• tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I find as I get older and my vision is not what it once was, I need bigger screens with good contrast but don’t care so much about resolution. I think it was on the show Corner Gas where they were talking about how big a screen you should get and concluded the size in inches should match your age. That made me laugh but I have to confess now there may be some truth in that…

  • ricdeh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nah 4K is wonderful. The higher the pixel density, the better the display (for me at least)

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you can run 4k at high frame rates then sure but the performance hit can be huge and a lot of displays can only do 4k at 30Hz anyway which isn’t worth it when 1440p is usually an option.

  • 𝕾𝖕𝖎𝖈𝖞 𝕿𝖚𝖓𝖆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My monitors are over a decade old and are still perfectly fine. I’ll upgrade to 1440p/144 Hz when I start seeing dead pixels or some other failure.

    They have DVI ports and all my stuff is too new for DVI so I’m on the adapter diet lol

    • karashta@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      For most people sitting at a computer, this is likely the ideal based on distance from, and size of, monitor

        • karashta@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          27" at 1440p for me personally. But I have two as my two primary monitors. Then I have a crappy old 720p 24" and 10" I currently forget the pixel density of. I want to say 2k

          • ramble81@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I use a 4K TV that’s 43”, but I like to run games at 1440p native (I.e 1:1 pixels, no stretching) when I measured it out it was the same as a 27” monitor which I thought was perfect.

      • stardust@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Even general desktop use is much more fluid like the mouse cursor, scrolling, and moving windows. I immediately notice if a monitor is running at 60 hz.

  • Owl@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s a strawmen

    The true issue is that a lot of games weigh ~150Gb and run a 45 fps on low at a resolution of 720~1080p

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can people really see the difference? I’d love to see a test between screens at different refresh rates, resolutions, and FPS, and how well people can discern between them. I have a feeling most wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

  • Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Screw 4k, but 120+ hz is amazing. I can barely stand playing things are 60fps anymore. I really notice it when game dips.

  • Keegen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Refresh rate is king. I would much rather use a 1080p 120+Hz monitor over 4k 60Hz. 1440p 144Hz is the sweet spot though, big visual improvement over 1080p without the need to bankrupt yourself on a GPU powerful enough to drive a 4k 120Hz display or relying on upscaling making everything a blurry mess.