Jump to content

How many "K"s is enough for Displays?

Guest
By Guest
in Displays
 Share
Go to solution Solved by skywake,

Because we also have resolutions like 1920×1200.

I don't understand your point. I'm saying that the idea of naming resolutions based on the vertical or horizontal number doesn't really tell you much. For 1920x1200 wouldn't 2.3MP be more descriptive? It'd tell you more about what it is in relation to "2.1MP" (aka 1080p) than calling it "1200p" or "2K" would.

 

To be more pedantic:

1080p -> 2.1MP

1920x1200 -> 2.3MP

Ultrawide 1080p -> 2.8MP

1440p -> 3.7MP

Ultrawide 1440p -> 5MP

4K -> 8MP

 

Doesn't that make more sense? We already use megapixels to describe camera resolution, why didn't we use it to describe screen resolution? It would have made a lot more sense. People would have immediately understood what these higher resolutions meant.

Posted

Also, something important to note is PIXEL DENSITY

If you have a smaller screen at 1080p and are sitting relatively far back, then it's fine and you won't notice anything

I have a 22in 1080p monitor, and I sit about 2-3 ft back from it, and games look sharp and clean.

Follow the topics you create using the "Follow" button in the top right corner!

One day I will have my GTX 970. One day. PC specs are at my profile.

Not sure how to check what part works with what? Check out my compatibility guide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

wtf i thought 2k was like resolution amount, like X - 2,000 pixels x Y - _ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

wtf i thought 2k was like resolution amount, like X - 2,000 pixels x Y - _ 

Google bruh, google.

I actually couldn't underclock my 5 year old GPU to make it as slow as a next-gen console.

#pcmasterraceproblems

~Slick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

You do know that About 2/3 of gamers own 1080p or less...

Lets all ripperoni in pepperoni

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

You do know that About 2/3 of gamers own 1080p or less...

Well I'm not fucking broke and I atleast give two shits about what I'm buying. Sorry? l0l

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Well I'm not fucking broke and I atleast give two shits about what I'm buying. Sorry? l0l

Well those people aren't broke also...

I for once have a $2000 PC, and I am still at 1080p.

Why?

1. Money to spend elsewhere on rig than monitors

2. I honestly can't tell the differance between 4k DSR 1080p and 4k...

Lets all ripperoni in pepperoni

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

1440p or 1600p if you don't mind UW screen

 

4K if you want to upgrade in the future (obviously :P )

 

1440p seems like it would suite you if you wanted to jump from 720p > 1440p 

 

as @Jade said

 

"5-22 : 1080p is fine.

 23 - 27 : 1080p is fine, but pushing it.

 27 - 35 : 1440p is fine, 2k is doable, but definitely luxury."

 

I would add 4K 24" - 35" above 28" they tend to get pricey, like 1K > Pricey due to the high quality panels.

Regular human bartender...Jackie Daytona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

1440p is fine for the most part, anything above and Windows scaling is really nothing special. 1440p is currently the best resolution in terms of clarity in relation to usability, and 1080p isn't too far behind. 4K is obviously better, but text and window scaling will make even some larger displays nearly unusable.

 

Hopefully Windows 10 will solve that SEXY 4k scaling that Windows 7 > 8.1 has! 

Regular human bartender...Jackie Daytona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

the widescreen 1440p (3440x1440) is probably the best choice right now and for the next couple of years

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

depends on how many Ks it takes to run pong. 

STEAM NAME: JewishBacon GPU  Sapphire dual x R9 280x OC edition CPU core i7 4770k stock speed COOLER H100i  CASE Fractal R4 Window Black  MOBO MSI gd-65 gaming Storage 1TB WD Blue drive, 1TB Samsung 7200 rpm, 120 GB OCZ SSD, 64 GB WD Blue ssd  RAM 12 GB @ 1600 Ghz kingston RAM  Misc. NZXT HUE, disk read/write, 2x 21 inch 1920x1080 monitors   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

If your parents are buying you this display get 1080. its not shit, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you think it is, you need to consider other factors. get something with a high contrast ratio and decent brightness and you will be happy. I have 3 of these this displays and it looks fantastic. Take your 4k fanboy 12 y/o self to the store with your own cash and get a good 1080 monitor 

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZMLIWW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1V18HHZNNS1D2&coliid=I2QJL5IAURHQ1S&psc=1

STEAM NAME: JewishBacon GPU  Sapphire dual x R9 280x OC edition CPU core i7 4770k stock speed COOLER H100i  CASE Fractal R4 Window Black  MOBO MSI gd-65 gaming Storage 1TB WD Blue drive, 1TB Samsung 7200 rpm, 120 GB OCZ SSD, 64 GB WD Blue ssd  RAM 12 GB @ 1600 Ghz kingston RAM  Misc. NZXT HUE, disk read/write, 2x 21 inch 1920x1080 monitors   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

wtf i thought 2k was like resolution amount, like X - 2,000 pixels x Y - _ 

 

We call 3840x2160 "4K" and it's a stupid name, frankly, because it refers only to it's width and it isn't even really 4,000. But since we're apparently all on board with that, 1920x1080 can be "2K" by the same logic. I guess.

 

So then what's 2560x1440? 2.5K? The system kind of falls apart there. Better to stick with Full HD, Quad HD, Ultra HD; or 1080p, 1440p, 2160p; or just the proper dimensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Why couldn't they have just taken the opportunity to start talking about screens in terms of megapixels? Especially given that number makes much more sense when talking about file size, bandwidth and the horsepower required to render. Would have made much more sense:

 

720p -> ~1MP

1080p -> ~2MP

1440p -> ~4MP

UHD/4K -> ~8MP

8K -> ~33MP

Fools think they know everything, experts know they know nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

We call 3840x2160 "4K" and it's a stupid name, frankly, because it refers only to it's width and it isn't even really 4,000. But since we're apparently all on board with that, 1920x1080 can be "2K" by the same logic. I guess.

 

So then what's 2560x1440? 2.5K? The system kind of falls apart there. Better to stick with Full HD, Quad HD, Ultra HD; or 1080p, 1440p, 2160p; or just the proper dimensions.

 

Yeah, the best way to measure the sharpness/clarity of a display is to use PPI (Pixel per Inch).  It's pretty easy to calculate as well.  To find the PPI of a 3840x2160, 28" display, simply use this formula, sqrt(x^2+y^2)/diagonal length, where x=3840, y=2160, and the diagonal length=28, and you get 157.35 PPI.

 

By contrast a 1920x1080, 23" display has a PPI of 95.78.

 

Basic Pythagorean Theorem stuff.  Take the number of pixels along the hypotenuse and divide by the length of the hypotenuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Hi, I'm trying to plan on a monitor or monitors to buy but I'm trying to figure out what the right amount is, I know 1080p is shit and is definatly not enough, don't get me wrong it's better than like 720p and shit but to be honest that's just not enough, so what is the right amount? 

Everything is shit except 8K. You're a pleb if you're not gaming on a 8K panel.

Intel i7 7700K | MSI Z270 Gaming M3 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X| Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x8GB DDR4 3000Mhz | Samsung EVO 850 250GB | WD Blue 1TB | Corsair CS650M | Thermalright Macho Rev. A | NZXT S340

CM Storm Quickfire TK [MX Blues] | Zowie FK1 |  Kingston HyperX Cloud

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Higher the resolution is the bigger the screen they make the lower the DPI is :(

I wish we had at least half the DPI the freaking mobile devices do !

1080p at 24" is just stupid 90+ DPI. Ridiculous. Imagine if it was 200...

As someone said, if u call 1080p "Shit" then u have high standards and should get 4K screen.

Connection: 200mbps / 12mbps 5Ghz wifi

My baby: CPU - i7-4790, MB - Z97-A, RAM - Corsair Veng. LP 16gb, GPU - MSI GTX 1060, PSU - CXM 600, Storage - Evo 840 120gb, MX100 256gb, WD Blue 1TB, Cooler - Hyper Evo 212, Case - Corsair Carbide 200R, Monitor - Benq  XL2430T 144Hz, Mouse - FinalMouse, Keyboard -K70 RGB, OS - Win 10, Audio - DT990 Pro, Phone - iPhone SE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Why couldn't they have just taken the opportunity to start talking about screens in terms of megapixels? Especially given that number makes much more sense when talking about file size, bandwidth and the horsepower required to render. Would have made much more sense:

 

720p -> ~1MP

1080p -> ~2MP

1440p -> ~4MP

UHD/4K -> ~8MP

8K -> ~33MP

Because we also have resolutions like 1920×1200.

PC SPECS: CPU: Intel Core i7 3770k @4.4GHz - Mobo: Asrock Extreme 4 (Z77) - GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 680 Twin Frozr 2GB - RAM: Crucial Ballistix 2x4GB (8GB) 1600MHz CL8 + 1x8GB - Storage: SSD: Sandisk Extreme II 120GB. HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB - PSU: be quiet! Pure Power L8 630W semi modular  - Case: Corsair Obsidian 450D  - OS: Windows 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

How many K are enough? When I need to use scaling to not squint.

 

That's right around the 1200p-1600p range for me, any higher resolution is just a waste since you don't actually gain usable space, just pixel scaling. For media/gaming, more resolution is better for clearer images, but for being useful, give me more usable space.

I have a 1440p 21:9, and it has borderline too fine of PPI for me to comfortably work on without hunching towards the screen.

I really miss the old 30" 1600p displays, those were pretty much perfect.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Displays

×