Which 4k monitor to choose?

K

kapone

n00b
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
31
Guys, I know this gets asked too often, but I really need some opinions other than my own.

Right now, I'm using 6 monitors, which are a combination of old Dell 21", Samsung 24" and some newer LG 21:9 25" (2560x1080). I need that many monitors for work as well as trading, which requires a lot of screen real estate.

I'm at the point where I think some consolidation is called for. I'm gonna upgrade the monitors and the video card(s) to get a semblance of sanity.

My initial thought was to get the Phillips 4065UC or the Acer B326HK as the main monitor and still use some of the older monitors. However, the more I looked at my requirements, the more I realized, it just won't be enough. I kinda need three 4K monitors to get rid of all the older monitors, and gain some sanity and hopefully some more screen real estate.

With that in mind and the fact that I sit fairly close to my monitors, I started looking at smaller 4K monitors, which I intend to use in portrait mode with three going across. Obviously with portrait mode, I can't have monitors that are too tall, so I started looking at the Dell P2715Q. That monitor seems almost ideal. 4K, IPS etc etc.

My concern is that the Dot pitch will be too small even with me sitting close enough. I currently use both Windows 7 and OSX on this workstation (dual boot), and both will probably do scaling well enough, however, I'm hoping to NOT use scaling at all.

People who have used the Dell P2715Q, can you describe the experience with NO scaling? Unusable? Too small?

As an aside, I'm still looking at video cards to drive them, but still haven't decided. Probably a pair of GTX 970s. I don't game, but fast 2D response time is critical (trading) and having lots of VRAM is a good thing as the trading software loads a lot of charts.
 
Why not use one 40" 4K in the center and two 27" 1440p in the portrait mode on sides? The height and pixel density will be matched then and 40" in the center gives wider unobstructed field of view. 27" 4K have higher pixel density but that results in a very small fonts if ones want to use it fully, I think the 1440p density is better for the eyes. Note also the developing story about 40" 4K curved monitors, they are just coming as 4 K TV but should also come soon as monitors. 40" curved has better angle of view at edges. When looking for lots of VRAM the coming Titan X is unbeatable with12 GB :).
 
I did think about that. I went and looked at the 40" 4K monitors in Costco and Microcenter. Too big. As I said, I sit fairly close to my monitors (< 24") and at that distance the 40" is too big.

p.s. I have perfect 20/20 vision as such.
 
Your usage scenario BEGS for VA panels. :cool:
You need as much contrast and reading comfort as you can afford.
There is no reason to suffer IPS glow, backlight bleeding or lower contrast with your budget.:p

That said, i fear that 40" 4k pixels may be small enough to actually degrade your productivity, hence i suggest you to take a look at the HP envy 32 and the Benq BL3200PT, which are 32" 1440p VA panels.

The Philips 40" 4k has the best 4k monitor contrast and a bunch of other benefits, including out of the box support for PIP. But i am over 40y so i favor the 32" 1440p solution. :(
for the price asked for 2 Phipips you can buy 4-5 HP Envys
 
I'm not sure what "VA" has to do with my scenario, but I'm hoping these monitors will last me a few years. I'd imagine IPS panels will hold their value a bit better?
 
VA, IPS and TN are panel technologies, each with its own compromises.

VA is a panel tech that grants the deepest black levels, hence better contrast. Having more contrast means that you will work without suffering the eye blazing "grey" blacks of IPS panels. but do not take my word for granted, check this pic:

l77o.jpg


left: seiki 39" 4k VA panel, out of the box settings. right, Apple 30" 1600p IP`S, calibrated.
 
kapone said:
I did think about that. I went and looked at the 40" 4K monitors in Costco and Microcenter. Too big. As I said, I sit fairly close to my monitors (< 24") and at that distance the 40" is too big. p.s. I have perfect 20/20 vision as such.
Click to expand...

AFAIK the only 40"@4K monitor is by Philips and it is not generally available in shops, so what you have looked for there? Maybe the 40" you looked were not positioned correctly: you can not position it like typically people do with smaller monitors. 40" monitor has to be lowered down to touch the desktop.

Now if you are thinking about using 3x27" in portrait mode, how the single 40" might be too big?? The 3x27" will be even bigger, no???
 
there are 39-40" 4k TVs on display in some shops, even in my country.:)
 
geok1ng said:
VA, IPS and TN are panel technologies, each with its own compromises.

VA is a panel tech that grants the deepest black levels, hence better contrast. Having more contrast means that you will work without suffering the eye blazing "grey" blacks of IPS panels. but do not take my word for granted, check this pic:

<snip>

left: seiki 39" 4k VA panel, out of the box settings. right, Apple 30" 1600p IP`S, calibrated.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what a VA panel is.. :) What I meant was, I'm not sure my usage scenario dictates a VA panel in any specific way.
 
kapone said:
exactly. :) I looked at a 40" 4K TV, positioned myself how I would use it, and left. Too big.
Click to expand...

This is typical first reaction before starting using it. Note those brave souls which made the jump to the 40" tell there is no way of going back to their previous dwarf monitors which look ridiculous :D.
 
I need to have a lot of data on screen for work (real estate appraising). 40" 4k seems like a sweet spot. I curious, has anyone been comfortably using 4k 60hz 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 in a productivity environment? I'm getting impatient and have been thinking of pulling the trigger on a couple of those $400-$600 40" displays that have popped up around here recently, but it looks like none of them do full chroma.
 
catdogmouse said:
I need to have a lot of data on screen for work (real estate appraising). 40" 4k seems like a sweet spot. I curious, has anyone been comfortably using 4k 60hz 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 in a productivity environment? I'm getting impatient and have been thinking of pulling the trigger on a couple of those $400-$600 40" displays that have popped up around here recently, but it looks like none of them do full chroma.
Click to expand...

4:2:0 chroma is unusable for desktop usage as it makes fonts look muddy. You could drop down to 30 Hz and run in 4:4:4 though.
 
kapone said:
Oh, I know what a VA panel is.. :) What I meant was, I'm not sure my usage scenario dictates a VA panel in any specific way.
Click to expand...

well, a couple of years ago my wife started a Master Degree and i gave her a 24" VA panel to read and type. Not once during the period she asked for my Apple 30" IPS, despite the higher resolution. But during the months when my 39" 4k TV was functioning she time and again borrowed it to work.

Reading IS more comfortable with higher contrast. And modern VA panels match or surpass IPS panel is all relevant metrics but vertical viewing angle.

I suggest you consider going with 3x 32" 1440p VAs >> HP Envy / BL3200PT.
 
Just a thought, but how about three of those 21:9 monitors in a stacked configuration?
 
x3sphere said:
4:2:0 chroma is unusable for desktop usage as it makes fonts look muddy. You could drop down to 30 Hz and run in 4:4:4 though.
Click to expand...

I have a 28" Samsung 4k monitor, and I've used it at 30 Hz connected to my Surface Pro. I don't like it. And 28" at 4k is just too small.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Just a thought, but how about three of those 21:9 monitors in a stacked configuration?
Click to expand...

That's what I have in the "middle" of my configuration right now (with additional monitors on the sides). Three LG 25" 21:9 (2560x1080) monitors stacked horizontally, one on top of each other. While they are usable, they are a little too high vertically.

They give me 2560x3240 in the middle. A single 4K monitor (in portrait mode) will give me 2160x3840, which is....guess what, EXACT same number of pixels. :) And the 4K monitor in portrait mode will be easier from a vertical perspective.

I'm still worried that a 27" 4K will have too high a PPI (with no scaling), but I might just get one to test with. I think I may have to compromise just a teeny bit, and set Windows to 125% scaling for regular work (which even Windows 7 handles relatively OK) and change the font scaling in the trading software (thinkorswim), which it does allow.
 
kapone said:
I did think about that. I went and looked at the 40" 4K monitors in Costco and Microcenter. Too big. As I said, I sit fairly close to my monitors (< 24") and at that distance the 40" is too big.

p.s. I have perfect 20/20 vision as such.
Click to expand...

20/20 or no 20/20 without scaling you will appreciate the larger size... those icons/text will get tiny.
 
kapone said:
triple 2560x1440p monitors= 4320x2560, this is a healthy improvement over 3240x2560 of your current setup.

using 125% scaling completely defeats the purpose of going with higher resolution. 4k at 40" DPI is on par with 27" 1440p. If 27" 1440p is too small for you, 40" 4k is no better.

I just discovered a VA monitor with similar DPI to 27" '440p and 40" 4K:
Dell 2015H

This is a 19.5" 1080p VA monitor with a single VGA input. At $99 a piece it is small enough that you can organize your desktop as you want, without fear of ergonomic stress.

there are cheap displayport >VGA passive adapters to connect these to your PC, and likely displayport> VGA splitters as well.

VA, 60Hz, 1080p at 20", very cheap. I see nothing but qualities on this little beast:p

EDIT: i fear there may exist OS or driver limits that will limit you to using "only" 6x 1080p monitors at the same time without mirroing.:(
Click to expand...
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
27" 1440p is certainly not small for me. In fact the LG 25" 2560x1080 is also not small for me (no scaling), which is why I was potentially considering the 27" 4K.

Yes, I really do not want to use scaling at all per se, but if I have to compromise a bit, I will. Also, (hopefully) reducing the monitor count will help in reducing the cabling, power sockets, monitor stands etc etc. And if I need one huge space for "work" (which would be very helpful) I can open up some of my work applications on one of the 4K monitors full screen.

Can't do that with multiple smaller monitors. I don't have a particular preference of VA/IPS, as long as the monitor is "decent".
 
kapone said:
27" 1440p is certainly not small for me. In fact the LG 25" 2560x1080 is also not small for me (no scaling), which is why I was potentially considering the 27" 4K.

Yes, I really do not want to use scaling at all per se, but if I have to compromise a bit, I will. Also, (hopefully) reducing the monitor count will help in reducing the cabling, power sockets, monitor stands etc etc. And if I need one huge space for "work" (which would be very helpful) I can open up some of my work applications on one of the 4K monitors full screen.

Can't do that with multiple smaller monitors. I don't have a particular preference of VA/IPS, as long as the monitor is "decent".
Click to expand...

I think my Samsung 28" 4k display is too small. In terms of comparing it to a multi-monitor setup, imagine your workspace being made of 4 15" 1080p displays. Sure, you CAN make that work, but it just isn't that comfortable. It does look nice with display scaling on, but then you're losing the potential information density (in terms of what you can have on the screen).

Compare that to 40". At that size, it's more along the lines of 4 20" 1080p displays, which is much closer to a more comfortable standard size for that density, with all the other advantages you're looking for (cable management, etc).
 
catdogmouse said:
I think my Samsung 28" 4k display is too small. In terms of comparing it to a multi-monitor setup, imagine your workspace being made of 4 15" 1080p displays. Sure, you CAN make that work, but it just isn't that comfortable. It does look nice with display scaling on, but then you're losing the potential information density (in terms of what you can have on the screen).

Compare that to 40". At that size, it's more along the lines of 4 20" 1080p displays, which is much closer to a more comfortable standard size for that density, with all the other advantages you're looking for (cable management, etc).
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing. But I need more screen real estate than a single 4K monitor. And two 40"... :) Not gonna work. And with a 40" center monitor, adding additional (smaller) monitors on the sides becomes too wide a field of view.
 
kapone said:
Not disagreeing. But I need more screen real estate than a single 4K monitor. And two 40"... :) Not gonna work. And with a 40" center monitor, adding additional (smaller) monitors on the sides becomes too wide a field of view.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. I'd like more than one display, even if I get a 40" 4k screen, and I'm trying to figure out how to make that work, because one way or another, I'm gonna need a bigger desk. Also, there's something that seems strange about a dual 40" setup, so I almost feel like if I go multi with 40" screens, I've gotta go all the way to a triple monitor setup, and, well...
 
we are oversimplifying the problem. for a massive working wall like this we have a few variables. I would list them in order of importance :

1-size and ergonomics: it is no use to have more desktop area if one faces ergonomics stresses dealing with too much vertical or horizontal dimensions.

2-Contrast. All things equal a higher contrast monitor is better suited for this usage scenario.

3-Pixel density. Too much PPI will degrade the productivity, even if one can "see" with a very high PPI display, the reading effort could result in early working fatigue.

4-Desktop area: the bigger the total resolution, the more information can be shown.

5-Price, viewing angles, glow and backlight bleed.

I do understand that when upgrading monitors, one is tempted to increase resolution and PPI as much as possible. Such is the nature users of this site. [H]. But for stock trading i advise putting ergonomics above PPI and trying to minimize reading fatigue and not indulge the maximize resolution "upgraditis".

In PPI order:

27" 5120x2880 218 PPI

27" 3840x2160 163 PPI

28" 3840x2160 157 PPI

31" 4096x2160 149 PPI

32" 3840x2160 138 PPI

25" 2560x1080 111 PPI

40" 3840x2160 110 PPI

34" 3440x1440 110 PPI

20" 1920x1080 110 PPI

27" 2560x1440 109 PPI

30" 2560x1600 101 PPI

32" 2560x1440 92 PPI


looking at data, i reconsider my suggestion. If you are able to work with an IPS 2560x1080 25incher with 800:1 contrast, you will consider a VA 40" 3840x2160 with 4000:1 contrast a massive upgrade in readability.

go with the Philips/Seiki 40" 4k alternative and never look back:cool:
 
I get that....but...a single 4K is NOT enough, and I can't possible use two(or three) 40" monitors.
 
geok1ng said:
3-Pixel density. Too much PPI will degrade the productivity, even if one can "see" with a very high PPI display, the reading effort could result in early working fatigue.
Click to expand...

This is not correct as long as fonts are scaled.
 
kapone said:
I get that....but...a single 4K is NOT enough, and I can't possible use two(or three) 40" monitors.
Click to expand...

1x 40" 2160p = 8.294.400 pixels
6x 20" 1080p = 12.441.600 = 40" 4k + 2x20" 1080p
3x 27" 1440p= 11.059.200
5x 24" 1200p= 11.520.000--- This is a 94 PPI solution using 5 monitors in portrait.
5x 24" 1440p= 18.432.000 --- This is a 122 PPI solution, possibly not on sale in the USA.

Update. Acer has a 24" 1440p IPS with display port, which is more suitable for 5x portrait than the asus above.

check this video to see how 5x24" look side by side over a working desk.:eek:
 
I am studying further the 5x 24" portrait solution, and its a win-win situation. its width is 541mm, compare that to the 589mm height of the philips 40" 4k and you are looking at more than double the pixels, all the while lessening the vertical strain on your neck muscles in 10%. Even if you use "only" 3 of these, that is 11 million pixels.

or go PLP with 2x24" + 1x40", so you can keep the reading comfort of the main display while enjoying the increased PPI of the side panels. this so called "compromise" nets you ~15 million pixels stretched over a 1.5mx0.5m surface.
 
kapone said:
People who have used the Dell P2715Q, can you describe the experience with NO scaling? Unusable? Too small?
Click to expand...

I received my P2715Q today. I ran it for about 1 hour without scaling before changing it to +125%.

Normally, small fonts do not bother me at all. I like my apps compact. I have the LG34UM95 21x9 3440 x 1440 at work. I do not use scaling and my console apps (linux) run at 8-9pt font size.

Tried this on the 4k P2715Q. While the fonts are super crisp, I can't find them quickly if I take my eye off them, even briefly. My wife looked at the screen with no scaling. Her comment: "How are you able to even read that"? And she knows I like my fonts small.

I would say 125% up scaling makes the fonts about the same size at the LG34UM95. Maybe a little smaller still.

BTW, I LOVE the P2715Q so far. Great monitor for $500 bucks. I haven't put a lot of time into it yet, but appears it is exactly what I wanted for home. 4k, IPS, cheap, for programming, photography, very light gaming, movies.
 
Dr_Ick said:
I would say 125% up scaling makes the fonts about the same size at the LG34UM95. Maybe a little smaller still.
Click to expand...

But they look better than the same font on a same-sized 1080p or 1440p monitor, don't they?
 
Quartz-1 said:
But they look better than the same font on a same-sized 1080p or 1440p monitor, don't they?
Click to expand...

Worlds better. Fonts on the LG34UM95 are very crisp, and the P2715Q takes it to the next level.
I have an second 1080p monitor at work I use in portrait mode for email. I did not realize how "fuzzy" it was until I started
using the LG34UM95.
 
crb806 said:
can the philips BDM4065UC support 4:4:4 chroma in 4k at 60 hz?
Click to expand...

the 4:4:4 question only applies to HDMI TVs using YCbCr. The Philips is a Displayport monitor working under RGB. The short answer would be something like "4:4:4 is the only mode it knows how to work with"
 
kapone said:
My initial thought was to get the Phillips 4065UC or the Acer B326HK as the main monitor and still use some of the older monitors. However, the more I looked at my requirements, the more I realized, it just won't be enough. I kinda need three 4K monitors to get rid of all the older monitors, and gain some sanity and hopefully some more screen real estate.
Click to expand...

I have a total of four 4K displays. The models are as follows:

Samsung 28" U28D590 3840x2160 at 60Hz
Acer 28" B286HK 3840x2160 at 60Hz
Seiki 39" SE39UY04 3840x2160 at 30Hz
LG 55" UB8500 3840x2160 at 60Hz (via HDMI 2.0)

My experience and findings are very similar to that of Dr_Ick's post about the Dell P2715Q. Furthermore, beyond my empirically observations the antidotal responses I've come across from other 4K monitor users in the 27" to 28" range have been similar. Simply put, if you chose to go with a 27" to 28" 4K display you are more then likely going to need to implement some level of scaling. This is regardless of whether or not you have perfect 20/20 vision.

Whether or not this negates the benefits of going with a 4K display is debatable but likely depends on intended use.

In contrast a 40" or larger 4K display at 3840x2160 does not need scaling for comfortable use. I firmly believe that a 32" 4K 3840x2160 display would be the comfortable minimum size that most people would require in order to forgo scaling for daily use (although I don't currently own one).

Having said that the Acer B326HK you cited earlier does seem to be an interesting option. It's one of the lowest priced 32" 4K IPS displays I've seen recently or at least it was when I was looking into it some time ago. However, the market is always changing and currently the Seiki Pro SM40UNP 40" 4K monitor is up for pre-order at Amazon with its 32" brethren the Seiki SM32UNP soon to follow. Both monitors are to come in under $1000 USD with the 32" presumably lower in price then the 40". This should shift the price even lower then that of the Acer B326HK in theory since the Acer typically comes in at about ~$950.

So you have the choice. Get very comfortable with scaling on a ~27" 4K display or get a 32" or bigger 4k display.


kapone said:
As an aside, I'm still looking at video cards to drive them, but still haven't decided. Probably a pair of GTX 970s. I don't game, but fast 2D response time is critical (trading) and having lots of VRAM is a good thing as the trading software loads a lot of charts.
Click to expand...

I've actually been wondering how many 4K displays you can drive on a modern video card for a while now (for desktop use not gaming). Whatever the case you don't need a GTX 970 because the GTX 960 should be fine for 4K desktop use. I'm fairly sure the GTX 960 can run two 4K displays at 60Hz but I am unsure if it can push it to three. If the GTX 960 can drive three 4K displays at 60Hz then you would only need one card for a triple 32" 4K display setup.

If you want to go that route that is.
 
Octavean said:
I firmly believe that a 32" 4K 3840x2160 display would be the comfortable minimum size that most people would require in order to forgo scaling for daily use (although I don't currently own one).
Click to expand...

reading revews of 28/27 4k monitors, there are reports of the reviewer resorting to 125% font scaling as well, which translates ~135 PPI. So rest assured that your believe is justified by the reports of other users: 32" is about the as small as you wanna go with a 4k panel.

That said, the ergonomics of 30" displays are challenging to say the least, so there are many reasons to consider the 24" 1440p displays. they have a PPI density between a 40" 4k and a 32" 4k, but face less ergonomic strains in daily use. Benq is about to release the BL2420PT with a pivoting stand suited for multi-monitor setpups.
 
There are a lot of cards with more than 1 displayport. I'd think many of those could drive more than 1 4k monitor, at least for desktop use.
 
geok1ng said:
reading revews of 28/27 4k monitors, there are reports of the reviewer resorting to 125% font scaling as well, which translates ~135 PPI. So rest assured that your believe is justified by the reports of other users: 32" is about the as small as you wanna go with a 4k panel.

That said, the ergonomics of 30" displays are challenging to say the least, so there are many reasons to consider the 24" 1440p displays. they have a PPI density between a 40" 4k and a 32" 4k, but face less ergonomic strains in daily use. Benq is about to release the BL2420PT with a pivoting stand suited for multi-monitor setpups.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and I don't totally dissagree with it. This may well be applicable to the OP, however, in my case it is not. This is for a number of different reason but chief amount them is the need to get as much as possible onto the screen while still having everything easily legible without scaling.

So for example, let's say my Wife or I want to remotely access a system that has a native resolution of 2560x1440 but still want to access a local system simultaneously. If the local monitor is at a 1:1 to the remote system at the same 2560x1440 then there is no room left. This would easily be addressed with a multi-monitor 2560x1440 setup, a 4K monitor or a multi-4K monitor setup.

However that is only part of it.

The situation is more like this example:
One initially-skeptical colleague fired up his code editor, took a moment to savor the spectacle, and then the epiphany: "I didn't really get it until just now." Four editors side-by-side each with over a hundred lines of code, and enough room to spare for a project navigator, console, and debugger. Enough room to visualize the back-end service code, the HTML template, the style-sheet, the client-side script, and the finished result in a web browser—all at once without one press of Alt-tab.
Click to expand...
http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers

My Wife is a developer / programmer and can really benefit from even a single 4K monitor but it must be 32" in size at least. For 5K, such a monitor would probably have to be at least 40" as the new minimum. A 27" 2560x144 monitor is fine but not ideal. I would actually describe 2560x1440 a minimum and a 2560x1440 monitor in the 32" or larger range adds nothing of significance,.....in our case.

I could put three 32" 4K monitors on my desk easily enough. I could probably fit three 40" 4K monitors on my desk as well but they would have to be rotated in portrait mode.

As for the OP, I don't really know. It's hard for me to visualize the way the OP needs to work and what kind of physical space the OP is working with in terms of desk area. However, if the OP wants to consolidate multiple monitors into fewer 4K monitors smaller then 40" I don't see a better option them two or three 4K monitors at a minimum of 32". This is the option that will likely result in the fewest necessary number of monitors and possibly the fewest number of video cards.
 
mjoe said:
there's no single gpu that can support multiple 4k displays
Click to expand...

You might want to look into that assertion a bit more. Recall that we are talking about desktop use not gaming use. I'll provide the following quotes and links to support my argument. I understand in your case it's hard to prove a negative.

There's a single DVI and HDMI, and you get three DisplayPort connectors, which solves one of the problems with previous-generation high-end Nvidia cards. With previous-generation cards from Nvidia, there was only one DisplayPort, which meant you couldn’t connect up more than one 4K display running at 60Hz, or one monitor with the company’s image-smoothing G-Sync technology. Therefore, high-end multiple-monitor setups required owning and installing multiple cards purely for connectivity purposes.

With the GeForce GTX 960, as well as the higher-end GTX 970 and 980, you can connect three of these monitors to a single card (though, if that’s your aim, you need at least a couple GTX 980 cards for reasonable gaming performance). Also, the HDMI port here is also of the brand-new 2.0 variety, so it, too, can push 4K resolution at 60Hz to a compatible 4K screen.
Click to expand...

http://www.computershopper.com/components/reviews/msi-geforce-gtx-960-gaming-2g

4K²: With its HDMI and DisplayPort ports, the Palit JetStream provides a flawless, jaw dropping experience at Dual 4K monitors.
Click to expand...

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/209145/palit-announces-its-geforce-gtx-960-series.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top