4k or not to 4k

[nekrosoft13]

So i'm looking for a new monitor.

Right now I have 27 inch Acer 1440p G-sync predator, I would like something larger.

So yesterday I bought AOC U3277PWQU a 32inch 4k VA panel for 399, it looks good, but at 100 DPI, everything is so small had to raise DPI to 125% to be able to read stuff.

So now I'm trying to decide if 4k is even worth it.

I mostly use my computer for productivity, photography and some gaming.

What are some good screen recomendations?
Is it worth waiting for HDR screen?

 

[Daleon]

To me its not much of a jump. Not interested in 34" UW dimensions?
Everyone has their own personal tastes when it comes to screen size. I'm 55" 4K OLED and 150% scaling and its pretty much perfect for me. If I was playing nothing but CoD, CS GO, Battlefield, etc then no it would not be my screen. For mostly MMOs, RPGs, 4X, Sims, RTS, etc its immersive.
It sounds like its not blowing you away as a big improvement over what you had for that reason alone it would not be worth keeping to me.

 

[Mad Maxx]

I think anything under 40" is too small for 4K. I went from 27" 1440p to 49" 4K, but it was too big for my desk. Now using a 43" 4K. Set scaling to 100% and it feels perfect for work and gaming. My screen is a Sony 43X800D TV (VA).

 

[David_B]

I'm trying the Sony 43X800E right now and recently also tested the LG 40MU7000. I was running 100% scaling from a 2015 Macbook Pro. Similar use cases - heavy productivity (PPT, Word, Excel), photoshop and lightroom, and some light gaming (World of Tanks, action RPG, etc)

In both cases, I didn't find the text on the TVs to be as crisp as I expected with 4K. I love the huge real estate, but the text it critical for working with it all day.
My comparisons were against a 2015 27" iMac and a Dell 3007. Though pixel density was similar on all of those (ranging from 103 - 110 ppi), I've really struggled with getting the text on the TVs to seem as clear as it was on either of the other monitors.

At this point, I'm considering going back to smaller dual monitors or trying the LG 38" ultrawide to see if the text rendering is better.

 

[Mad Maxx]

Did you try adjusting the Clarity/Sharpness setting on your Sony. Makes a big difference for me.

 

[nekrosoft13]

To me its not much of a jump. Not interested in 34" UW dimensions?
Everyone has their own personal tastes when it comes to screen size. I'm 55" 4K OLED and 150% scaling and its pretty much perfect for me. If I was playing nothing but CoD, CS GO, Battlefield, etc then no it would not be my screen. For mostly MMOs, RPGs, 4X, Sims, RTS, etc its immersive.
It sounds like its not blowing you away as a big improvement over what you had for that reason alone it would not be worth keeping to me.

I'm still thinking about the 34 UW screen... not much selection with non-curved screen, curved screen would be fine for gaming, but not sure how that impact photography, could make architectural photography difficult.

 

[David_B]

I'm still thinking about the 34 UW screen... not much selection with non-curved screen, curved screen would be fine for gaming, but not sure how that impact photography, could make architectural photography difficult.

Look at the LG "UM" models (e.g. 34UM88) They are the flat equivalent of the curved "UC" lines.

 

[Luke M]

I'm trying the Sony 43X800E right now and recently also tested the LG 40MU7000. I was running 100% scaling from a 2015 Macbook Pro. Similar use cases - heavy productivity (PPT, Word, Excel), photoshop and lightroom, and some light gaming (World of Tanks, action RPG, etc)

In both cases, I didn't find the text on the TVs to be as crisp as I expected with 4K. I love the huge real estate, but the text it critical for working with it all day.
My comparisons were against a 2015 27" iMac and a Dell 3007. Though pixel density was similar on all of those (ranging from 103 - 110 ppi), I've really struggled with getting the text on the TVs to seem as clear as it was on either of the other monitors.

At this point, I'm considering going back to smaller dual monitors or trying the LG 38" ultrawide to see if the text rendering is better.

It should look as good as any monitor with subpixel antialiasing off. You can't (shouldn't) use SAA because the MacOS doesn't support BGR (at least that's what people say. I'm not a Mac person). Unless you rotate the screen 180 degrees.

 

[nekrosoft13]

Look at the LG "UM" models (e.g. 34UM88) They are the flat equivalent of the curved "UC" lines.

those are quite nice, to bad there is no "gaming" version.

what do people think of the HDR monitors? worth it? or just a gimmick?

 

[nekrosoft13]

anyone else?

 

[chenw]

The bigger the screen, the better 4k will be.

I personally have 27" 1440p and 32" 4k (PG278Q and BL3201PT), and I have been using both, changing between them somewhat frequently.

At my sitting distance, the things I have noticed are:

1. I can not see any pixelation between the 27" 1440p ro 32" 4k, and given what I have seen running 1440p on that 4k, the sweet spot for 32" is 1440p, not 4k. 32" 1440p is the same PPI as 24" 1080p, and the screen size is big enough that is just about fills your vision and not much more beyond that. Right now 27" 1440p is a wee bit small, and I have no seen any visual differences in the 4k apart from being bigger screen. I haven't gamed seriously at 4k as my GPU isn't quite up to the snuff (it's only 1080).

2. Given the two choices right now and if I were to keep one of them, I'd probably ditch both and get a 32" 1440p 144hz Samsung C32HG70. I would still not trade G-Sync and 144hz for anything (I value smoothness over visuals if I have to choose one), and that exact monitor would be the most perfect in terms of specifications: VRR independent strobing (I hate the fact that ULMB and G-Sync are exclusive), 32" 1440p 144hz (G-Sync has no equivalent), and VA (I don't consider either TN nor IPS to be perfect panels, both my PG278Q and BL3201PT look good in their own right, but the both have their own problems), and get Vega 64 (assuming it is at least GTX 1080 performance, if it isn't, Vega 56).

4k would be more suited to 40" or higher to really see the benefits of 4k, otherwise, high PPI monitors are best used if you frequently turn resolution down below its native. 32" 4k displaying 1440p image is actually quite sharp, unlike 1080p where blur can be easily seen.

 

[Daffan]

Frame of reference;

32" 4k = 137ppi

27" 1440p = 109ppi

40" 4k = 110ppi

24" 1080p = 91ppi

I used to have a 28" 4k 157ppi but it was just too insane, at that size, the quality is not that much different to 1440p because the screen is too small to appreciate it. Yes you don't have to use anti aliasing anymore, but the rest of the image looks more or less the same.

32" is the absolute minimum i'd use for 4k. I am thinking of picking up the LG 32ud59-b this week, hopefully it's not a piece of junk for *some* gaming, knowing 32" monitors with their hideous response times and input lag. in 2017 input lag still exists, baffles the mind.

 

[nekrosoft13]

i'm returning the AOC U3277PWQU today, there is 33-35ms input lag, that just to much for my taste.

If you don't game, its fine I guess, but if you plan on playing games thats not good.

 

[Daffan]

i'm returning the AOC U3277PWQU today, there is 33-35ms input lag, that just to much for my taste.

If you don't game, its fine I guess, but if you plan on playing games thats not good.

It's also got quite bad response time too, blurry - There is a website out there that did a review on it and the Philips 4k. Both use the same Innolux panel, both have 20-30ms input lag and 20ms response time for darker shades.

Only other real choices for 4k 32" are the lg 32ud59-b VA or the lg 32ud89/99 which are IPS and one has HDR10.

 

[zone74]

So yesterday I bought AOC U3277PWQU a 32inch 4k VA panel for 399, it looks good, but at 100 DPI, everything is so small had to raise DPI to 125% to be able to read stuff.

This monitor is 138 pixels per inch, not 100.
Windows is based around 96 PPI, so scaling should either be set to 125% or 150%.
125% is closer to matching other monitors (110 PPI equivalent) while 150% is closer to what Windows is actually designed for (92 PPI equivalent) and should be a lot easier on the eyes.

It is not the '90s any more. Screen resolution is not supposed to define available workspace.
Windows 10 has great support for DPI scaling; you just need to be aware that compatibility modes may need to be set for old applications.
Workspace should be defined by display size, not resolution. Resolution affects how crisp the image is within that workspace.

In both cases, I didn't find the text on the TVs to be as crisp as I expected with 4K. I love the huge real estate, but the text it critical for working with it all day.

The VA-type panels used in televisions typically do not have subpixel structures that are well-suited to displaying text, making it less legible than an equivalent monitor. A lot of televisions also seem to be using a BGR subpixel layout rather than RGB for some reason.

I'm still thinking about the 34 UW screen... not much selection with non-curved screen, curved screen would be fine for gaming, but not sure how that impact photography, could make architectural photography difficult.

With that sort of photography you're generally aligning to a grid overlay rather than judging it by eye anyway, so the curve is less of an issue than you might think. You may still prefer a flat display though.

I can not see any pixelation between the 27" 1440p ro 32" 4k

That doesn't sound typical to me. Text is rather crudely defined on 110 PPI displays compared to high DPI displays.
There is a significant difference in clarity between ~110 PPI and ~220 PPI displays in my experience.
You may want to book an eye test if you haven't had things checked out for a while.

 

[noko]

I have both 3440x1440p 34" and 4K 27", I actually prefer the 3440x1440p better, maybe the size is too small for the 4K but I do like the pixel density as well. HDR is what I am really waiting for once it matures more. 2019 is most likely when I will be looking for another monitor unless one of mine breaks.

 

[Drewis]

honestly I wouldnt care about HDR much, yet.. I also agree that 27" is way way too small for a 4K screen.

I have a VA 60HZ 40" 4K monitor 21:9 and the text is just right.. this is with scaling at 125% too.. I couldnt imagine it on a smaller scale. If productivity is your concern then, get a 40+ inch!!

Even a 4k TV...

 

[zone74]

I have both 3440x1440p 34" and 4K 27", I actually prefer the 3440x1440p better, maybe the size is too small for the 4K but I do like the pixel density as well.

I also agree that 27" is way way too small for a 4K screen.

A 27" 4K panel is supposed to be using 150/175% scaling.
150% scaling will give you a 2560x1440 workspace, the same as most other 27" monitors.
175% scaling is closer to Windows' intended 96 PPI, but many people are used to ~110 PPI displays now and will complain that there's not enough workspace when using that.

 

[kasakka]

If you want to go 4K expect to use DPI scaling. That's the main benefit from so many pixels, on desktop text will look much better. HDR support on PC is still in its infancy so I would not consider a very important feature at the moment but it might be as early as next year. I really like it on my 4K TV with PS4 Pro.

If you can wait until next year you can get 4K 27" 144 Hz with HDR. Expect to pay a lot though.

 

[Daffan]

If you want to go 4K expect to use DPI scaling. That's the main benefit from so many pixels, on desktop text will look much better. HDR support on PC is still in its infancy so I would not consider a very important feature at the moment but it might be as early as next year. I really like it on my 4K TV with PS4 Pro.

If you can wait until next year you can get 4K 27" 144 Hz with HDR. Expect to pay a lot though.

Yeah but 27" . gag

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

Set the scaling to 150% on the 32" and you get the same size text as 24" 1080p. Also get an app called NoSquint Plus to manually increase text zoom farther without making everything else bigger.

40" is only 110 PPI. Not much better than 27" 1440p. My 1440p looks like a pixelated mess after using my 32" 4K. I would prefer 27" but the 32" was the only gloss 4K available. 32" 5K would have 27" 4K pixel density on a 32" screen. That would be perfection but sadly that doesn't exist yet. 40" is simply too big for a monitor.

 

[chenw]

That doesn't sound typical to me. Text is rather crudely defined on 110 PPI displays compared to high DPI displays.
There is a significant difference in clarity between ~110 PPI and ~220 PPI displays in my experience.
You may want to book an eye test if you haven't had things checked out for a while.

Text is sharper, but is completely counteracted by the fact that text at their default size is diminutively small, and scaling introduces that softness around the text that I absolutely abhor (makes me feel my eyes or my monitor is out of focus). I now try to use my 32" 4k monitor at default desktop scaling.

At 27" 1440p, I can still read the text at default scaling, but I wouldn't notice the pixelation as much as I would on a 27" 1080p panel, which I can almost see the individual pixels if I focused hard enough, I can't do that on 1440p unless I really really lean into the screen, like nose touching the screen close. That is good enough for me.

Things are clearer on the 32" 4k yes, but I tried scaling but at 150% it induces soft edges around the texts which I find extremely distracting (I prefer sharp text over soft text), and scaling tend to be extremely unevenly implemented (e.g. on some windows, the text gets scaled, but the image or the dialogue box itself does not), so I have switched off scaling and deal with the smaller text rather than to put up with the caveats, but if I were to get another monitor now, I would not use 4k at 32". It'd either be 32" 1440p, or at least 40" for 4k.

Oh, did I mention not every game in my game library scales properly? 32" 4k makes every one of those worse at native.

32" 4k is gorgeous for games, assuming games scale correctly (I am more surprised at the number of games that don't). When they don't, the small size makes their scaling much worse.

It's these problems that makes me prefer having 32" 1440p over 32" 4k.

 

[zone74]

scaling introduces that softness around the text that I absolutely abhor (makes me feel my eyes or my monitor is out of focus).

DPI scaling should be making text sharper since it's being rendered at a higher resolution, not softer.

scaling tend to be extremely unevenly implemented (e.g. on some windows, the text gets scaled, but the image or the dialogue box itself does not)

Windows 10 should not be running into problems with DPI scaling where text scales up but other elements in the window do not. That sort of thing was common on Windows Vista/7 though.
It now has three separate compatibility modes for applications that don't correctly support DPI scaling. I'd be surprised if none of them work.

 

[chenw]

DPI scaling should be making text sharper since it's being rendered at a higher resolution, not softer.

I could only get sharp text at 100% or 200% scaling, 150% scaling the text were soft. It was subtle, but it's there.

Windows 10 should not be running into problems with DPI scaling where text scales up but other elements in the window do not. That sort of thing was common on Windows Vista/7 though.
It now has three separate compatibility modes for applications that don't correctly support DPI scaling. I'd be surprised if none of them work.

I never used scaling on Windows 7 because the lack of separate monitor scaling, so I only used it in Win 10.

The compatibility modes are the first I have heard of, but I reverted back to default scaling now, since that's the only mode I could find no problems with any programs barring text size.

Basically, I have basically given up on scaling in every and all forms, and I just prefer everything native size and unscaled.

If I get bored I'll give the scaling a try again.

 

[Daleon]

Under Settings > System > Display make sure HDR and advanced color is turned off.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I had a 27" 4K but I returned it because it was Matte. I could not get used to the dull lifeless matte. I absolutely hate Matte. The text was super sharp like printed paper but the colors were lifeless. So I settled with a glossy 32" 4K. The pixel density is still higher than any other monitor I have ever owned including my S2417DG 24" 1440p (123 ppi on the 2K vs 140 PPI on the 32" 4K).. Glossy with AR coating like what you see on eyeglasses would be ideal.

Scaling does not make text soft, it makes it super crisp. I had 4K in all sizes from 27" to 40" and 32" is the absolute maximum for a monitor no matter how high the resolution, even if it were 8K. Simply for ergonomic issues, you can only sit so far back. I prefer to sit closer to my monitors and I have good eye sight. I like seeing all the little details in everything.

 

[chenw]

You sound like you have used different DPI tool/settings than I did, or you have different standard to what "crisp" is, because the only crisp text I could possibly get out of my 4k 32" monitor was either 100% or 200%, 150% was soft on the edges, it wasn't very visible, but it's there.

I used win 10's built in DPI scaling. I was really surprised at it too.

I admit, I am VERY sensitive when it comes to softness around the edges, and I still cannot explain why the hell I think 1440p images on 4k would look better than 1080p on the same 4k, but that's my experience of it, the text was too soft at 150% scaling and 200% scaling the text was too large and the discrepancy between text sizes on my monitors (the other being 27" 1440p) was too big to be comfortable, so I reverted to 100%.

I definitely didn't see it as "super crisp".

Oh, I also don't remember if I tried setting Clear Type again, but I vaguely remember that it didn't help at all, I could have misremembered.

 

[zone74]

I used win 10's built in DPI scaling. I was really surprised at it too.

When you say that you used Windows 10's DPI scaling, you mean that you used this:

Not the old "custom sizing options" that were removed in the Creator's Update:

Because those are the old and broken Windows 7 style scaling options which would often only scale up the fonts in applications and nothing else, frequently breaking UIs.

 

[chenw]

Correct, I used the former DPI scaling, not the latter.

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I'm still using Windows 7 because I hate the way Windows 10 functions. (That's right 4K on Windows 7 150% scaling) Its like a tablet OS! Microsoft didn't leave well enough alone. I would gladly use Windows 10 if there was some mod to make Windows 10 look exactly like Windows 7.

I think the scaling issues are way overblown and exaggerated. Most of the programs I use scale good and I'm mostly worried about the scaling on websites, not so much on the OS.

 

[chenw]

For win 10, I use Classic Shell, which I had also used for Win 8.1, it makes the start button pop up a start menu, rather than the alphabetical order of programs on win 10 or the full screen program panels on win 8.1

The DPI scaling issue, for me at least, isn't actually limited to OS, a lot of games UI do not scale to resolution properly, making UI diminutively small on high PPI displays. My biggest offenders in this category are Dragon Age Origins, Civ 5, Mass effect and mass effect 3 (strangely, Mass Effect 2 does not suffer from this problem).

So with this in light, and after trying 32" 4k, I definitely prefer text that are legible at native without scaling, since that'll pretty much make sure all games, programs and websites work from the get-go, without having to deal with the hassles of DPI scaling.

 

[delita]

i'd recommend 4k to anyone if you have the space for 40+". I upgraded from 3440x1440 Gsync, yes, it was an ugprade - would never look back. Now I'm playing all the games that didn't get native Ultrawide support with a middle finger to the devs who wouldn't put in the work to make it happen. I miss Gsync but only BARELY - the colors on my Samsung are FAR better than anything Acer or ASUS could ever do on a display.

 

[nekrosoft13]

I do miss the 32 inch monitor, but I don't miss the AOC.

quest for looking for another monitor continues.

 

[magoo]

Im in the same boat.
I just bought a couple 1080 Ti and I want to change monitors.
Currently I use three 24" Dell 1220p in Surround. It has been great for gaming, but I think 4K is probably the way to go.

I'd like a single 40 or so inch screen.

I'm open to any suggestions.

 

[Mad Maxx]

Im in the same boat.
I just bought a couple 1080 Ti and I want to change monitors.
Currently I use three 24" Dell 1220p in Surround. It has been great for gaming, but I think 4K is probably the way to go.

I'd like a single 40 or so inch screen.

I'm open to any suggestions.

43": Sony 43X800D (VA) or X800E (IPS)

49": Sony 49X900E and Samsung 49KS8000 (Flat) or 49KS8500 (Curved). All are VA.

 

[mazeroth]

I have a 40" Seiki Pro 4k monitor. I can't imagine a monitor smaller than 40" for 4k. It's essentially 4, 20 inch 1080p monitors. I wouldn't want to use 1080p on a monitor of 20 inches, but that's essentially what I'm doing with a 40 inch!

 

[MagnaMagicBtu]

I have a 40" Seiki Pro 4k monitor. I can't imagine a monitor smaller than 40" for 4k. It's essentially 4, 20 inch 1080p monitors. I wouldn't want to use 1080p on a monitor of 20 inches, but that's essentially what I'm doing with a 40 inch!

If you use scaling with 27-32" 4K then it looks really good. Everything has that smooth "retina" look.

 

[Comixbooks]

I have two 1440P monitors one is a 24" Dell and a 27" Swift I like the 24" better for most every game out there.

If I went 4K it would be something under 30" just because of how the eye focuses on big screens up close in like sitting in the front row of the movie theater.