am i the only one that doesn't care about 4k?

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,123
maybe i'm getting old, maybe i'm just a cheapskate, or maybe it's because i take off my glasses when i'm gaming on my PC. or maybe all 3. i really could care less about 4k. it's not that i hate it or anything, just indifferent and no desire to plunk down my money on it.

consider this: when i build a new gaming PC i no longer buy high end hardware. i try to buy the best bang for the buck, usually midrange or the high end of the midrange. if the part can perform within 80% of the top end for half the price, i'm a very happy boy! i build with some future upgrades in mind such as ram, replace video card maybe after 2-3 years, little stuff like that.

at the end of it all, i want that system to last me as long as possible. i think my last build went for about 8 years before i let it go. sure i overclock to push it further, don't we all...so when i look at the performance hit required to run games at 4k....all i can think is 'why?'. i'd need to buy higher end parts and upgrade more frequently costing me more money. personally i find 1080 to be very high quality (yeah i'm comparing to playing quake 2 at 800x600 back in the day) and i'd rather just top out the detail settings and AA to make it look even better.

once midrange video cards are able to run 4k well i'm sure i'll change my tune, but i'm not anxious for it or anything.

maybe i'm just turning into an old cynic. either that or i need some new games worth playing :p
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,647
4K is great, and it does look much better (especially as you get to bigger display sizes). While 4K TVs can be found for cheap, there is an argument that the extra cost of the PC to run it is not worth it.

I think if your monitor is in the 27" range, 1440p is more than enough, and can be powered by a single reasonably priced card. Even 1080p can still look good. I have a 125" 1080p projector, and games honestly look fine.
 

Kdawg

Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
979
I have been using 40+ inch 4k's for the past few months, and can't go back to 1080p.

For non-gaming...
I don't have to scroll as much.
Viewing websites in 1920x2160 half-screen never gets old.
Viewing google maps in full 4k and being able to see everything at once.
Switching between windows without alt-tabbing because you can tile 4 windows.

Once you go 4k, 1080p looks gay.
 

deaedius

Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
973
I am mixed, I do game at 4k but it is on my TV when used as a primary monitor. Otherwise it is 1080p, none the less I enjoy the games! The extra eye candy of 4k is amazing though.
 

MixManSC

║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█
Staff member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,055
Not useful on anything less than a 30" screen imo. Maybe its just cause I'm getting old and need glasses anymore but on a smaller screen 4K makes everything too tiny. Now at home on the 55" OLED, yeah its awesome on that and I can read the text from across the room. :)
 

jhatfie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,462
.... My next jump might be to 21:9 3440x1440 which is only approx. 5MP as opposed to approx 8MP for 4K and within reach of more affordable hardware.
I like the idea of going 4k, but I am thinking something similar, although I tried 34" for a while and was not super pleased with the shortened vertical height compared to my Omen, I am never-the-less eyeballing the 38" 21:9's like a Acer XR382CQK which similarly undercuts the performance needed for 4k with 2MP less at 3840x1600.
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
I'm with you THRESHIN. I'm still running 1080p (with a 2nd monitor for productivity) because there is just no way I could justify/afford the cost of graphics card upgrades (both present and future) to run games at 4K, especially if the market situation of the last couple years continues. I've always leaned more towards performance/smoothness rather than absolute graphical fidelity too.

Even if money was no object I think I'd have a hard time going back to 60hz too, although that soon won't be an issue (if you have the money) at 4K anymore.

It's all about your individual preferences and budget really. The majority of gamers are still running 1080p, and 1440p is more common than 4K as well (at least on PC). Tech/hardware sites just like to cover the latest, fastest, juciest stuff of course and I don't mind checking it out. :) I'm just never going to buy it.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
248
In my books 4K doesn't exist before there is a single GPU that will run newest games easily at 100 minimum FPS max settings. In other words, check back sometime in 2020's.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,598
I was skeptical about high DPI until I bought a laptop with a 13: 3200x1800 (280 DPI) screen. At a normal sitting distance I can't see the pixels of my 100 DPI monitors; but the high DPI screen on the laptop is noticeably sharper making everything look better and smaller text easier to read. ex At the max distance my 100 dpi monitors are readable at 100% scaling I can run my laptop at 2:1 (140 DPI equivalent) and despite being 30% shorter the text is easier to read.

I'd jump on a 32" 6-8k display if I could have it for $2k or so (Dell's $5000ish 8k one is way too expensive) for general use even though it's going to be several years before I could game on it at native resolution.
 

Daffan

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
92
4k at 32" minimum. 4k at 27" is almost a waste of GPU really, unless your playing some crap game and can spare the performance.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,602
I'm currently using a 27" 1080P 120hz monitor. I have already been in a number of positions where I could have replaced it with a 27" 4K 60hz monitor for cheap. I even have a 27" 1440P 60hz monitor sitting on my floor right now. To me, 120hz vs 60hz is more important than 1080P vs 4K or 1440P. Another contributing factor is my GPU setup, using 3x GTX680 in SLI. Almost all of the games I care about actually work with triple-SLI just fine, but the cards have 2GB VRam which would not produce good results if I increased my resolution. I look forward to getting a new GPU once prices are no longer over-inflated due to currency mining, then maybe 120hz+ 4K monitors will be in my price range.
 

SticKx911

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
2,354
I'm pretty sure this is budget argument. I still game on a 720p 50" plasma and I'm fine with it. I bet the 4k would look awesome, but I just can't afford to upgrade. That money is needed elsewhere. So if my gaming budget allows me to buy a game or upgrade hardware... I'll go with the game. Eventually, sure I'll upgrade, but do I feel like I'm missing out on an experience just because of resolution? Not at all.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,672
4K is a game changer for me.. As games are becoming more and more detailed, I was having difficulty tracking enemies in modern shooters... I had chalked this up to more geometry on the screen causing busy work for my eyes....but I now see that its a lack of clarity when comparing 1440p IPS/TN vs 4k OLED.

Halo 5 and Madden 18 are memorizing one the new XboxOneX @ 4k 60hz when paired with an LG 4k OLED.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,471
You can get a 4k monitor now and game at 1080P if your hardware can't handle 4k. You can still consume media at 4k and then save up until you can afford a 1080Ti. Or if you play older games that aren't as taxing. You could also get a 1440P monitor for gaming and then a 4k TV and stream your media to it.
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,099
No, you're not the only one. :)

A display needs to be so large for 4K that it doesn't appeal me, I'm not overly into high PPI either, as in too high and I like it less, ideally I'd like around 96 PPI which would mean a massive size for 4K. Already 27" @ 1440p feels slightly too high PPI for my tastes, 31.5" @ 1440p for me is preferable.

Dimensions on stuff on screen simply get unrealisticly small in proportions with high PPI which is non-appealing to me, especially in games, for me it's a balance between image quality vs believability in this sense, for me roughly 96 PPI or so would be ideal to me, 93 PPI being the closest I've experienced on a 31.5" @ 1440p. I'm currently on 24.5" 1080p 240Hz but I'd switch to a nice 1440p 31.5" 144Hz(+) non curved, preferably ISP display if one surfaces in the future which is the format I'd expect to keep for another 7 years or so.
 
Last edited:

_l_

I Am A Cock
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
I'm with ya on the 4K thing (also getting old and take off glasses when gaming)

4K gaming is the cutting edge and therefore ... it'll cost mucho dinero. Anything cutting edge is usually very expensive for not that much improvement really, depending. Unless someone plans to buy two GTX 1080 Ti's why do 4K? Also, I've read complainst about lack of good support with recent game titles regarding SLI implementation. With one 1080 Ti @ 4K you'll wind up turning down the eye candy - the very reason you bought 4K hardware to begin with. GTX 1070 is more than plenty for 1080p gaming, gives nice smooth game play with the proper CPU / mem combo.
 

Daffan

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
92
You can get a 4k monitor now and game at 1080P if your hardware can't handle 4k. You can still consume media at 4k and then save up until you can afford a 1080Ti. Or if you play older games that aren't as taxing. You could also get a 1440P monitor for gaming and then a 4k TV and stream your media to it.
I tried this on my 28" 4k (I've now sold it months ago) and it doesn't work that well, it's blurry.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,657
I want 4K more for desktop than gaming. I think it makes a big difference in how good text looks to read, meaning it makes it look almost like reading a book. Using 4K without display scaling is not a good idea, even on my 65" 4K TV everything is tiny without scaling.

For gaming I don't feel 4K necessarily gives a huge edge if you are already gaming at 1440p. I tried Titanfall 2 PC demo version at 4K and compared it to the PS4 Pro version I already had that runs at 1440p and to be honest the 4K didn't make a huge difference for that game, not enough for me to care when playing. It's a game by game difference, for example GTA V benefits from the higher res as small details in the distance are resolved cleaner.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
272
No, you're not the only one. :)

A display needs to be so large for 4K that it doesn't appeal me, I'm not overly into high PPI either, as in too high and I like it less, ideally I'd like around 96 PPI which would mean a massive size for 4K. Already 27" @ 1440p feels slightly too high PPI for my tastes, 31.5" @ 1440p for me is preferable.

Dimensions on stuff on screen simply get unrealisticly small in proportions with high PPI which is non-appealing to me, especially in games, for me it's a balance between image quality vs believability in this sense, for me roughly 96 PPI or so would be ideal to me, 93 PPI being the closest I've experienced on a 31.5" @ 1440p. I'm currently on 24.5" 1080p 240Hz but I'd switch to a nice 1440p 31.5" 144Hz(+) non curved, preferably ISP display if one surfaces in the future which is the format I'd expect to keep for another 7 years or so.
I'm with you on PPI. 96 PPI is what Windows is based around, and I don't get why panel manufacturers don't cut in sizes that accommodate this. Microsoft itself does this like with the Surface that is 192 PPI, which is 2x 96 PPI. 1440p should ideally be cut in a size that is 30.5".

Ironically, 31.5" panels would be 96 PPI if they were cut for 1600p (16:10 ratio).

IMO, the ideal experience for 4K in a destktop setting includes running at 100% scale while also giving the feel of around 96 PPI. Such a panel size works out to be 46" (45.9" to be exact, but close enough for marketing and manufacturing purposes). I believe LG has said it intends to focus on the 40" range in 2018. PC users who are looking for a great 4K desktop experience should hope for 46".

Using 4K without display scaling is not a good idea, even on my 65" 4K TV everything is tiny without scaling.
This makes no sense, and 65" is pretty massive. Are you using your TV with an HTPC and sitting 8-10 feet away? 4K at 65" works out to be around 68 PPI. That's actually pretty large running an unscaled desktop environment.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,657
This makes no sense, and 65" is pretty massive. Are you using your TV with an HTPC and sitting 8-10 feet away? 4K at 65" works out to be around 68 PPI. That's actually pretty large running an unscaled desktop environment.
At the distance I watch TV (about 2m) I need scaling to be able to click icons and in general operate the OS if using on the TV. Obviously at desktop view distances this would be different but it would be ridiculous to use a huge display like that at that distance, you'd break your neck trying to see the corners.
 

hlfbkd420

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
280
I honestly love my LG 34" 21:9 @ 3440x1440.... Best monitor I have ever owned. I will give up *moar pixels* for a wider FOV..

Does every game support 21:9? No.... But the ones that do, boy howdy is it immersive.

I leave the 4k TV up to my Xbox One X now.....
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I'm eyeing a trio of 27" "infinity edge" monitors that do 4K. They're going to be in reading mode.

Mostly because I'm a screen real-estate junkie and my eyesight is better than 20/20.

If I had visual problems, I'd probably stick to lower res.

My 15" laptop monitor is 4K, which is just TOO damn small. So I have screen magnification on there.

Currently running 24" x 3 at 5760x1080
 

ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
192
4k is the future. Small text is really ugly with a PPI of 96, 4k solves this. It's not meant to be used at 100% scaling. Ideal would be (as already mentioned above) 200% scaling, so for a 32 inch display that would be 5k. Currently price is high, hope it will go down with time, even in 27 inch 4k is NOT an overkill, fonts look like they should, but one would use 150% or even 175% scaling. For gaming currently it's not a good option, but nobody said you need to game in 4k even on a 4k screen. So to answer your question, yes, I really hope you are in the minority on this matter since I'm done with pixelated screens for sure (my Ipad Mini spoiled me and I can't look back).
 

Aluminum

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
687
I'm done with small screens and big(ish) pixels. Granted a 48" 4k is a 24" 1080p ppi but its still fine. I like 4k around 32-40".

As a side note: ultrawides are a regression, no thanks. I only tolerate 16:9 to begin with due to market reality, 16:10 was so much more balanced for computer work.
Its getting even crazier, samsung will sell you half a 55" TV panel (32:9 lol) for twice the price. It would almost make sense with dual independent inputs for seamless side-by-side, almost.
 

Kdawg

Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
979
in the past, some TVs even had VGA ports.

I just wish TV makers put in displayport into their TV. It's royalty free, and they would sell a ton more TVs than monitors.
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,672
maybe i'm getting old, maybe i'm just a cheapskate, or maybe it's because i take off my glasses when i'm gaming on my PC. or maybe all 3. i really could care less about 4k. it's not that i hate it or anything, just indifferent and no desire to plunk down my money on it.
Most of my (movie/TV) stuff is DVD rips. Very few Blu-rays. It's not a bad place to be. With that said, my computer monitor is 1920x1200 (16:10 as the Lord meant it to be).
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,123
Most of my (movie/TV) stuff is DVD rips. Very few Blu-rays. It's not a bad place to be. With that said, my computer monitor is 1920x1200 (16:10 as the Lord meant it to be).
Yeah me too. 10 year old monitor and still love it. I find for gaming or doing other tasks on my own, the old 24" is perfect. Yes a 27" would be nice, but not enough to go buy one.

Movies and TV I run on a 47" 1080p tv
 

GNUse_the_force

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
427
I want 4K more for desktop than gaming. I think it makes a big difference in how good text looks to read, meaning it makes it look almost like reading a book.
I'm eyeing a trio of 27" "infinity edge" monitors that do 4K. They're going to be in reading mode.
4k is the future. Small text is really ugly with a PPI of 96, 4k solves this. For gaming currently it's not a good option, but nobody said you need to game in 4k even on a 4k screen.
At a normal sitting distance I can't see the pixels of my 100 DPI monitors; but the high DPI screen on the laptop is noticeably sharper making everything look better and smaller text easier to read.
ideally I'd like around 96 PPI which would mean a massive size for 4K.
I'm with you on PPI. 96 PPI is what Windows is based around, and I don't get why panel manufacturers don't cut in sizes that accommodate this.
IMO, the ideal experience for 4K in a destktop setting includes running at 100% scale while also giving the feel of around 96 PPI.
24" 1080p ppi but its still fine. I like 4k around 32-40".

Seems like the consensus is the 96DPI or theoretical equivalent is best even at 4k using scaling. It's ideal for reading across a broad range of eyesights. I wonder if it would just be better to run a 24" - 27" vertical 4k IPS screen for reading giving 3840 VS 2160 line count ((even 1080p monitors look much crisper when running portrait due to 1920 line count )) and then scaling to 96DPi ? Then for gaming having either a 4k TV or an ultrawide high refresh 1440p monitor. As a bonus running 1080p on a 4k TV doesn't look too bad due to seating distance and newer consoles scale exceptionally well.

Outside of 96DPi, I don't know if it's one size fits all with monitors, it's going to be a Dual or Tripple monitor setup..

1. Scaled 4k portrait for Reading
2. Ultrawide 1440p 120hz+ fast refresh low response time for PC gaming
3. 4k TV for the times when you can run 4k well at 60hz, 4k upscaling consoles, 4k streaming, general video consumption.

Possibly 2 & 3 can be merged but there is too much content at 16:9 and 34" UW can look vertically squat outside of gaming, so it would be the removal of option 2 for most. But i can see a need for option 1 pretty much every time.
 
Last edited:

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,598
Seems like the consensus is the 96DPI or theoretical equivalent is best even at 4k using scaling. It's ideal for reading across a broad range of eyesights. I wonder if it would just be better to run a 24" - 27" vertical 4k IPS screen for reading giving 3840 VS 2160 line count ((even 1080p monitors look much crisper when running portrait due to 1920 line count )) and then scaling to 96DPi ? Then for gaming having either a 4k TV or an ultrawide high refresh 1440p monitor. As a bonus running 1080p on a 4k TV doesn't look too bad due to seating distance and newer consoles scale exceptionally well.

Outside of 96DPi, I don't think it's one size fits all with monitors, is going to be a Dual or Tripple monitor setup..

1. Scaled 4k portrait for Reading
2. Ultrawide 1440p 120hz+ fast refresh low response time for PC gaming
3. 4k TV for the times when you can run 4k well at 60hz, 4k upscaling consoles, 4k streaming, general video consumption.

Possibly 2 & 3 can be merged but there is too much content at 16:9 and 34" UW can look vertically squat outside of gaming, so it would be the removal of option 2 for most. But i can see a need for option 1 pretty much every time.
I've occasionally ran my 2560x1600 30" monitor in portrait mode when I needed to be able to see really long lists of something on screen at once. In general I found it too tall to be comfortable, I couldn't put the top and bottom in my main field of view at once and was always bobbing my head up/down. I wouldn't want to use something bigger than the low twenty some inches in portrait mode.

I'm also confused by why you seem to think just rotating a display into portrait mode would make the text crisper. You can get more lines on at once, but the DPI count is exactly the same. If anything there should be a minor effect the other way around due to sub-pixel optimization being tuned to horizontal subpixels because that's what 99% of displays use with any fonts designed around looking best on screens (eg anything MS has created in the last decade or so).
 

GNUse_the_force

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
427
I've occasionally ran my 2560x1600 30" monitor in portrait mode when I needed to be able to see really long lists of something on screen at once. In general I found it too tall to be comfortable, I couldn't put the top and bottom in my main field of view at once and was always bobbing my head up/down. I wouldn't want to use something bigger than the low twenty some inches in portrait mode.
Yea, 30" portrait is massive, i have done this with my 32" for comedic effect. However 23 - 24" is perfectly manageable if you have a monitor where it can be lowered to the base ( might also depend on seating hight )

I'm also confused by why you seem to think just rotating a display into portrait mode would make the text crisper. You can get more lines on at once, but the DPI count is exactly the same. If anything there should be a minor effect the other way around due to sub-pixel optimization being tuned to horizontal subpixels because that's what 99% of displays use with any fonts designed around looking best on screens (eg anything MS has created in the last decade or so).
More lines is the main thing so less scrolling. Anecdotally speaking i just found images to look a lot crisper on portrait. Does the aspect ratio change have any difference in the perception of detail ? Maybe it's just me :p
 

jhatfie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
1,462
Okay.....I have been very skeptical...but I went ahead and bought a samsung 40MU6290 that was at Costco for $299 knowing that it would be easy to take back and was cheap. I have to say that so far, it really is pretty slick. I only have a GTX 1080, so I have had to dial some stuff back, but games do look pretty amazing. Destiny 2 with HDR enabled is nuts. The desktop real estate is a lot....feels weird for normal browsing. But I think when I am working from home and need multiple RDP sessions open for different environments, being able to plop them in their own corners would be much better than on my 1440p[ 32". I have a 144hz samsung C32HG70 coming in a few days that I will compare against. I know the C32 will be more responsive and likely look fantastic, but will the extra pixel density and immersion due to size on the 4k prove to be favorable to me (for $200 less)?

If I keep the 40MU6290, I could use the $$ I saved to upgrade to a 1080ti......
 

rtangwai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,369
Form me it's less about the 4K resolution and more about the PPI.

My 43" 4K monitor is 100PPI, the same as my 30" 1600p. It is reasonably viewable if you are close enough.

Where 4K shines is in large single monitors - with the extra real estate you can have a ton of windows open for multitasking.

My Philips 43" 4K has that extra trick where it can behave like 4x 1080p monitors in a bezel-less grid.

Anything below about 40" I start questioning 4K myself as the law of diminishing returns starts to hit. Then again, at a high enough DPI for gaming anti-aliasing is no longer an issue assuming the GPU(s) have the grunt to drive that many pixels.
 

Web4Life

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
232
I'm at 1440p, and plan to stay there for a while since it seems to be the sweetspot. However, 4K does give you more working space on the screen which would be nice but I'm still happy at 1440p.
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,672
Of course at ultra high resolutions you might be able to make out the text on your 8 workspaces at once config on your 24" screen, but it would be difficult. For those with 43" or larger setups, I hope you're gamers because it will wreck your field of vision, easy kill.
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
Not in a hurry to get to 4K. The distance I sit from my monitor really makes it difficult to move to a monitor much bigger than 27" and I have no space to separate further from it.

The only thing stopping me from doing it for my regular television, where I have room for a 55" set, is content,....or the lack of. All our content is streamed and most all of that is barely at HD resolutions.
 
Top