Any 24” 4K High-Refresh Options?

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
476
I’ve been using a non-gaming oriented 27” 5K display for the past 6 month now, and it’s reaffirmed what I already suspected: resolution is more important and noticeable to me than anything else for office tasks. That said, I surprisingly also find it to be slightly too large for comfort, and the text to be a little too small at 200% scaling.

I figured that a smaller 25” or 24” 4K display would both be a better size and have slightly larger text at 200% scaling, but it doesn’t make any sense to move over to one if these are the only changes. I’d rather wait for a model that brings 120Hz with it.

Is anything like this coming up on the horizon?
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
476
Why not just push the monitor back a little bit and increase the scaling?
No desk space, unfortunately. I work on a built-in space, so a wall makes up the rear of the desk. Scaling could fix one of the issues, but then I’d lose pixel-perfect scaling, and I quite like that.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,144
I didn't find anything exactly what you were asking for.

Maybe go for 1440p without scaling? Or stay at 27" but drop to 4K, which should still help a bit and there are high refresh at that size.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
476
I didn't find anything exactly what you were asking for.

Maybe go for 1440p without scaling? Or stay at 27" but drop to 4K, which should still help a bit and there are high refresh at that size.
Yeah, I didn’t think anything exactly like this existed, but I wanted to be sure before writing off the possibility.

Right now 27” at 4K is probably the best option, but do any of you wizards that watch the upcoming panel production lines know if something like this is on the horizon?

Thanks as always.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
TFT Central's most recent high speed panel roundup, only has 24" 1080p panels being preannouced by the panel makers, so I think you're out of luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,186
27" is good size and 5K is certainly good resolution for nice sharp fonts.
I even considered getting 5K monitor but there is no gaming 5K, let alone 120Hz and as far as I know 5K panels are glossy and I like matte panels.

8K Dell looks nice but it also is not that well suited for games and might be too big :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,186
2K is 1080p
Officially it is 2048x1080, but the most common derivative is 1920x1080.

I know you probably know this but it bares repeating.
Some people use "2K" name to point to 2560x1440 monitors, that is why I ask.
Imho names like "2K" should not be used at all. Best to use full resolution.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
476
Has anything changed on this front? I know there have been a ton of new high refresh 4K monitors either released or announced over the past few months. Have any of them been bellow the usual 27" size?
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
94
And 5k should be known as FQHD.
And 8K should be known as FUHD

I'll let you guess what the F stands for
Did you mean we should guess what the "FU" stands for? :p

Apparently here are already a bunch of names for 7680 × 4320 according to Wikipedia:
This is the resolution of the UHDTV2 format defined in SMPTE ST 2036–1, as well as the 8K UHDTV format defined in ITU-R BT.2020. It was also chosen by the DVB project as the resolution for their 8K broadcasting standard, UHD-2.
But I'm pretty sure 4K, 5K, and 8K are well understood terms at this point.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
476
Has anything changed on this front? I’m still pretty desperate for something like this.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,144
Has anything changed on this front? I’m still pretty desperate for something like this.
You can get high refresh 4K monitors for around $1,000 now, but only 27" and up.

Just embrace it. I got the Aorus FI32U (4K 32") and it is one amazing kit. I think I have scaling at 150%, everything looks perfect.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
Has anything changed on this front? I’m still pretty desperate for something like this.

Nope. I checked TFT Central's news archive for posts about planned future panels. There's no mention of 24" 4k models at any refresh rate. It's not impossible something will come out in the future; but if none of the panel makers are talkign about it now, it'll probably be at least a year or two out.

Unfortunately if the 27's size is still big enough to be bothering you your only options appear to be either a new desk so you can sit farther from the screen or an expensive sidegrade to LG's 24" 4k60 monitor. :(
 
Last edited:

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,186
I highly doubt the issue is not being able to get further away from the monitor. Your issue is eyesight and if you do not want to increase scaling and want high resolution high refresh rate then get 27" 4K monitor.

At work we have normal 1080p monitors at 23 or 24". I see most people are leaning toward their monitors, even those 24" 1080p, and view them from unreasonably close distances. If they had 27" 1440p (or 5K/2880p with 200% scaling - same thing pretty much except sharpness) they would see even smaller text and would probably lean even more toward the screen and in this case obviously the monitor would be too big.

The solution would be for these people 27" at 1080p or 4K/2160p with 200% scaling, in which case they could have the screen take the same angle in their view(port :p) as they have now by watching it from further distance - which BTW is more comfortable for the eyes and for the neck.

And 24" 4K @ 120Hz will probably never happen. Not only you need panel rather unpopular size/resolution that almost one makes but you also need panel rated at high refresh rates.

BTW. Set OS scaling to 266%, this should give you roughly the same thing as 27" 4K @ 200% and see if you can find comfortable position from which you see everything fine and screen is not too big anymore. Of course older/incompatible with OS scaling programs will be blurred but you do not need to test this on these programs. For most programs however there should be not much difference as most programs always use bilinear filtering for scaling images eg. Chrome so if it is 200% on 4K or 266% on 5K will give very similar result.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
And 24" 4K @ 120Hz will probably never happen. Not only you need panel rather unpopular size/resolution that almost one makes but you also need panel rated at high refresh rates.
I wouldn't go as far as to say never; but I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Eventually low DPI/low refresh rate screens will become obsolete; and there will still be situations where smaller displays are preferred. However I doubt it'll happen any sooner than the late 2020s or early 2030s.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,797
I’ve been using a non-gaming oriented 27” 5K display for the past 6 month now, and it’s reaffirmed what I already suspected: resolution is more important and noticeable to me than anything else for office tasks. That said, I surprisingly also find it to be slightly too large for comfort, and the text to be a little too small at 200% scaling.

I figured that a smaller 25” or 24” 4K display would both be a better size and have slightly larger text at 200% scaling, but it doesn’t make any sense to move over to one if these are the only changes. I’d rather wait for a model that brings 120Hz with it.

Is anything like this coming up on the horizon?
Maybe go for a larger 4K monitor so you don't have to use font scaling at all? With scaling, there is almost no point to the higher resolution. Some applications and aspects of Windows end up weird and oversized when using font scaling. In my opinion, going below 32" makes 4K entirely pointless to begin with. There are 43" 4K options out there that can do 120Hz-144Hz as well. I use a 43" Acer Predator CG437K with zero font scaling. It also offers G-Sync and does 120Hz. It can do 144Hz, but loses G-Sync to do it.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
Maybe go for a larger 4K monitor so you don't have to use font scaling at all? With scaling, there is almost no point to the higher resolution. Some applications and aspects of Windows end up weird and oversized when using font scaling. In my opinion, going below 32" makes 4K entirely pointless to begin with. There are 43" 4K options out there that can do 120Hz-144Hz as well. I use a 43" Acer Predator CG437K with zero font scaling. It also offers G-Sync and does 120Hz. It can do 144Hz, but loses G-Sync to do it.
I disagree with your basic premise here. The increased sharpness of higher DPIs (above the point where you can see pixels) makes everything clearer and easier to read. My laptop has an ~280 DPI screen (3200x1800 @ 13.3"); at 200% scaling it's perfectly legible (even for smaller than normal text) at the same arms length distance as my standard monitors. My 32" 4k monitor (native 140 dpi) at 100% scaling falls just short. Normal size text is readable but only just, smaller text wasn't unless I leaned forward; something I didn't have to do when looking at the same content on my laptop setup right next to it.

As far as problems with applications not scaling, that's ceased to be an issue for me over the last few years. The last UI element I remember seeing having a scaling problem was Chrome's tooltips on the tab bar (showing the page name) not scaling at all; that was broken 5 years ago (when I got a high DPI laptop for my job). At some point since then it's been fixed (replaced with something that does scale); I'm not sure when that was because it was something I use infrequently and for the last 18 months my setup has almost never had chrome on the laptop screen anyway.

I want an affordable 24" 4k screen or similar (slightly smaller like 22" would probably be ideal) to replace the elderly 1600x1200 portrait displays I have on either side of my main 32" one. I'm not overly concerned about higher refresh rates for them; but as a more future forward option it would be nice.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,797
I disagree with your basic premise here. The increased sharpness of higher DPIs (above the point where you can see pixels) makes everything clearer and easier to read. My laptop has an ~280 DPI screen (3200x1800 @ 13.3"); at 200% scaling it's perfectly legible (even for smaller than normal text) at the same arms length distance as my standard monitors. My 32" 4k monitor (native 140 dpi) at 100% scaling falls just short. Normal size text is readable but only just, smaller text wasn't unless I leaned forward; something I didn't have to do when looking at the same content on my laptop setup right next to it.

As far as problems with applications not scaling, that's ceased to be an issue for me over the last few years. The last UI element I remember seeing having a scaling problem was Chrome's tooltips on the tab bar (showing the page name) not scaling at all; that was broken 5 years ago (when I got a high DPI laptop for my job). At some point since then it's been fixed (replaced with something that does scale); I'm not sure when that was because it was something I use infrequently and for the last 18 months my setup has almost never had chrome on the laptop screen anyway.

I want an affordable 24" 4k screen or similar (slightly smaller like 22" would probably be ideal) to replace the elderly 1600x1200 portrait displays I have on either side of my main 32" one. I'm not overly concerned about higher refresh rates for them; but as a more future forward option it would be nice.
I don't guess I'm explaining it right. With font scaling, everything is fucking huge. It's almost like having a larger, lower resolution display albeit with everything being clearer than that. With font scaling at 150% on my 43", it looks like a 40" 1920x1080 TV. Yes the text is clearer, but application windows are larger due to larger text and it seems somewhat pointless. As though you don't get as much screen real estate for applications due to the size of everything. If that makes sense.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
I don't guess I'm explaining it right. With font scaling, everything is fucking huge. It's almost like having a larger, lower resolution display albeit with everything being clearer than that. With font scaling at 150% on my 43", it looks like a 40" 1920x1080 TV. Yes the text is clearer, but application windows are larger due to larger text and it seems somewhat pointless. As though you don't get as much screen real estate for applications due to the size of everything. If that makes sense.
I run my 32" at 125% in windows for an effective 110DPI. Everything on my desktop the same size as it would be on a 32" 110 DPI screen (3072x1712); but the extra pixels make make it somewhat sharper and easier to read.

And I'm not sure if it was just a typo/thinko, but to get 1080p equivalency you should have to go all the way to 200%. 150% should put you around 2560x1440 equivalency.
 

Ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
232
150% should put you around 2560x1440 equivalency.
Exactly there. That's what I use on my 32" 4k screen, gives you the real estate of a 32" 1440p screen while actually having decent clarity. For font rendering the "standard" sub 100 DPI is a bad joke. My perfect screen would actually be a 32" 5k screen with high refresh when set to 1440p (to game on it at that resolution and say 120hz, double the 60hz in 5k mode). But 32" 4k is almost as good since newest GPUs support up-scaling now from 1080 to native 4k that doesn't look like crap anymore.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,797
I like 4K at no scaling to actually give me more screen real estate than I'd get on a single 2560x1440 screen. I came from 3x 2560x1600 monitors so that's not remotely enough for productivity. But a 4K monitor under 40" isn't going to do that as I'd have to use font scaling with it. For gaming alone and basic stuff that would be fine, but for work? Its insufficient.
 

Ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
232
I like 4K at no scaling to actually give me more screen real estate than I'd get on a single 2560x1440 screen. I came from 3x 2560x1600 monitors so that's not remotely enough for productivity. But a 4K monitor under 40" isn't going to do that as I'd have to use font scaling with it. For gaming alone and basic stuff that would be fine, but for work? Its insufficient.
Depends on habits and work you do I suppose. We had 2 24" 1080p monitors before at work (programming). But I couldn't get my eyes used to switching between the 2 monitors, they never liked that. That's when I first moved to a 32" 1440p instead of the dual setup, was better but the pixelated fonts still remained. Now with the 32" 4k at 150% scale all problems are solved, I use it with 2 windows side by side, the main being a bit larger and find it big enough. Even bigger would mean I would have to sit much farther (sit at arms length now, around 90cm) or turn my head all day. But I know many people that swear by 2-3 monitor setups, or huge monitors. So there is no fit all solution it seems.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,797
Even bigger would mean I would have to sit much farther (sit at arms length now, around 90cm) or turn my head all day.
I don't have to turn my head all day looking at a 43". There is no point in sitting super far away from larger displays. The idea behind a bigger display, is filling up more of your peripheral vision for a more immersive experience. Obviously there are some limits. I wouldn't sit this close to an 85" display or anything, but around 40-43" is fine.
So there is no fit all solution it seems.
That's true.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,144
34" 1440p UW is great for me. I can use 100% scaling, and everything is readable (actually a little small cause my eyesight isn't great, but I manage).

Better than dual monitor for coding as I can have everything on one screen and 21:9 is okay for two half screen windows. Could still do more with my old triple screen setup, but UW is more practical these days.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,797
34" 1440p UW is great for me. I can use 100% scaling, and everything is readable (actually a little small cause my eyesight isn't great, but I manage).

Better than dual monitor for coding as I can have everything on one screen and 21:9 is okay for two half screen windows. Could still do more with my old triple screen setup, but UW is more practical these days.
I wanted more vertical real estate than 3440x1440 offered.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,144
I wanted more vertical real estate than 3440x1440 offered.
I was on 2560x1080 before this, so 1440p felt like a lot when I upgraded.

But seeing as 4K is finally catching up with refresh and gaming features, I would consider running that as my daily driver.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,072
So there is no fit all solution it seems.

I wanted more vertical real estate than 3440x1440 offered.
Meanwhile I don't want anything significantly taller than the ~16" tall setup I've been using since my old 2560x1600 setup. Your 43"'d be running into the zone of just tall enough that for general use I'd need to look up/down to see the edges clearly unless I defeated the entire point of a bigger screen by moving it farther back than arms length. Expanding into my peripheral vision probably would be nice if I was playing flight/driving sim type games; but I suspect a VR headset would work better for something like that.
 
Top