What Resolution Makes Sense for the Next 5 Years?

What Resolution Makes Sense for the Next 5 Years?


  • Total voters
    84

skeeder

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,316
Simple poll since my head is SPINNING.

I'm upgrading my main desktop. My current monitor is on it's last leg. I want to replace this monitor with one that will last for about 10 years without feeling the monitor upgrade itch. So, I'm looking for something that I can run and have some real estate in pixels for several years without feeling like an idiot for going too small.

But--I also game, not heavily, but enough that I need to drive what I get. I will build my machine to handle whatever size I get--that being said, I'm not interested in SLI or running a computer that is worth more than my car so a single card for the next couple years will have to work. I'm not really interested in 144hz or TN panels, so for the most part, assume 60hz.

I was leaning towards a 4K display because I could always turn the resolution down to 1080p and not have too jagged of lines (not sure if this really works well in practice). I love the idea of the ultra-wide (hate the cost of the 3440x1440 models).

What do you guys think makes the most sense? What do you guys run? Do you like it?
 
4k will eventually be a single card resolution. It almost is already with the GTX 1080 at 60hz.

If you don't mind 60hz I think something like 32" or above at 4k is a good place to start. At 60hz cap I'm not sure there is a huge benefit to G sync or free sync either assuming you can consistently hit 60fps.

For size, go to a store and just compare monitor or small TV sizes and see what Iooks good to you. I have a BenQ BL3201PH which is an IPS 32" 4K which got a good review from PCmonitors.info. I sit maybe 2 feet from it and it's perfect. But, some people who see it think I'm crazy. To each their own.

I think they have a newer version of this model coming out soon though.
 
4k is the target resolution for the next 5y, but today only 3440x1440 offer high refresh rate, and the max resolution with a strobing backlight is 2560x1440.
 
7680x4320 :cool:.

But seriously, 4K might by the standard in 5 years. It's almost there in the new TV market. In the PC gaming world I definitely think it is going to be feasible for a mainstream single card come the next generation (2 or so years from now).
 
I game at 4K or 1080p on my 48" Samsung JS9000 with a 980 Ti SC+ and love it. I'm not a competitive gamer or frame rate whore so have the luxury of not needing the absolute latest/greatest graphics hardware. I'm not considering any upgrade until we see what it takes to play Mass Effect 4. If I can play well at 1080p with my current card then I won't upgrade at all.
 
4k TVs will become mainstream, yes, but 4k content adaptation and 4k viable mid range GPU's might take longer than expected (IE it will be a while to go before we start seeing GPUs in the 950 price range that can drive 4k like 950 itself can drive 1080p).

Personally, I believe high refresh 4k is the go to monitor, though I personally prefer high refresh over high resolution for 'future proofing' purposes.
 
4K as a Standard in maybe 5 years but not now the problem is Games keep getting more demanding so replacing video cards like every year would be necessary. I voted 1440P that way you don't have to worry about Frame Rate drops.
 
I'm struggling with this as well. I can go 1440p or 4k but I know that I can get fully maxed 1080p for a song compared to pushing either one of others two near max. It is a tough call. I'm probably going to go 4k and play @ 1080p.
 
I'm struggling with this as well. I can go 1440p or 4k but I know that I can get fully maxed 1080p for a song compared to pushing either one of others two near max. It is a tough call. I'm probably going to go 4k and play @ 1080p.

Good to know I'm not alone. I'm leaning towards the 27" 4k route so 1080p wouldn't be unbearable.
 
27" 2560x1440 display is the perfect size IMO. But i know that marketing will make 4k the next 1080p and soon that will be the norm.
 
I have a 27" 1080p and I tried out the 2k oversampling on my NVidia card and it just doesn't scale that well for me. I would need like a 32" for 2K and probably a 40" for 4K. Having screens that big on my desk just doesn't seem feasible really. Maybe the 32" but no way a 40 incher.

I'm a semi old bastard with glasses..FYI
 
If I were buying right now, I'd go with a 27" or 28" 4k display, since those sizes offer what I believe is the best pixel pitch for a 4k display. All the larger displays are doing is spreading the pixels apart and increasing the pixel pitch. That's OK if you're sure you're going to be sitting farther away but for a desktop system, I personally would stick with a smaller pixel pitch. There are a few smaller but 27" or 28" seems to offer the widest selection. I would also look for display port rather than HDMI or DVI.
 
If you're buying it to last 5yr 4K 16:9 is the way to go IMO. Just make sure you get it a decent (35"+, 40" is best IMO) size because scaling still isn't all that great even with windows 10 and lots of old software just still will not scale well no matter what you do.


edit: it looks 'great' for you, most everyone else cannot tolerate that resolution on that small of a screen, which is why you see so many people trying to use bigger TV screens as monitors at 4K resolution
|
|
\/
 
Last edited:
I have a 27" 4k. It looks great at 4k but games do not look good at all at 1080p. Plus there's noticeable input lag at 1080p compared to 4k (Dell P2715Q)
 
I think 1440p is good because it works perfectly fine right now. Plus you can drive a 1440p monitor with a single video card without difficulty.
 
I would break my neck trying to use that at my computer desk. And gaming would be impossible.

If you flashmount 40" to desk level, then the center of the screen is just where 27" on a mount/pedestal usually is. Then, given the same pixel pitch, you just have more screen area at the left, at the right, at the top, and at the bottom. Why in the world you think starring at the void space between bottom bezel and your desk surface is in any way engaging?

Impossibility of gaming on UHD screen is urban legend, propagated by those who refuse to admit that couple useless ultrahigh game settings have less visual impact than pixel count.
 
If you flashmount 40" to desk level, then the center of the screen is just where 27" on a mount/pedestal usually is. Then, given the same pixel pitch, you just have more screen area at the left, at the right, at the top, and at the bottom. Why in the world you think starring at the void space between bottom bezel and your desk surface is in any way engaging?
I like my screens close to my face, i can't stand playing on a tv even if it is mounted to where my viewing area would be the same as a 27". My monitor is adjusted to where when i sit in my chair i am looking dead center of the screen so im not looking at the bottom bezel of my monitor.
 
I like my screens close to my face, i can't stand playing on a tv even if it is mounted to where my viewing area would be the same as a 27". My monitor is adjusted to where when i sit in my chair i am looking dead center of the screen so im not looking at the bottom bezel of my monitor.

"Close" means nothing. My viewing position is 22- 24" from the screen, which I didn't change since the time when I used 27". Knowing that human angular resolution is about one arc minute, this is the optimal viewing distance for 100 ppi monitor. Get yourself closer and you'll start recognizing individual pixels. To assert that 40" monitor is a TV at my desk is just pure nonsense. It is IMAX theater; one step towards ultra high resolution virtual reality set.
 
"Close" means nothing. My viewing position is 22- 24" from the screen, which I didn't change since the time when I used 27". Knowing that human angular resolution is about one arc minute, this is the optimal viewing distance for 100 ppi monitor. Get yourself closer and you'll start recognizing individual pixels. To assert that 40" monitor is a TV at my desk is just pure nonsense. It is IMAX theater; one step towards ultra high resolution virtual reality set.
If i have a 40" screen as close to my face as i currently have my 27 i wouldn't be able to see shit. From my chair to my monitor it is about 18-20" how would a 40" screen be viewable without having to turn my head if i want to look at the whole screen. I prefer to just move my eyes which my 27" is perfect for. Now i dont really know what flashmount is so im a little ignorant on that. But i have tried using a 40" screen that was further away and i hated it because i couldnt see text and everything just felt so far away. I assumed it was a TV because 40" TV's are more common than 40" monitors, regardless though its still a 40" display. And i dont know how that would be comfortable to look at with it being 22-24" away without having to move your head around which IMO is not something you want to do when playing CS or any other fast shooter.
 
If you could do 21:9 with bars it might be ok set back a bit, with desktop real estate of 4k available outside of games. Some 4k tvs do have fairly low input lag (around 15ms), and some 60hz 4k tvs can do 120hz native input at 1080p. What they don't have is modern gaming overdrive nor variable hz tech.

There are high hz 4k and 21:9 monitors coming out later this year and into next so it's a bad time to buy now imo.

I'd say let your gpu budget be the determining factor. Some current games can get over 100fps-hz average on a single gtx 1080 at 2560 x 1440 but the graphics ceilings aren't going to get any lower going forward.

I'd probably get a 1080p high hz + variable hz screen if I had a mid range gpu budget, 2560 x 1440 with single 1080 if willing to turn graphics down a bit on some titles, 3440 x 1440 , 144hz+ variable hz monitor if I were shooting for 1080 or 1080ti sli.

You could get all lot out of that for 5 years. Within that 5 years, oled and full hdr spec range capable monitors will probably be out, and eventually I'd guess another generation of vr hardware.
 
Last edited:
If you're buying it to last 5yr 4K 16:9 is the way to go IMO. Just make sure you get it a decent (35"+, 40" is best IMO) size because scaling still isn't all that great even with windows 10 and lots of old software just still will not scale well no matter what you do.


edit: it looks 'great' for you, most everyone else cannot tolerate that resolution on that small of a screen, which is why you see so many people trying to use bigger TV screens as monitors at 4K resolution
|
|
\/

Or use 3rd party utilities (like Winaerotweater that is free) to change the fonts and font-sizing and get whatever size-class you want and not be captive. 137 DPI is much better than 99 to 110DPI on fonts, once you take the time to get the interface tweaked. Segoe at stock is thoroughly awful. Not a good font face, and the tuning of sizing is a bad choice as well.
 
For sure 4K.

And dont get anything less that 40".

At 40" you basically are looking at 4x1080p 20" monitors, with no need for bezels, eyefinity or surround. Very nice.
 
Back
Top