Target for 4k or stick to 1440p?

XoR_ said:
P.

My best algorithm for choosing monitor is this: if you need to use windows scaling with given PPI then get monitor with lower resolution until 100% is comfortable then do not go any lower.
For most people sight it will be 1440p for 27", for many even larger 1440p monitor.
If 2160p can be used comfortably at given size then 1440p will have visible screen door...
Click to expand...

I disagree. Higher resolution with DPI scaling helps give you better text rendering at the expense of desktop space. I even use 125% scaling on 1440p 27" because I find it more comfortable to read, not because I have bad eyesight (I've had laser surgery to fix it). With pretty much any 4K screen you are looking into using scaling on the desktop. Bigger 4K screens are the best of both as you can have a ton of desktop space while still having comfortably sized text without using zooming features in the few apps that support such a thing.

My beef with Windows DPI scaling is that it does not support scaling levels under 125% without using the custom resolution which only works for all displays. 110% scaling would be perfect for me on 1440p 27" but then my 4K 65" TV has unreadably tiny text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
If you don't own a 144hz+ monitor, go for 1440p144hz. That said, 4k is best in games that are CPU limited like Fallout where going past 75fps will break physics; or in games with vast amounts of AI.

I own a high refresh rate monitor and a 4k monitor and use both depending on the game.

You definitely don't want to be locked at 60hz on faster paced games that can run above 100fps.
 
To me noting compares to iRacing Sims running Eyefinity 5760 x 1080 at Daytona 3 wide as why I kept my older AMD hardware if they plan to drop support but something Radeon 7 should be good at .
 
I have an ASUS MG279 (1440) & a 1080ti no other fiddling with scaling, etc. It's amazing to me how hard the card has to work for something like CIV VI. I, personally haven't seen a need for a 4K screen, especially given the cost now for a new card & 4K monitor (and probably a new m/b & cpu). I think this setup will last me until prices go down because of next-gen stuff hitting the streets. Didn't get my 1080ti until mid-2017.
 
4K gaming is just unrealistic at this point in time if you want high frame rates. Meaning, 120hz, 144hz, 165hz and who really gives a flying fuk about variable refresh rates if you're still pushing mid double digits.

1440p is where it's at right now. With a *** High End Smart Video Card ... such as a RTX 2080 Ti, you can push 120hz with ultra / high settings @ 1440p. In fact, a lot of recent reviewers are using 1440p as their base line now when they want to review games and refresh rates of 120hz+.

1440p @ 120hz+ is the best place to be gaming at right now. Period.

*** High End Smart Video Card denotes, RT, A.I. etc

Dumb video cards being something like the AMD Radeon 7
 
Last edited:
Unless you get at least a 1080ti, stick to 1440p.
I have a 1080ti and love maxing out (or close to) the gfx settings.

Luckily my newish Samsung UHD TV lets me use 1440p 120Hz and looks really good for gaming.
One of the best features is the fake HDR setting (HDR+), not just TV/Movies look awesome but so do none HDR games.
HDR movies and games are even better!
Its like having a CRT again but HUGE and without flicker.
 
4K is nice, and certainly where things are heading, but it doesn't really change the gaming experience. It just looks nicer. High refresh not only *looks* smoother, but *plays* smoother too. In which case I would say it changes improves both the experience and your ability to play.

4K high refresh is also just becoming possible, but the GPU power to drive that is expensive and arguably not worth the cost. For the time being, it seems 1440p is still the best option, especially with ultrawide displays.

In my case, I went from triple 1440p Surround to a single 1080p ultrawide. While that seems crazy, I actually like it better. I can get upwards of 166fps on max settings (in most games) and it feels butter smooth. Picture still looks nice as long as I don't go looking for pixels.
 
Using 1440 Samsung monitor and it looks great. Don’t use AA so I crank all other settings to max. Looks really good and no shimmering.
 
I had a 43 inch 4K monitor and while it looked gorgeous, I had the misfortune of gaming on a buddy's 1440p @ 144hz and I was in awe! That next day, I went to an Asus 1440p @ 165hz and haven't gone back. It's just so much better.
 
Yeah, high refresh is where it is at. I know people think it's placebo, but I noticed an improvement in smoothness when I got my 166Hz panel (from 144Hz before). Real nice.
 
Pure gaming, I would do 1440p with 120hz+...

But if you do anything else, 4K with high PPI is much better IMO, especially doing any kind of typing / reading.
 
Last edited:
Auer said:
Nothing overkill about 4k for real estate on a daily basis.

Lots of games look downright amazing in 4k. Really depends on the genre if 60fps+ is a must too.
Click to expand...

Depends on the screen size of course - 27" and below is not worth it in my opinion for 4K - 28" monitors are of course available with 4K but even then I find it borderline compared to 1440p. 30" and above, sure - 4K definitely worth it.

Edit: Of course, depends on how far away the monitor is :D
 
NKD said:
had 4k, but switched to samsung 32inch CGH70 1440p 144hz. Haven't looked back. Shit is simply amazing lol.
Click to expand...

Did the same half a year ago.4K can be good for movies but for games 1440p 144hz is the way to go.
Just replaced the stand for the monitor as it takes tons of space.
 
kasakka said:
I disagree. Higher resolution with DPI scaling helps give you better text rendering at the expense of desktop space. I even use 125% scaling on 1440p 27" because I find it more comfortable to read, not because I have bad eyesight (I've had laser surgery to fix it). With pretty much any 4K screen you are looking into using scaling on the desktop. Bigger 4K screens are the best of both as you can have a ton of desktop space while still having comfortably sized text without using zooming features in the few apps that support such a thing.
Click to expand...
All decent applications support zoom, font size changing etc. and windows scaling will only increase size of toolbars, menus and other irrelevant things. Do you really need nicer fonts on toolbars?

I have 27" 3840x2160 monitor and do not use windows scaling... but then again I can read even [H]ardforum tiny fonts from meter away so I have very good eyesight. If you need scaling for 163PPI monitor then you might have at most normal eyesight.
I also do not use scaling on 10" 1920x1200 tablet with even higher DPI od 226 and I certainly wouldn't use it on 27" 5120x2880 (5K) 217PPI monitor if I got had one.
 
Ruddys said:
Did the same half a year ago.4K can be good for movies but for games 1440p 144hz is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Given monitor prices, especially high refresh rate ones, and GPU performance requirements to run native resolution 1440p is the way to go today.
If however GPU power is an issue nothing stops 4K user to use lower resolution. It doesn't look as sharp but is nowhere as bad as discussion direction which exlude this possibility at all would suggest. Especially for displays where discerning individual pixels is hard or even impossible (depending on eyesight) up-scaling might look pretty good.
 
I've been thinking my options all week and I think i'll go for a 27" 4k monitor.
This seems to be the best combo(or should i say the lesser of evils?) at least for my use case, which is basically a mixed usage.

Here is my thinking:
#1: 160+ ppi vs 109 ppi on a 27" is a big difference for non gaming use. Even for gaming, if someone wants high refresh, in my eyes 24' 1080p 144Hz makes more sense than 27" 1440p 144Hz, value-wise. Unless we're talking about 34"UW where the added immersion factors in.

#2: One will probably overpay for a monitor at the moment, either it's 1440p 120Hz+ or 4k 60Hz. 4k seems to be a bit more future proof compared to 1440p high refresh.

#3: Reading some benchmarks on mid-tier GPUs (RTX 2060/GTX 1060 TI/RTX 2070/GTX 1080) it's still almost impossible to drive 100+ fps with max settings on 1440p. So I was wondering if it's worth to lose visual fidelity on non gaming applications, for getting say, 70fps on 1440p instead of 50fps on 4k. For me at least it seems like it's not worth it.

#4: Scaling or zooming is needed either way for non-gaming applications, and it's not a matter of eyesight, Heck, even on my 24" 1080p right now i'm in a situation where I need to sit closer or zoom in. I can read the text from ~80cm away but either the perceived blurriness or just the fact that it helps me focus better, creates the need for bigger and clearer text at the same time. Otherwise i would be happy with a 1080p 144Hz anyway, right?

I don't know, what do you think?
 
Do any of you play CPU limited games like Supreme Commander, GTA V with mods, Fallout with mods, ARMA 2 and 3? These games struggle to get 60fps because of the CPU. That is why I play these games at 4k60. But 144hz+ is the reason why I won't play other games on the 4k60 panel.

I find 27" for 4k to be a good match. I would prefer a 24" one. at 27" aliasing at 4k is very visible. Usually TAA/FXAA are the awful AA choices, so I do not use AA.
 
I'm a huge promoter of high refresh rates. I'll take 1440p144hz over 4k60hz any day of the week.
 
I am still in awe of my 1440p 165 hz upgrade. At this point I still want fps over resolution and 1440p is a perfect balance for me. 4k one day when a 2080 is 399 and a 32 4k 165 hz monitor is a realistic price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top