I was told that 1080p is "unusable" and that anyone who thought it was "has never used a computer for anything but gaming"

[Mr.Meerkat]

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

When a x60 Nvidia GPU or x80 AMD GPU runs 4K 60 fps on almost all titles at max settings then it'll be mainstream.

To me its already there. A 1060 or a RX480/580 is basically powerful enough to run most titles at 4K@60 with low/medium settings.

[AlTech]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

To me its already there. A 1060 or a RX480/580 is basically powerful enough to run most titles at 4K@60 with low/medium settings.

I said Max Settings tho

[Orangeator]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

To me its already there. A 1060 or a RX480/580 is basically powerful enough to run most titles at 4K@60 with low/medium settings.

Exactly, and step it up to a 980 TI/1070 bam, you have a single GPU that can play any game in 4k...

[Orangeator]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

I said Max Settings tho

At 4k you don't need max settings. Anti-Aliasing is absolutely pointless because of the pixel density and ultra low 4k looks better than ultra 1080 by a landslide. Don't believe me test it for yourself. I have countless times on my own rig.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

I said Max Settings tho

Yah but I'd consider it to be there already. As long as its able to run at 45fps+ at whatever settings then I'd consider it playable thus its good enough. 

[Eduard the weeb]

however told you 1080p is unusable, probably never trust them for tech advice again I play CS at 900 by 600 for that super high FPS and It looks fine on  a 1440p and werid mac monitor which I have played both on. 

[Shreyas1]

24 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Have you tried using 640 x 480 recently?

When your wifi adapter is so slow that you watch in 480p

[vanished]

Just now, Shreyas1 said:

When your wifi adapter is so slow that you watch in 480p

watching videos is one thing, running a desktop is totally another story

[Drak3]

39 minutes ago, lilDelta said:

Once you go 4K you never go back. 

Having used Win 7, 8, 10, Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, and OSX Sierra/High Sierra on 4K machines, it's insanely easy to go back to 720p, 1080p, and 1440p. The last I prefer over 4K because scaling the UI of all operating systems to a comfortable point for daily use negates the whole point of 4K on anything less than 40 inches.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

31 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Windows actually is unusable (not subjectively, I mean literally, essential things won't fit on the screen) at approx. 800 x 600 or less iirc.  It may even be more like 1024 x 768 now...

I can verify that Win7 and Win8.1 indeed have menus and pop-up windows that don't fit on a 1024x600 screen.  You can't even see the content of the "next", "ok" and "cancel" buttons at the bottom.

 

Then again it's pretty much the same story on Linux Mint.  You really need at least 1024x768 nowadays. 

[TurbulentWinds]

38 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

I can verify that Win7 and Win8.1 indeed have menus and pop-up windows that don't fit on a 1024x600 screen.  You can't even see the content of the "next", "ok" and "cancel" buttons at the bottom.

 

Then again it's pretty much the same story on Linux Mint.  You really need at least 1024x768 nowadays. 

Chrome OS is fine in 480p

[AlexTheGreatish]

I personally think that high refresh rate 1080P is the best currently, 1440P high refresh rate is nice but games that aren't optimized great suffer.  Until 4K 120Hz is available with one connector I wouldn't use it for gaming.

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

The last I prefer over 4K because scaling the UI of all operating systems to a comfortable point for daily use negates the whole point of 4K on anything less than 40 inches.

I'd completely disagree. I'd much rather read text on a 27 inch 4k monitor at 150% scaling than on a 40+ inch 4k monitor. The pixel density and the crispness of text far out weighs the use of "screen real-estate".

[yolosnail]

It all really depends what you consider mainstream, to me, something is mainstream when cheap laptops and cheap prebuilt desktop bundles have it. So I wouldn't consider 1080p to be fully mainstream yet. We just bought a prebuilt desktop PC bundled with the monitor and it came with 1440x900 monitor (it was cheap, don't judge), and look how many laptops still come with a 1336x768 screen.

The thing is, when you are surrounded by tech and by people who like tech (places like here), you start to assume that it is mainstream to have a custom watercooled i9 system with quad Titans running 8k monitors, when in reality, most people don't even know that you can get different resolution monitors

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

I'd completely disagree. I'd much rather read text on a 27 inch 4k monitor at 150% scaling than on a 40+ inch 4k monitor. The pixel density and the crispness of text far out weighs the use of "screen real-estate".

Using a 1440p 27" monitor between two 1080p 27" monitors, any additional crispness is just a waste, unless your face is roughly a foot away with 4K. Going from those monitors, crispness is not anywhere near an issue, scaling is the bigger issue, and IMO, only when using DPI unaware programs on the 1440p monitor.

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, for daily use, 4K monitors are not useful. They're useful for video and photo editing, namely due to more screen real estate for timelines, previews, tool planes, without needing to hide lesser used tools and menus.

[WMGroomAK]

I'll save a lot of my movies and DVDs of TV shows to my server in 720p as it is easier to stream, takes up less space on my device and the scaling onto mobile devices really is not that bad...  Wouldn't really look into 4K for gaming until prices come down and GPUs that can run AAA titles at easily above 60 to 120 FPS are mainstream and not the most expensive GPUs on the market.

[Godlygamer23]

1080p is certainly usable in general, but it depends on the display size. 

[Princess Luna]

2 hours ago, lilDelta said:

Once you go 4K you never go back. 

More like once you go ultrawide you never go back to 16:9

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

More like once you go ultrawide 3:2 or 16:10 you never go back to 16:9

I could be a teacher...

[Bouzoo]

At least 144p is not listed. As well as (W)QHD?

 

Anyhow, it's usable, but I would say that really depends on the usage. For gaming it's more than perfectly usable. The more the better true, but it's usable. For professional graphics design, hell no. Etc. 

Also dependable on the display size.

[TetraSky]

Huh? Who thinks that...
1080p is perfectly usable.

The lowest I'd accept is 720p.

 

That said I'm currently on 4k, at 200% scaling, so... yeah.

[ElZamo92]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

4K would be ideal but mainstream GPU hardware isn't there yet. And also 4K monitors are too expensive.

4K is not that expensive if you buy something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Acer-CB281HK-LED-LCD-Monitor/dp/B01LHU9ANO

[PlayStation 2]

For gaming, I wouldn't even mind 1024x600.

For average desktop usages, I'd prefer to stick to at least 1360x768, but 1280x720/1024x768 is basically a minimum for me.

[Guest lilbman]

2 hours ago, Tsuki said:

i dont think phones need to be bigger than 720(especially not 4k, thats rediculous)

 

Idk man, once you go AMOLED 1440p, there is no going back.  iPhone screens in comparison look kind of bland when put side by side w/ my Note 4.

[ElZamo92]

720p is still very usable, maybe even 420p would still be tolerable for a while.