3 ms·
32" monitor? You know you can get a 43" 4k TV that is half-decent for a monitor for 200-300$? And 8ks are coming... 2000$ for a 65" 8k, but of course the HDMI
by AtlasBarfed 6y ago
32" monitor? You know you can get a 43" 4k TV that is half-decent for a monitor for 200-300$?
And 8ks are coming... 2000$ for a 65" 8k, but of course the HDMI port support is glacial and grossly overpriced. But a curved 8k 65" for high-dpi will be my next big desktop build.
- neogodless 6y agoAt the time it was a $400+ monitor refurbished for $170, quite a few years ago. It's only 75hz and after a concussion I'm migrating to all high refresh. So those TVs may not work depending on refresh rate. I find 27" QHD on my desk to be a great size. My eyesight doesn't really benefit significantly from higher resolutions.
- scott00 6y agoI thought using a 43" 4k TV as a monitor was a good idea until I actually tried it with the TCL S525. It looked really bad at close range, like this: https://i.rtings.com/assets/pages/li6TPHJm/user-1-large.jpg https://i.rtings.com/assets/pages/li6TPHJm/user-1-large.jpg So if you haven't tried it, beware. If you HAVE tried it, what model is working well for you?
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoI have three. I used one of the original Seikis that came out ($500), then I got a samsung (don't remember the model) and that is probably my favorite, and the same TCL you have. I think the TCL is my least favorite. Rtings does highlight how much difference there is, but even the TVS that are a couple steps up from the TCL are only a couple hundred more, so the cost per unit of screen real estate is still pretty good. I think the 8ks will have such significantly better pixel density (because it's not like I'm going to use an 86" monitor for 8k, rather a 60" and have about 50% more pixel density). Maybe even a 50-55".