27 inches is insanely clear.

>>723194676
that means you can't

>>723194915
As I said, only if you put your eye very close to the screen. In a normal distance, there is no difference.

>>723195016
No it means I don't like getting gouged horribly, there's no fucking reason for 5090's to be that expensive.

>>723194774
nope im speaking from experience

>>723195049
no, at my sitting distance

1440p was a good resolution in 2015, but it's 2025 now.
If you're buying a new monitor you'd be retarded to get something less than 4k.

>>723195192
this. i got my 1440p monitor in 2012

>>723194915
You're telling you can see individual pixels in image like this without taking a screenshot and zooming in? Maybe you just have super vision.

>>723195049
If you have shit eyesight maybe.

>>723195241
Now show a screenshot where you're doing actual work on a computer.

>>723195340
Like what? And this is video games.

>>723195241
a few yes, but with anti aliasing it's hard. much easier to see on the desktop like >>723195340
says

>>723195192
2160p is very 2024. It's time to move on to 2880p.

>>723195075
You need to realize that there are always bigger fishes in ocean

>>723195442
Well games have antialiasing/upscaling so I guess you can't see them then...

>>723195430
Code editing
Image editing
Video editing
Anything with thumbnails
Anything with lots of text
All of this benefits from 4k.
>b-but video games
You buy a PC to do other things than play games. If you're a poorfag and just want to play vidya you're going to buy a PS5 or Xbox (lol)

>>723195470
I'm not having a dick measuring contest, gookbro, I was just showing that I play at 4k.
But we can have a dick measuring contest if you want.

>>723195516
not all of them, and they're not always perfect either. can clearly see pixels here

>>723195446
Apple had 2880p in 2014, so yeah there's no excuse. We should have 42" 8k 240hz by now.

>>723195470
>Windows light mode
>Yotsuba B

>>723195535
How do smaller pixels help with any of that?

>>723195569
My dick is 12cm

>>723195623
horses cannot vomit, this is a doctored image

>>723195470
Why would you post this when the rtx 6000 pro exists, which is better in every way compared to the 5090?

>>723195636
>Higher pixel density makes text sharper
>preview windows show a full 1080p video unscaled
>less aliasing when you need to upscale/downscale literally anything
Even fucking 4chan shows sharper thumbnails if you use 4chan XT.

>>723195694
Because like i said, there are always bigger fishes even bigger than mine.

>>723195709
So it's for upgrading your 4chan font? Couldn't you see the font before? Sounds pretty useless to me.

>>723195623
Why are zoomers obsessed with shart mode? Being different doesn't make you better. You stand out for being retarded.

>>723195636
for photo editing it's great, don't have to zoom in as much on 6k images to see detail, and can edit 1080p footage without any scaling

>>723195790
Why did you ignore the other examples, kike?
Post nose

>>723195793
I'm in my 30s. I just value my eyes. But keep searing your retinas for some contrarian nonsensical reason anon.

>>723195839
You are editing pixel by pixel? And even then wouldn't it be more helpful to have bigger pixels?

>>723195868
I'm jew for trying to tell people that they don't need to purchase the latest technology in order to enjoy their lives?

>>723195868
>You're a kike if you suggest not using spic tier 22inch 1080p lcd panels

>>723196061
You're a jew for using disingenuous arguments, yes. That is a hallmark of jewery. You literally cannot tell the truth, even in the form of a lie.

>>723195886
If you just stayed with light mode then you wouldn't have to worry about your eyes all the time.

>>723194857
>There are not real normal visible improvements of 4k on a 24'' or 27'' display.
There absolutely are.

>>723195068
why can't people just accept that things are out of their price range?
You can't afford it. It's nothing to be ashamed of

I'm getting real fucking sick of 60fps caps with no way to unlock framerate.

>>723196223
You can't run it higher anyway

>>723195987
no but i can see more detail without zooming in on the image, i can see more of the stuff further away. bigger pixels does not help as it shows less detail

>>723175515 (OP)
100ppi is enough for desktop
20" 4:3 is best aspect ratio and monitor size

>>723196252
If you say so.

>>723196147
>looking at bright lights good because books have white pages, or something (books don't emit light)

>>723186597
that's how much a decent 1080p cost like 4-5 years ago. that's a normal price.

>>723196254
And you can just zoom out or fit to view in smaller res.

>>723196429
but it won't be as sharp, here's in 1080p. i also cannot fit nearly as many panels and thumbnails on screen at 1080

>>723196363
Books reflect light, which is the same as looking at something that emits it, faggot. The sun also emits cancer light too, but our eyes are fine looking at it.

>>723175515 (OP)
Maybe we will get 4k60fps finally with the RTX 8090 in 2029, MSRP $7999. One can dream

>>723196535
And it being less sharp stops you from editing it how? It won't change the end result.

>>723188941
>240p
pleb consoletard resolution, real crt gaymers played at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 if they were a richfag.

>>723196363
Even spicier is paper white is only about 80nits for the srgb standard.

>>723196626
changing sharpening settings, seeing the finer details of photos, it changes the look a lot

>>723196626
You don't need a computer to edit photos. Why would you use that?

>>723196640
You might as well play at 4k if you are playing at those resolutions (which btw no game ever targeted). Going above 800x600 is retarded on a crt.

>>723175651
OP brutally BTFO

>>723196640
You have never owned a CRT. Those CRTs ran at a low refresh rate to hit those resolutions. People that owned them would lower the resolution for an acceptable refresh rate.

>>723193334
>The average first worlder earns 6 figures
that's household income. the average first worlder makes like 50k/year

>>723196906
Only the man makes money in first world countries. Women cook for them.

1440p is the 5'11" of resolutions

>>723186597
>$250
>Why would I want to spend this much on a monitor?
Because that's what lower midrange monitors cost? 1440p 144hz IPS monitors used to cost like 550$ five years ago, now they cost around 200$.

Even anime games look good on 4k

>>723196901
No they didn't. A midrange CRT from 1999" that is 18" would do 1600x1200@75hz

>>723197509
75 hz was considered low by then.

>>723197563
No it wasn't, it was standard. High refresh rate was 96hz, and most people never used that

>>723197563
yeah and then humans became retarded and then a few years later we were using flatscreen 60hz displays like a bunch of retarded nigger cattle and only recently have high refresh flat screens became a thing and even then the motion clarity isn't as good as CRT monitors

>>723193334
You mean until bill gates leaves the room then it turns out you are poor as shit.

>>723196794
>>723196901
either your brains are failing you or neither of you were alive 20 years ago.

>You might as well play at 4k if you are playing at those resolutions (which btw no game ever targeted). Going above 800x600 is retarded on a crt.
you weren't alive when crt were still around. crysis came out in 2007, when crt were still in heavy use. it was reviewed and benchmarked at 1024x768.


>Those CRTs ran at a low refresh rate to hit those resolutions. People that owned them would lower the resolution for an acceptable refresh rate.
even an office monitor does 768p@85fps, it was a baseline. sony made a widescreen crt that could do 2304 x 1440@80Hz

>>723197563
85hz was the golden standard back then, 75hz being okay and 60hz being eye rape that was mandatory in 60-locked titles.

>>723175515 (OP)
If you upscale to 4k on a 1440p 27" display, how does it looks?

>>723198187
How exactly are you going to upscale to a resolution your monitor does not support?
If you mean DSR/VSR/DLDSR then it looks a bit better but runs hell of a lot worse.

>>723176129
It's not a myth, it's math.

>>723189984
No, it isn't. Basically the same PPI as 1440p at 27". 27" is too high for 1080p, however.

>>723198672
It's a myth.

>>723198852
/x/, plz

>>723175515 (OP)
on my screen each of these are a square inch.... i can barely tell them apart. (not saying i cant, just that its barely)
im honestly fine with 720p for most games too.

>>723198852
Nope, literally can't tell apart at normal viewing distance due to optimal PPI.

>>723199135
blurry and overshapened crap

>>723199176
forgot to mention you're trans

>>723199127
200ppi is when pixels stop being discernible from a normal monitor viewing distance of half a meter.

>>723175515 (OP)
impressive, very nice, now let's see the fps

>>723198672
Math dictates that monitor size determines the distance you will be sitting from it. You can't emulate high resolution with ppi. Ppi doesn't give you screen estate. Ppi doesn't allow you to have the monitor take a large fov from your vision. You need resolution. Compare browsing the /v/ catalog on a phone and a 2160p desktop. Compare what FoV angle you can tolerate on a phone and a 2160p desktop.

>>723199056
you resized it with gaussian retard

>>723175824
20" = 1080
24" = 1440
27" = 4k

>>723175515 (OP)
can you actually tell the difference from 50/60cm away?

>>723199475
In games? Sometimes.
In literally everything that isn't video games? Yes.

>>723199475
Yes. The closer you are the more significant the differences for a given screen size.

>>723199475
yes

>>723175515 (OP)
But I'm seeing all the differences in quality from my 1080p monitor.
Seems like 4k is a meme.

>>723199368
all i did was hit print picture w/o opening it to full size. 4chan is the one that "resized it".
I hit print screen, saved it as a png, and uploaded it. its 1inch by 1inch as a thumbnail (not mine, gets smaller as a thumbnail, so u need to click on it first) so it nearly identical to what i would see in the game. i do see jaggies, but they are pretty small, enough that i dont care.

>>723199616
No you don't

>>723175515 (OP)
Sweet, now I can play Dwarf Fortress in GLORIOUS 4K

>>723199616
thats the funny thing to me too. when i size them down to 1x1, i see jaggies on left, and no jaggies on right.

>4k
>only ever runs with top end XX90 cards
>at crispy smooth 60fps
>with lots of compromises because maxing out the graphics still tanks your frame rate

>1440p
>never see anything under 100fps
>runs on a 5080
>graphics max, RT max, path tracing max
>DLDSR and DLAA look gorgeous since the nvidia AI thing is working on top of an already rendered picture, instead of having to generate the whole frame by itself
this of course only works on monitors, 40in and above is so streched out 4k becomes a necessity

>>723200192
Or just use DLSS at 4k to enjoy better image quality and better performance than 1440p.

>>723175697
>just got a 4k oled msi 32" over the weekend
i can't stop cumming

>>723189816
>360p vs 480p

I've lost interest in resolution. 1080 is more than good enough.

>>723200353
but /v/ said you can't see a difference

>>723197082
Yes we know the US is a shithole but not every first world country is Liechestein, y'know?

>>723200353
>first time seeing proper hdr

>>723175515 (OP)
4k is a fucking meme and has been for a long time.

I wish i could find the video of it, but there was this guy who did a really good break down of the actual reality of Resolution and that more does not mean anything by itself.
The actual factors that matter are
>resolution
>Screen size
>distance from the screen.
The only time 4k matters is if you are literally inches away from your monitor, or your play on a massive screen where you can notice the difference.

If you are sitting at the standard distance from a computer desk, you will not notice a difference between 2k and 4k at any meaningful level.

>>723175515 (OP)
None of this makes a 4k monitor worth the extra expense, moron.

>>723201171
At 60cm on 27 inches or bigger there is absolutely a difference

>>723199475
yes, the fps is worse

>1440p to 2160p
>i must sacrifice 100 fps for a subtle visual gain...

>>723200353
Watching videos like this in hdr on oled is crazy https://youtu.be/NSxxrhnhjf4

>>723175515 (OP)
now zoom out

>>723201171
Output resolution is more relevant for image quality than ever before because temporal rendering (the way 99% of 3d games are rendered now) is much more dependent on pixel count than previous rendering methods. Dropping from 4k to 1080p doesn't just mean more jaggies, it means more ghosting and more shimmering and more garbled motion and undersampled effects etc.

If you're talking about normally rendered games, i.e. from 2010, then you'd have a point.

>>723175697
>60hz is enough, above that is mostly a gimmick
Wrong, you'll never want to go back to sub-100Hz once you get used to playing games at 150+ FPS. Playing at 60 now "burns" my eyes much like playing at 30 used to when I had a 60Hz monitor.

>>723201554
>If you're talking about normally rendered games, i.e. from 2010, then you'd have a point.
To be fair i am because almost everything made post 2012 has been shit.

>>723201171
>non 4k haver's delusion

>>723201471
it's like I'm lookin out a window

>>723196553
>The sun also emits cancer light too, but our eyes are fine looking at it.
Ahhh now everything makes sense. You are suntouched.
Everyone else let this be a lesson to you, don't stare into the sun. You'll go full retard.

>>723201628
>moves

>>723201989
>Plays with motion blur
How fucking haram.

>>723201628
>look at this amazing still image in this medium based around things moving!

>>723191174
richard?

>>723201471
Virtual Japan has some real nice HDR videos.

>>723198610
You can force 4k even on a 1080p display by creating a custom resolution in Nvidia Control Panel.

>>723202114
the switch 2 looks fine in motion

>>723202114
>look at this amazing still image in this medium based around things moving!
Funnily enough this is what anti-TAA posters love doing too. Horseshoe theory.

>>723202427
You can. But it'll be absurdly inefficient, because it demands a 4k cost while only giving you a fraction of the 4k quality.

>>723202524
Right but my question is, Forcing 4k res on 2k 27" monitor, how does it looks.
Does it still looks pixelated like in OP's example

>>723202114
ironic part is that it probably looks much better in game than the screenshot, because raw 4K screenshots are like 15-20MB so you have to compress a lot to post here

>>723201596
I can go back to 60 at any time. I limit some games to 60 because above that it ghosts more

>>723200025
JACK???

>>723202451
>anti-TAA posters
I have yet to see TAA that looks good, in motion or in still images

>>723202451
the terrifying implication behind this post is that pro-TAA posters exist

>>723201989
>immediately coping
you love to see it

>>723201989
It doesn't look anything like that with DLSS Transformer or FSR4, only with "native" TAA. Unironically a solved issue.

>>723203095
>720p fakeframes footage of borderlands 3, a 6 year old game
>coping

>>723175651
no they don't

>>723203095
>4kbros have to run borderlands 4 at 720p
oh no no no no

>>723203314
Must be painful to be this dumb

>>723201171
ACKSUALLY at the distances most people have their monitors 4k matters more than ever, a 4k 27 inch monitor has like 50% more pixels than a 1440p 27 inch monitor that's a huge fucking difference so at arms length (about 20-24 inches away from you which is a totally normal distance for a monitor) anyone who says they can't see it is basically lying or has absolute shit vision. At larger sizes it's ever more pronounced and you really can't go larger without 4k.

The real meme nobody ever talks about is ultra settings, gaytracing and pathtracing. I'd even go so far as to say that framerates above 100 are a meme, massive diminishing returns. 60 was THE standard for fucking ages and it's still totally fine, not as good as 100 but definitely more than playable. 4K stopped being a meme the second DLSS/FSR started being good and usable, we don't have to settle anymore and quite frankly the most demanding games are all AAA slop anyway.

>>723204116
>4k advocate
>sucks DLSS/FSR's cock
like fucking pottery
little bab thinks upscaling is actual 4k lmao

>>723200595
Same

I use 2560x1440, and I think 4k would be good simply in being able to have small and simultaneously crisp UI elements and fonts. For gaming however, far too taxing for todays optimization.

>game uses excessive amounts of 4K textures
>you never notice it outside of extreme close-ups with no movement to blur it, which never happen during gameplay

>>723205142
Most people don’t think about the fact that games have to adapt to higher resolution. Imagine having more pixels to render 1 inch on the screen of this distant scenery and the game still uses a shitty low res LOD models and NPCs still won’t render at that distance anyway.

>>723175697
Don't go above 60hz, I beg of you. There is no turning back

>>723205509
It's almost like having graphical options to tweak distance rendering is a good thing or something.

>>723175824
I play on a 27 and it’s absolutely noticeable. I regret ever playing 4k because now I can’t play anything less

>>723175515 (OP)
>he buys a 4k monitor when he could have just enabled MSQAA
ngmi

>>723193953
>>723193980
Actually I have owned a 4k gaming monitor and I sold it on eBay. I also have 20/20 vision. I prefer my 1080p vibrant pixio monitor

>from native+msaa as the standard
>to upscaled+taa
what the fuck happened

>>723207383
>what the fuck happened
unreal engine lobbied by nvidia

>>723207383
Nvidia happened

>>723207383
Console hardware was weak as fuck two gens in a row relative to PC.