![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
4k Monitor - a users impressions
I just got a 28" 4k monitor so I would like to share my experience(s) along the way. Feel free to ask any questions you may have as information was very sparse as I was looking into the purchase.
I found this Windows 8.1 Scaling article very interesting.
While this article demonstrates some of the questions I had such as are things 1/4 of the size, I haven't ran into anything which is a deal-breaker.
[timg]http://winblog.blob.core.windows.net/win/sites/2/2013/07/Windows_2D00_8.1_2D00_Calc_2D00_Overlapping_2D00_Displays_2D00_Wide_5F00_174D6039.jpg[/timg]
My setup:
Windows 8.1
4770k/16GB/5ssd&hdds/Z87
R9 290x crossfire (reference)
28" AOC U2868PQU
Mouse & 4k:
Logitech G502 Proteus core which I wrote a little about.
I mention the mouse specifically for a good reason, 4k is a ton of real estate coming from 1080p or similar. It would literally take 4x as much mouse movement without adjusting the speed or DPI rate.
I found myself going from around 1500-3000 DPI (probably under 2000DPI in FPS to retain accuracy) to ~5-7000 DPI. Ironically 7000 DPI would feel a bit "jumpy" for lack of a better term on 1080p or similar resolutions but feels a lot more accurate in 4k.
Size 28" and 4k
I was hoping for a 32" (or so) 4k display since the DPI is very high in 28".
I have used various displays extensively such as 26" 1200p, 27" 120Hz 1080p which I found too pixelated (overly large pixels), ~24-26" 1080p, 22" 1680x1050, etc.
I am very satisfied with 28" so far. The DPI is high and text looks especially crisp and clear. It makes a huge difference having the extra DPI, similar to the crisp display on the retina phones (when that was "new" and coming from old tiny screens with huge visible pixels).
Scaling and setup
I was concerned that Windows wouldn't be very usable as far as everything being 1/4 of the size. I haven't done much but I have checked that my commonly used applications scale perfectly. Some details are small (the clock for example but I can still easily read it) however nothing has bothered me thus far.
The monitor only required twisting the base to the swivelable arm coming from the display.
I simply plugged in the display to my running computer via the DisplayPort cable and it was automatically setup by pressing windows + P to extend the desktop with a 1200p 26" display. Between Windows and AMD drivers it was plug and play and chose a good scale. I just checked windows and it had automatically put scaling of 150% which I didn't know but everything was very legible. I tested "smaller 100%" and the text and all of my open windows are considerably smaller. I guess this is how it would look without scaling at all. My eyesight is excellent and I sit close enough so I could work with 100% scaling but I would guess that many people would prefer the 125 or 150% scaling to see everything in a closer size to their old displays. It is interesting to see that Windows automatically set that and it was a very nice setting. I will try 125% to get the most space for productivity. With 125% scaling it is still relatively small, but I can keep multiple windows open and have a couple side by side with ease and room to spare.
100% scaling difference in size (28" 4k next to 26" 1900x1200)
Note how much more of the picture fits on the screen! It's way more detailed.
On a side note, Windows doesn't seem to set the scaling for individual displays which seems like a bad default. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. When I changed 100%->125% both displays were at 125% although I didn't tick the checkbox to apply the setting to all displays.
Productivity
With 125% scaling it's basically possible to get 3 windows side by side provided you sit close enough to read the text. AT on the left has smaller font than the middle and right browsers and would probably need to be zoomed in slightly, although that demonstrates the difference in scalability between chrome and Firefox. Firefox scales websites better and they seem to be 125% by default with windows 125% scaling. I think a 32" or so would be better and if it's big enough to be legible you could use 100% scaling and quite easily get 3-4 windows side by side.
I assume this screen shot will be mangled unless viewed on 4k. :S It will be hard to tell but 3 windows is doable when close enough although text is relatively small. It doesn't even feel as small as some laptops with 1080p.
Multimedia
720p videos look pretty good, when they are actual size (small on the display) they look amazing. 4k content will be beautiful and detailed when it finally starts becoming mainstream.
Pictures look amazing, it has much more detail and you can see a lot of detail.
Games
Games and productivity are the two reasons I wanted 4k. Playing with multiple windows open works well, although I can see the few extra inches could help in that way. There is plenty of room with multiple documents open.
I've only played a few games so far but Bioshock and BF4 in particular are great in 4k. I use mantle in BF4 and it plays very smoothly in the gameplay so far with max settings. The 290x's are finally being utilized to the full extent.
Drivers
So far I have only experienced a "blank" screen while playing an old steam game which I had to edit a file to get 4k to show up in the resolutions. Gaming in Bioshock and BF4 works amazingly smoothly with XDMA crossfire which is excellent since we need dual cards to max the settings in 4k. A single high-end card could still give you a good experience without e.g. AA, but definitely can't run max settings.
Side notes:
I've noticed an occasional flicker near the bottom left throughout about half of the width in a row or so of pixels so I'm not sure if I'll return the screen. :S
I'm considering trying out the Windows 10 technical preview just to see if they have improved 4k in any way.
tldr;
4k is great, try it! Get a good mouse and GPU or two and enjoy.
I just got a 28" 4k monitor so I would like to share my experience(s) along the way. Feel free to ask any questions you may have as information was very sparse as I was looking into the purchase.
I found this Windows 8.1 Scaling article very interesting.
While this article demonstrates some of the questions I had such as are things 1/4 of the size, I haven't ran into anything which is a deal-breaker.
[timg]http://winblog.blob.core.windows.net/win/sites/2/2013/07/Windows_2D00_8.1_2D00_Calc_2D00_Overlapping_2D00_Displays_2D00_Wide_5F00_174D6039.jpg[/timg]
My setup:
Windows 8.1
4770k/16GB/5ssd&hdds/Z87
R9 290x crossfire (reference)
28" AOC U2868PQU
Mouse & 4k:
Logitech G502 Proteus core which I wrote a little about.
I mention the mouse specifically for a good reason, 4k is a ton of real estate coming from 1080p or similar. It would literally take 4x as much mouse movement without adjusting the speed or DPI rate.
I found myself going from around 1500-3000 DPI (probably under 2000DPI in FPS to retain accuracy) to ~5-7000 DPI. Ironically 7000 DPI would feel a bit "jumpy" for lack of a better term on 1080p or similar resolutions but feels a lot more accurate in 4k.
Size 28" and 4k
I was hoping for a 32" (or so) 4k display since the DPI is very high in 28".
I have used various displays extensively such as 26" 1200p, 27" 120Hz 1080p which I found too pixelated (overly large pixels), ~24-26" 1080p, 22" 1680x1050, etc.
I am very satisfied with 28" so far. The DPI is high and text looks especially crisp and clear. It makes a huge difference having the extra DPI, similar to the crisp display on the retina phones (when that was "new" and coming from old tiny screens with huge visible pixels).
Scaling and setup
I was concerned that Windows wouldn't be very usable as far as everything being 1/4 of the size. I haven't done much but I have checked that my commonly used applications scale perfectly. Some details are small (the clock for example but I can still easily read it) however nothing has bothered me thus far.
The monitor only required twisting the base to the swivelable arm coming from the display.
I simply plugged in the display to my running computer via the DisplayPort cable and it was automatically setup by pressing windows + P to extend the desktop with a 1200p 26" display. Between Windows and AMD drivers it was plug and play and chose a good scale. I just checked windows and it had automatically put scaling of 150% which I didn't know but everything was very legible. I tested "smaller 100%" and the text and all of my open windows are considerably smaller. I guess this is how it would look without scaling at all. My eyesight is excellent and I sit close enough so I could work with 100% scaling but I would guess that many people would prefer the 125 or 150% scaling to see everything in a closer size to their old displays. It is interesting to see that Windows automatically set that and it was a very nice setting. I will try 125% to get the most space for productivity. With 125% scaling it is still relatively small, but I can keep multiple windows open and have a couple side by side with ease and room to spare.
100% scaling difference in size (28" 4k next to 26" 1900x1200)
Note how much more of the picture fits on the screen! It's way more detailed.
On a side note, Windows doesn't seem to set the scaling for individual displays which seems like a bad default. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. When I changed 100%->125% both displays were at 125% although I didn't tick the checkbox to apply the setting to all displays.
Productivity
With 125% scaling it's basically possible to get 3 windows side by side provided you sit close enough to read the text. AT on the left has smaller font than the middle and right browsers and would probably need to be zoomed in slightly, although that demonstrates the difference in scalability between chrome and Firefox. Firefox scales websites better and they seem to be 125% by default with windows 125% scaling. I think a 32" or so would be better and if it's big enough to be legible you could use 100% scaling and quite easily get 3-4 windows side by side.
I assume this screen shot will be mangled unless viewed on 4k. :S It will be hard to tell but 3 windows is doable when close enough although text is relatively small. It doesn't even feel as small as some laptops with 1080p.
Multimedia
720p videos look pretty good, when they are actual size (small on the display) they look amazing. 4k content will be beautiful and detailed when it finally starts becoming mainstream.
Pictures look amazing, it has much more detail and you can see a lot of detail.
Games
Games and productivity are the two reasons I wanted 4k. Playing with multiple windows open works well, although I can see the few extra inches could help in that way. There is plenty of room with multiple documents open.
I've only played a few games so far but Bioshock and BF4 in particular are great in 4k. I use mantle in BF4 and it plays very smoothly in the gameplay so far with max settings. The 290x's are finally being utilized to the full extent.
Drivers
So far I have only experienced a "blank" screen while playing an old steam game which I had to edit a file to get 4k to show up in the resolutions. Gaming in Bioshock and BF4 works amazingly smoothly with XDMA crossfire which is excellent since we need dual cards to max the settings in 4k. A single high-end card could still give you a good experience without e.g. AA, but definitely can't run max settings.
Side notes:
I've noticed an occasional flicker near the bottom left throughout about half of the width in a row or so of pixels so I'm not sure if I'll return the screen. :S
I'm considering trying out the Windows 10 technical preview just to see if they have improved 4k in any way.
tldr;
4k is great, try it! Get a good mouse and GPU or two and enjoy.
If not.. then a 4k when they mature a bit. And maybe new radeon cards too by then. The 290's sure went through the floor boards in the past few weeks. lol.