Which 4K display?

[burned-ati]

Ok guys! I am looking to upgrade my ViewSonic VX2025WM 20.1" display. I bought this monitor 8 years ago, because a member did a review of it back in 2005 or 2006. And I when and bought one. At the time 20" wide screens were something new and just hitting the scene. But, after 8 years, 1680/1050 is just not so hot anymore.

I am looking to do the same with 4K now. Games are easier to run, a PAIR of heavily overclocked R9 290's or 780's should do the trick for most games at 4K ultra detail NO AA.
Anyways, I am buying my video cards in the next day or so.

I am just unsure which monitor I should get!

So, I am looking at the Samsung 28" 590TN panel, 60HZ at 4K that is the most important thing sure! But, it is a TN. Is this really worth it?

Now, the Dell 2414Q it is 60HZ at 4K to! Sweet, and it is a IPS display, although, it is only a 24" high pixel density! But, smaller screen! It is like its more expensive $3,000 big brothers but, it only uses a 8bit color interface.

I need help, I cannot decide! I would really like to stay under $1,000

This is really why the Samsung 590D is so attractive to me. But, it is a TN

Someone please chime in and help me decide.

Thank you in advance for all help and advice!

 

[The Dark Session]

34UM95 has 3440x1440 , 21:9 (cinema format, you actually see more, its NOT stretched in games) , IPS Panel and 34".

Maybe thats something for you, its not 4K but 3.5K

 

[burned-ati]

Well. Considering that cost $1,000- to $1,500 I would proubly prefer a real 4K monitor.
But, I also want to get the best for my money. So, I am just a little unsure of modern TN panel VS. IPS.
anyways the desktop space available on a 4K monitor is worth the money alone! I mean, it can fit two full browers maximized side by side, with space left over for more applications! that is simply amazing.

I am very much looking forward to gaming with a 4K display.

Any 4K monitor recommendations ?

 

[Sancus]

There are extensive threads about both the UP2414Q and the Samsung 590D on the first page of this very forum... so I guess read them and then decide. The UP2414Q is considerably more expensive and not much less than $1000 though.

Whether you'd be happy with the 28" TN 590D is entirely personal preference really, it's a good TN but it's still a TN and has all typical upsides and downsides of one.

If I was looking for a new monitor primarily for gaming I'd prefer to wait for the ROG 27" 1440p screen, or get an Eizo FG2421, but you have not stated what's most important to you(static resolution, motion resolution, image quality[contrast, black levels, screen uniformity, etc], low input lag, etc...) so there's no way to really give advice here. Reading the available information and making up your own mind is always the best way.

 

[x3sphere]

For productivity 4K can be great. Emphasis on "can", as there's all sorts of DPI scaling issues in Windows. OSX is a far better environment for 4K, mainly because Apple has spent a lot of resources getting things optimized for its retina displays.

If you don't plan on using DPI scaling then great, but IMO text would be far too tiny on a 24" or 28". I've tried one of the 32" displays and it gave me eye strain without upping the DPI. To me a 39" is the minimum I'd want for 4K if you want to avoid any DPI scaling.

I find the 34UM95 is a more appealing product than any of the 4K displays out right now. Playing games at 21:9 is a much more immerse experience, where as with 4K you're just getting more pixels, meh. Many game assets don't even take full advantage of 4K as they lack super high resolution textures.

I agree with that Linus video review... once I started using the 34UM95 I just don't give a damn about 4K on the desktop anymore, well until a curved 21:9 5120x2160 display comes out

 

[Octavean]

I've heard a few people with MST 4K monitors state that there are times where the two halves of the screen aren't in sync. Something like that would probably drive me nuts if its true.

Eventually the IGZO and IPS 4K monitors will use the same updated UHD scaler found in the Samsung U28D590 and they too will have SST at 60Hz via DisplayPort. Until then its a compromise between TN (which some people can't abide) and MST (which seems like an ugly hack IMO).

The 34UM95 is a great non 4K option though. I'd really like to have one but not necessarily as my only monitor. If playing games is your focus it should be noted that the 34UM95 's 3440x1440 resolution will be easier to drive then a 4K display and the 21:9 ratio / 34" size will be more immersive.

 

[Church]

Eventually .. not now. I pity a bit early adopters that pay a Lot for products with issues. There will be good 4K displays with SST. There will be DP 1.3 & HDMI 2.0 in future gpus. But Not now, even if you shell out big pile of money, and thus get angry having shattered expectancies for expensive products to be flawless.

 

[Panmaster]

I'd wait for BenQ to release their 4K effort in Q3 this year.
The Dell/Asus IGZO's have too much bleed and glow to be usable.

 

[SuperSubZero]

For productivity 4K can be great. Emphasis on "can", as there's all sorts of DPI scaling issues in Windows. OSX is a far better environment for 4K, mainly because Apple has spent a lot of resources getting things optimized for its retina displays.

This can't be stated loudly enough. Windows is basically a mess with HiDPI. We got some Lenovo T540p laptops at work with 2880x1620 screens, and we simply cannot win. Win7 looks awful, Win8.1 looks 'better' but uses bad DPI choices for attached monitors.

 

[icor1031]

I had a 4k.. I agree, if you use windows at least - DO NOT GO 28" 4k..
Unless the only thing you do is game, anyway. And then, why aren't you getting 120Hz instead?

 

[Henri108]

This can't be stated loudly enough. Windows is basically a mess with HiDPI. We got some Lenovo T540p laptops at work with 2880x1620 screens, and we simply cannot win. Win7 looks awful, Win8.1 looks 'better' but uses bad DPI choices for attached monitors.

Just got a XPS 15 with 3200x1800 screen resolution. Windows itself scales perfectly and is tacksharp after setting it to 201% instead of 200% (trick that solves a lot of scaling problems). Some programs that were written in the pre win8 era are sometimes scaled pretty bad (looks soft). My sometimes attached 24" IPS panel looks perfect, just like with any other attached device.

 

[SuperSubZero]

With the Win8.1 HiDPI scenarios I have tried, even if the laptop itself doesn't look bad, when I plug in a 1920x1200 monitor or two, they both get scaled unusually high, like 150%. Which is strange, since Win8.1 on a desktop with a 1920x1200 display will keep it at 100%.

I can't get a result where the laptop gets a DPI, and the monitors get a DPI I choose. I have to accept Windows' setting. Which is just wrong.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Just got a XPS 15 with 3200x1800 screen resolution. Windows itself scales perfectly and is tacksharp after setting it to 201% instead of 200% (trick that solves a lot of scaling problems). Some programs that were written in the pre win8 era are sometimes scaled pretty bad (looks soft). My sometimes attached 24" IPS panel looks perfect, just like with any other attached device.

Thanks for the tip, my UP2414Q is due in Tuesday and this will hopefully help a lot.

 

[burningrave101]

The 34UM95 or the upcoming Dell version with the same panel would be a lot better investment than the current 4k displays, especially for gaming. The 34UM95 is basically like running Eyefinity without the headaches of getting games to support it and 3440x1440 is a lot easier resolution to run than 4k for that pair of 290's or 780's. And as others have mentioned you also won't have the issues with DPI scaling in Windows.

 

[Vega]

Unfortunately the 34UM95 also has it's drawbacks. Not impressive PPI, tons of motion blur and IPS glow.

 

[Church]

Simply wait out. I'm sure that in a year choice will be way better. As monitors are bought for longer usage time and often outlive few gpus, wait out till there is one with more pros then cons. If you just want something bigger right now, check Benq BL3200PT as cheap interim upgrade till there are worthy long term upgrades in market. If you absolutely MUST buy 4K right now, from all the choices in market i'd get panasonic TC-50AX800U.
I'd wait for for 4K display to have:
1) Size 39" minimum, to lessen high dpi issues, preferably 50". NOT 24-28-31.5".
2*) DP 1.2 SST 60Hz (with MST=on i suspect possible issues with gpu downscaling or native lower res support at such mode. As i often play also old games, i wish for everything to work glitchless even at lower resolutions, if i'd want to)
3) From reviews it should have acceptable lag and no outstanding picture quality issues. Not necessarily best, bet without serious flaws outweigthing any other gains. Not like Samsung 4K displays (that don't fit also (1.) requirement, though fitting under (2.)).
* Mentioned 50" Panasonic 4K TV ticks most checkboxes, except this. (2.) also means to not get something with just HDMI ports, as be it 1st generation 4K TVs or 2nd gen 4K TVs with HDMI 2.0, you are limited at HDMI 1.4's 30Hz. As alternative you can wait out for HDMI 2.0 supporting GPUs or bigger normal 4K PC displays, but that also gets under waiting out, not buying something right now.

 

[x3sphere]

Just got a XPS 15 with 3200x1800 screen resolution. Windows itself scales perfectly and is tacksharp after setting it to 201% instead of 200% (trick that solves a lot of scaling problems). Some programs that were written in the pre win8 era are sometimes scaled pretty bad (looks soft). My sometimes attached 24" IPS panel looks perfect, just like with any other attached device.

Chrome still isn't DPI aware. Fonts look terrible in it. FF is although still has some minor issues with the UI scaling. IE scales perfect, though, being a web developer I need to use all of them.

 

[Church]

One should simply divide size by 2 and check from own experience if one would be comfortable to use such sized fullhd screen. I find myself too often leaning forward to FullHD laptop screen of 15". That means 4K @32" (biggest non TV 4K screens selling) will be too small for me at default scaling at normal distances. I'm happy with FullHD @24-27" = so it should be as good with 4K of around 50". From here i take said 39" minimum till 50". At 100% DPI, be it in FF, Chrome, Adobe apps or mirriad of others non high DPI aware. Asus could have been first with their 39" they shown at CES .. but they choose not to. So do all the other display makers. Weird, demand in market should be there.

 

[Vega]

Chrome still isn't DPI aware. Fonts look terrible in it. FF is although still has some minor issues with the UI scaling. IE scales perfect, though, being a web developer I need to use all of them.

A few command's fix Chrome's DPI issues. Just Google it.

One should simply divide size by 2 and check from own experience if one would be comfortable to use such sized fullhd screen. I find myself too often leaning forward to FullHD laptop screen of 15". That means 4K @32" (biggest non TV 4K screens selling) will be too small for me at default scaling at normal distances. I'm happy with FullHD @24-27" = so it should be as good with 4K of around 50". From here i take said 39" minimum till 50". At 100% DPI, be it in FF, Chrome, Adobe apps or mirriad of others non high DPI aware.

39" is too large of a display to use at typical computer viewing distances of 18-24 inches. You are back down to 112 PPI at that size of a screen, or almost at the same level as a 27" 1440p monitor which isn't anything special these days.

39" just means you push the screen further back to regain the clarity advantage, but pushing the screen back you lose the reason for a larger screen in the first place. I am typing this as I view a 28" 4K at 20 inches from my eyes, and it's a pretty nice sweet spot. 157 PPI let's you know you are looking at something special, and you get to keep the screen relatively close for "immersion".

PPI and it's affect on clarity is all dependent on the distance from your eyes to the screen. Putting a flat 39" at 18-24 inches from your eyes doesn't work very well. You run into all sorts of "view-ability" issues off-center-viewing in addition to unspectacular perceived clarity.

 

[SuperSubZero]

A few command's fix Chrome's DPI issues. Just Google it.

So far none of the "fixes" for Chrome are 100%. They outright disabled the built-in options:

https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?revision=256811&view=revision

(Googled that)

...and the registry fix leaves Chrome acting weird (window tends to freeze up)...

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=346825
(this affects Win7, Win8+, touch or non-touch)

(Googled that too)

...and font spacing ends up weird.

(Which I don't have to Google, since like the other issues, I've seen it with my own eyes).

 

[Church]

Vega: 39" "too large" is subjective thing or dependent on computer furniture one uses. At some point i had 50" on table, but didn't kept it there only because of overly large pixels/low dpi of FullHD at that size, not because of size of display itself or off-center-viewing-ability. There were lot of people using eyefinity or surround configurations much wider/much worse in that account. 39-50" display is narrower then those setups (and without bezels in picture of course). And nothing keeps one from using mostly part of screen, with rest being in more of peripheral vision dedicated to something less important, like movie playback while you work, or mail/instant messenger client, or video conference, or documentation for something you work to which you ocasionallly side glance to for reference or another file from which you sometimes copy from. Even on 27" i rarely used something maximised (exception being movies and games in fullscreen). Most often i had windows of aproximately half the width of screen. On 50" 4K it should be similar, just screen now used with 3-4 vertically maximized apps covering screen estate, not 2. No off-center overly wide POV issues, just a bit differing work style one quickly adapts/gets used to (and misses, when having to sit at smaller screens again).

 

[Vega]

So far none of the "fixes" for Chrome are 100%. They outright disabled the built-in options:

https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?revision=256811&view=revision

(Googled that)

...and the registry fix leaves Chrome acting weird (window tends to freeze up)...

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=346825
(this affects Win7, Win8+, touch or non-touch)

(Googled that too)

...and font spacing ends up weird.

(Which I don't have to Google, since like the other issues, I've seen it with my own eyes).

It's been a while since I applied the fix, but it was none of those links. My Chrome works just fine on my 4K monitor, I could even take a picture of it if you want.

Vega: 39" "too large" is subjective thing or dependent on computer furniture one uses. At some point i had 50" on table, but didn't kept it there only because of overly large pixels/low dpi of FullHD at that size, not because of size of display itself or off-center-viewing-ability. There were lot of people using eyefinity or surround configurations much wider/much worse in that account. 39-50" display is narrower then those setups (and without bezels in picture of course). And nothing keeps one from using mostly part of screen, with rest being in more of peripheral vision dedicated to something less important, like movie playback while you work, or mail/instant messenger client, or video conference, or documentation for something you work to which you ocasionallly side glance to for reference or another file from which you sometimes copy from. Even on 27" i rarely used something maximised (exception being movies and games in fullscreen). Most often i had windows of aproximately half the width of screen. On 50" 4K it should be similar, just screen now used with 3-4 vertically maximized apps covering screen estate, not 2. No off-center overly wide POV issues, just a bit differing work style one quickly adapts/gets used to (and misses, when having to sit at smaller screens again).

Yes, like I said it depends on how far you sit from the screen. But I highly doubt anyone is going to be sitting a "normal" user computing view distance of 18-24" with a 39"er.

 

[Godmachine]

Wait until 2015. 4k monitors are totally in the fetus phase right now. Let them mature some. Samsung showed an interesting but ultimately faulted display in the right price range.

Just hold on to your monitor a bit longer , its not going anywhere and you can reap the benefits of new tech and better/cheaper 4k monitors next year.

 

[Vega]

Waiting is for amateurs. JK

I think I am on like my 8th display over the last two years lol.

 

[Octavean]

A few command's fix Chrome's DPI issues. Just Google it.



39" is too large of a display to use at typical computer viewing distances of 18-24 inches. You are back down to 112 PPI at that size of a screen, or almost at the same level as a 27" 1440p monitor which isn't anything special these days.

39" just means you push the screen further back to regain the clarity advantage, but pushing the screen back you lose the reason for a larger screen in the first place. I am typing this as I view a 28" 4K at 20 inches from my eyes, and it's a pretty nice sweet spot. 157 PPI let's you know you are looking at something special, and you get to keep the screen relatively close for "immersion".

PPI and it's affect on clarity is all dependent on the distance from your eyes to the screen. Putting a flat 39" at 18-24 inches from your eyes doesn't work very well. You run into all sorts of "view-ability" issues off-center-viewing in addition to unspectacular perceived clarity.

I mostly agree with this.

I find my 28" 4K display to be a great sweet spot and fairly versatile in that one can choose native 3840x2160 or something scaled depending on the nature of the given task.

I tried a 39" Seiki 4K UHDTV and was reasonably pleased with. However I ultimately gave it to my sister as a Christmas present thinking I could do better with respect to 4K in early 2014. I had intended to give the Seiki to my Wife but after using it myself I was unsure if she could tolerate the mouse lag (although it didn't really bother me). Beyond that the Seiki would have been perfect for her needs since as a programmer she really can make use of the higher resolution and larger screen real estate.

If Seiki comes out with a 60Hz capable (39", 50", 55") UHDTV at a reasonable price would probably get one.

 

[Vega]

I am considering one of those new curved Samsung 4K monitors as my computer display once HDMI 2.0 hits GPU's. Most likely the 55" version, but of course it would be pushed all the way back on my desk. That would put it at a 3-4 foot view distance.

I wouldn't exactly be using it this close:

 

[Church]

I wonder when/if someone will release some DP>HDMI 2.0 adapter. By Murphy's law it will be soon after when first gpus featuring native HDMI 2.0 will hit the market

 

[Martha Stewart]

I am considering one of those new curved Samsung 4K monitors as my computer display once HDMI 2.0 hits GPU's. Most likely the 55" version, but of course it would be pushed all the way back on my desk. That would put it at a 3-4 foot view distance.

I wouldn't exactly be using it this close:

+1

If we can get some HDMI 2.0 GPU's, I will sell my DELL 4K and day 1 a curved 4k LED/OLED as a gaming monitor. The immersion would be insane

 

[houkouonchi]

A few command's fix Chrome's DPI issues. Just Google it.



39" is too large of a display to use at typical computer viewing distances of 18-24 inches. You are back down to 112 PPI at that size of a screen, or almost at the same level as a 27" 1440p monitor which isn't anything special these days.

39" just means you push the screen further back to regain the clarity advantage, but pushing the screen back you lose the reason for a larger screen in the first place. I am typing this as I view a 28" 4K at 20 inches from my eyes, and it's a pretty nice sweet spot. 157 PPI let's you know you are looking at something special, and you get to keep the screen relatively close for "immersion".

PPI and it's affect on clarity is all dependent on the distance from your eyes to the screen. Putting a flat 39" at 18-24 inches from your eyes doesn't work very well. You run into all sorts of "view-ability" issues off-center-viewing in addition to unspectacular perceived clarity.

Some of us like 4k for desktop real-estate and not cleaner looking fonts which take up more pixels and thus take away desktop real-estate. The 39 inch I think is great for people who are like me. I have no problems using it at 18-24 inch range.

 

[Church]

spectacular clarity means high dpi. high dpi means issues with scaling in windows and to lesser extent in macosx (i don't use). To me avoiding those issues is more important then less jagged fonts, especially if it will rob of big screen size i aim most with 4K just as means to get in non ugly way. So back at square one with optimum =50", minimum 39", at similar average viewing distance (~25"). NOT half of that screen size, even though with such i won't be able to distinguish individual pixels or save table space (empty anyway). And no vendor sees this market niche yet . Or they simply got used in very slow size increments in LCD monitors and marketing droids are not willing to give able engineers green light to finally make adequate sized displays to quadrupled resolution jump. Otherwise i don't see reasons why NOT to make them, when all required technology bits (cheap enough) are already there and demand is more then possible and when first in market might gain extra margin of profit.

 

[houkouonchi]

spectacular clarity means high dpi. high dpi means issues with scaling in windows and to lesser extent in macosx (i don't use). To me avoiding those issues is more important then less jagged fonts, especially if it will rob of big screen size i aim most with 4K just as means to get in non ugly way. So back at square one with optimum =50", minimum 39", at similar average viewing distance (~25"). NOT half of that screen size, even though with such i won't be able to distinguish individual pixels or save table space (empty anyway). And no vendor sees this market niche yet . Or they simply got used in very slow size increments in LCD monitors and marketing droids are not willing to give able engineers green light to finally make adequate sized displays to quadrupled resolution jump. Otherwise i don't see reasons why NOT to make them, when all required technology bits (cheap enough) are already there and demand is more then possible and when first in market might gain extra margin of profit.

Don't use scaling... get more desktop real-estate... problem solved. I don't use windows or mac.

 

[Church]

For many years i use mostly linux too, except for dedicated windows gaming pc, but on linux in many GUI apps/WMs/DEs UI scaling is far from ideal as well. Hence indeed another case for wishing bigger size instead of scaling, though due relative scarcity of linux desktop users it hardly impacts hardware vendor decisions. Well, for them awful scaling state at windows should be enough (though isn't enough judging by those 24-28-31.5" 4K displays) :/

 

[Psych0]

Given the choice, I would prefer a smaller 4k display to a larger one. Even with a lack of proper DPI scaling, everything on screen should appear much crisper and sharper thus making it slightly easier to see the UI functions and some of the smaller fonts that are normally difficult to see on a lower resolution monitor due to the much, much higher PPI count. The screen coating would also make a difference. We used to have 20" CRT monitors that defaulted to 2xxx by 1xxx resolution over a decade ago, so I don't see the problem.

 

[kache]

I am considering one of those new curved Samsung 4K monitors as my computer display once HDMI 2.0 hits GPU's. Most likely the 55" version, but of course it would be pushed all the way back on my desk. That would put it at a 3-4 foot view distance.

I wouldn't exactly be using it this close:

Tsk, better wait for 60"+ 5120x2160 (21:9) curved OLED displays, those would encompass the whole FOV of the user.