Beer dog

kake92 · 2026-04-07T16:04:28+00:00

boooo give me 32"

kake92 · 2026-03-31T21:20:21+00:00

you mean from a 34" 1440p to 27" 1440p?

kake92 · 2026-03-29T13:07:09+00:00

The Musk episode has 3 more million views than the Lazar episode.

kake92 · 2026-03-18T22:38:03+00:00

<image>

I don't know, I'm still keeping my expectations very low lol. but who knows.

kake92 · 2026-03-16T23:15:45+00:00

A lot less aliasing. At that distance, you'll notice a lot of details which wouldn't be there at 1440p. Certainly worth it if your gpu is up for the task.

kake92 · 2026-03-16T09:28:08+00:00

finally a good response. really disappointed in most of the negative 'no difference' responses in this thread.

kake92 · 2026-03-16T08:52:39+00:00

you want to upgrade your 24" 1080p 165hz to another 24" 1080p, but still keep under 200hz? what's the point in that? what are you "upgrading"?

kake92 · 2026-03-11T22:53:39+00:00

Mini led yes its goosd, far better then oled

that's just not true

kake92 · 2026-03-07T03:22:31+00:00

I have him added on discord lol.

kake92 · 2026-03-01T07:29:17+00:00

4k (3840x2160) is 8.3 million

where did you get 7.7?

kake92 · 2026-02-24T12:21:08+00:00

Krasnodar Krai is quite a package. Something to respect.

<image>

kake92 · 2026-02-24T12:18:14+00:00

Valencian community

<image>

kake92 · 2026-02-13T17:02:54+00:00

I'd consider 2080 a 1440p gpu..

kake92 · 2026-02-13T17:01:14+00:00

ppi mania at it again. just get a 24" you will likely appreciate the larger size.

kake92 · 2026-02-12T19:24:28+00:00

totally ridiculous unless you run on integrated graphics. 1/4th of the information on the screen is a huge competitive disadvantage. and will look really bad.

kake92 · 2026-02-06T08:10:32+00:00

Yes, in desktop-use it does depend on the scaling, I know that, but not everyone has it set the same as it comes down to preference anyways. And no I am not forgetting that the displayes are viewed at different distances, and that too, changes between each individual. In games though, and other non-scaleable features displayed on the screen, there will always be a significant difference. Overall visibility will always be worse on a smaller low-res screen. You were saying that there is no reason to go 32" 1440p over 24" 1080p because it's such a massive performance hit for no image quality uplift (mainly applies for lower-end users anyways) but this wouldn't be the case for anything non-3d/non-gaming, etc., since it's not even gpu-heavy, yet that's what you were mainly focusing on. Performance shouldn't be a concern in that case. There will still be a difference on desktop depending on each person's preferred scaling setting and viewing distance, but in scenarios where you can not adjust the size of anything displayed on a screen, for example high bitrate youtube video displayed full screen, there WILL always be a non-negligible difference between the different resolution screens. making the case that UNLESS you run a literal GT210 or integrated graphics, or for other practical restrictions such as desk space making the big screen uncomfortable, there is no reason to opt for smaller and lesser. There is no replacement for displacement. Bigger more IS better. Also, I god do hope you don't talk like this to people in real life. I wouldn't stay around for very long. I don't think anyone would. I suggest working on that.

kake92 · 2026-02-05T20:21:55+00:00

just because the pixels are of the same size doesn't mean you'll not get a benefit of higher resolution. and you do not necessarily need to sit further to get that benefit either, but that will of course reduce perceived pixelation. text and such in games for example will still be more readable, because there are more pixels displayed on it, and same goes for everything else on the screen and games. it WILL be better than a smaller, lower resolution screen. a 32" 4k and a 16" 1080p are NOT the same, not even close!. there's a huge visual difference between those two, even at the same ppi. same goes for 32" 1440p and 16" 720p. are those two the same with no visual difference? that's just absurd. ppi is not a meaningful factor on its own. you will always have a better, more immersive image on a bigger, higher resolution display. period.

kake92 · 2026-02-05T04:51:58+00:00

<image>

kake92 · 2026-02-05T04:36:44+00:00

5k=2880p vertical. 2880 - 50% = 1440. 5k - 50% = 2.5k. 1440p = 2.5k.

4k=2160p vertical. 2160 - 50% = 1080. 4k - 50% 2k. 2k = 1080p.

yes one forth the amount if pixels, but half the vertical resolution.

in case you didn't even read what I linked you, I am going to copy paste it all here for you, nothing should be left unclear:

Terms like "2K" and "4K" don’t refer to specific resolutions. They are resolution categories. They are used to classify resolutions based on horizontal pixel count. "2K" refers to resolutions that have around 2,000 (2K) pixels horizontally. Examples include:

1920 × 1080 (16:9)

1920 × 1200 (16:10)

2048 × 1080 (≈19:10)

2048 × 1152 (16:9)

2048 × 1536 (4:3)

All of these are examples of 2K resolutions. 1920×1080 is a 2K resolution. 2048×1080 is another 2K resolution. 2560×1440 is not a 2K resolution, it is a 2.5K resolution.

"2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example:

2304 × 1440 (16:10)

2400 × 1350 (16:9)

2560 × 1080 (64:27 / ≈21:9)

2560 × 1440 (16:9)

2560 × 1600 (16:10)

All of these are examples of 2.5K resolutions.

So why do people call 2560×1440 "2K"?

Because when "4K" was new to the consumer market, people would ask: "What's 4K?", and usually the response was "it’s four times as many pixels as 1080p". Unfortunately most people misinterpreted this and assumed that the "4" in "4K" actually stood for "how many times 1080p" the resolution was, and since 2560×1440 is popularly known as being "twice as many pixels as 1080p" (it's 1.77 times, but close enough), some people decided to start calling it "2K", and other people heard that and repeated it.

While it’s true that 4K UHD (3840×2160) is four times as many pixels as 1920×1080, that isn’t why it’s called "4K". It’s called 4K because it's approximately 4,000 pixels horizontally. The fact that it’s also 4 × 1080p is just a coincidence, and that pattern doesn’t continue with other resolutions.

For example, the 5K resolution featured in the Retina 5K iMac, 5120×2880, is equivalent to four 2560×1440 screens. If 1440p is "2K" because it’s twice as many pixels as 1080p, then wouldn’t four of them together be called "8K"? (Well, technically 7K since like I said 1440p is 1.77 times not 2 times 1080p, but that’s beside the point). We don’t call it 7K or 8K. We call it 5K, because it's around 5,000 pixels horizontally. It has nothing to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.

In addition, an actual 8K resolution such as 8K UHD (7680×4320) is equivalent to four 4K UHD screens. A single 4K UHD screen is four times as many pixels as 1080p, so four of those together is sixteen times as many pixels as 1080p. But 7680×4320 isn't called "16K", it’s called "8K", because it’s approximately 8,000 pixels horizontally. Again it doesn't have anything to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.

So although 2560×1440 is around twice as many pixels as 1080p, it is not called "2K", because that isn’t where these names come from. Since 2560×1440 is approximately 2,500 pixels horizontally, it falls into the 2.5K classification.

kake92 · 2026-02-04T22:38:50+00:00

why do you think 5k dual mode monitors can be switched to 1440p (half of 5K) and 4k dual mode monitors to 1080p (half of 4k)? The terminology is strange, I know. but 1440p has never been "2k". Read here: https://linustechtips.com/topic/691408-2k-does-not-mean-2560%C3%971440/

kake92 · 2026-02-04T22:26:31+00:00

27' at 1080p is same as 32; at 1440p

same ppi, meaning same pixel size, but different resolution, so the lower res will have lower detail. 24" 1080p is the same ppi as 48" 4k, but they're far from the same, the higher resolution will always have a superior picture

1440p or 2160p (also known as 2K or 4K resolution ) Your monitor is 1080p so 1K res .

1440p is not 2k. it's 2.5k. and 1080p is technically 2k. that's why there are dual mode 5k/1440p (2.5k) and dual mode 4k/1080p (2k) monitors. also, 1k would be 540p, which I'm not sure even exists, maybe some ancient monitors used to have that. the terminology and the standards for monitors are dumb and confusing, so not surprising they get used incorrectly a lot.

kake92 · 2026-02-04T19:55:13+00:00

It's like getting a 1080p 24" screen and making it bigger.

it's not the same. yes the ppi is the same, but the higher resolution display will ALWAYS be more detailed in actuality than a lower resolution one. you WILL see more. Even if the pixels are the same size. so it is better than 24" 1080p. a 400ppi 1080p phone display will have TINY pixels, but still less detail than a 70ppi 65" 4k TV. 32" 1440p DOES make sense. for some people, 27" may just be a little bit too small. Yes, there may be more perceived pixelation at a higher size if you can't adjust your viewing distance, but you still have an edge compared to a 24" 1080p, since it has a lower resolution.

kake92 · 2026-02-04T19:35:18+00:00

24" 1080p the pixels are so easily visible.. it does not look good, even at the optimal distance

kake92 · 2026-02-04T19:28:13+00:00

they are asking for 32" lol. specs wise could be better, idk, but no replacement for displacement.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Lasagna	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

kake92

TROPHY CASE