4k Monitors: For non gaming, worth it or not?

I'm passing my PC and 24" dell IPS monitor onto my kids who now need a computer for homework and suchlike. Meaning I'm upgrading!

I don't really play games but do a lot of photo editing and run a lot of business apps concurrently. I'm tempted by a 27" 4k display but thought to ask any views, specifically:

- does a 27" desktop in 4k look much better than a 24" in HD? will I notice a substantial difference? I spend most of the day in front of it!
- is running a desktop at 4k worth it? I plan to drive it with a 1070 graphics card so I assume it won't be slow.
- I love the Dell I have (U2410), though in 4k guide they seem much more expensive that competitors, any thoughts? are still up there with the best (they were when I bought this current one 7 years ago)

budget is circa £600, any first hand recommendations?

TIA

I found 28" 4K to be a bit too small in the end for desktop use. Gaming was amazing though.

The difference is quite staggering - you can fit so much more onto the screen it's ridiculous.

If I was going to use something for desktop only, I would want 34" or more maybe for 4K. The 40" Phillips springs to mind, or of course a 4K TV.

However, I'm currently using a 2560*1440 28", which feels much better suited to desktop use. So I would recommend that option.

4k @ 27/28" is far too small, unless you increase the zoom which causes jagged edges, the writing is too small.

Only had mine a short while before getting rid of it.

thanks for the replies, they are very helpful

I just found a thread about a 40" samsung 4k TV doubling up as a monitor with positive reviews. something I hadn't considered.

40" would look massive on my desk mind, not sure how comfortable I'd be with that. At least it would have no depth as such.

The Dell I have is an IPS which was recommended at the time for those prioritising colours over gaming (which I do).

Any thoughts on whether TVs have the same colour quality as IPS monitors?

Jim99 said:

I found 28" 4K to be a bit too small in the end for desktop use. Gaming was amazing though.

The difference is quite staggering - you can fit so much more onto the screen it's ridiculous.

If I was going to use something for desktop only, I would want 34" or more maybe for 4K. The 40" Phillips springs to mind, or of course a 4K TV.

However, I'm currently using a 2560*1440 28", which feels much better suited to desktop use. So I would recommend that option.

Click to expand...

Windows scaling at 4k can suck. Zooming the UI, which is necessary, doesn't always work so pretty. That's a Windows problem, not a resolution/display size problem.

You cannot 'fit more onto the screen' with a higher resolution. How much you can fit onto a screen depends on screen size, not resolution. Increasing resolution only improves the fidelity of what you fit on screen, and works better for people who want to run certain things at native res, like a 1920x1080 movie or something that conveniently takes up exactly 1/4 of the screen. Or for more professional situations - things like graphics editing. For general consumer use, this is a mostly irrelevant concern.

I am personally skipping 1440p myself. It feels a like a 'PC gamer-only' sort of resolution. Same poor Windows scaling issues. Most modern internet/streaming media is 1080p, which scales poorly to 1440p. Not going to take proper benefit of the new 4k push, which is what most of media mediums are now pushing. 1440p is going to be looked over by the media industry and so I think it'd be well worth investing more in 4k, which I expect will be around quite a long time and is nearing 'end game' type 2d display quality for the mainstream.

Anyways, OP, my specific advice would be that in your situation, stick with 1080p for the time being.

- Yes, a 27" 4k(163ppi) monitor would look *much* better than a 24" 1080p(92ppi) monitor at the same distance.

- A GTX1070 is overkill for desktop applications

- This is the real killer and a more complicated topic.

You say you have professional uses for a monitor and also do photo editing, in which case you really want a high quality panel with good colors. Meaning TN displays are not even a consideration. So IPS or VA. You have a few options here, but not a ton.

I'd really just wait. Next year should hopefully see the 4k push come more to the monitor side of things. You'll probably find better options and pricing. We'll also hopefully start to see OLED and HDR come to monitors, though probably at the very high end in terms of pricing.

Seanspeed said:

Windows scaling at 4k can suck. Zooming the UI, which is necessary, doesn't always work so pretty. That's a Windows problem, not a resolution/display size problem.

Click to expand...

Agree that it's Windows at fault, but the result is the same - 4K screens make it difficult to read text.

You cannot 'fit more onto the screen' with a higher resolution. How much you can fit onto a screen depends on screen size, not resolution.

Click to expand...

Of course you can, assuming you don't use scaling, and it's got nothing to do with screen size. If you take an element that's 10 pixels across, you can fit 108 of them on a 1080p or 216 of them on a 2160p.

Increasing resolution only improves the fidelity of what you fit on screen, and works better for people who want to run certain things at native res, like a 1920x1080 movie or something that conveniently takes up exactly 1/4 of the screen. Or for more professional situations - things like graphics editing. For general consumer use, this is a mostly irrelevant concern.

Click to expand...

I disagree. With a 4K screen, I could have 4 windows open on the same screen and read / work with all of them at the same time. Again, you're assuming that you're using scaling which is completely optional.

And on your final point about skipping 1440p - well fair enough. But 1080p had its day a very long time ago, and since we agree that 4K isn't an option right now, sticking with 1080p for even longer is not exactly a great solution. Even if 1440p somehow goes the way of the dodo, it will still be a perfectly usable monitor for the next decade.

Thanks for the replies ... nice to see different opinions

Firstly, I did allude to professional use but that was probably overkill. I do a lot of powerpoint, word, excel type stuff and I'm an amateur photographer. The photography isn't a profession, I just do it for local clubs, societies etc. But i do love editing my photos. My current PC often slows down with multiple windows and apps open. I'd live with the kit I have were it not the need to get the kids a PC anyway.

In the near term I can save the VAT and offset against corp accounts, hence the strategy to get something somewhat overkill, but will be good for the future.

I've done the cardboard cut-out thing and I could get away with 40" at push on my desk. I like the idea of lining up windows as I'm often cutting and pasting between them.

My first flatscreen was a 19" viewsonic in about 2004 or so I guess, think it was a TN panel. Upgrading to the 24" IPS dell in 2010 was a revelation.

I guess there's still a marked difference between TN and IPS? Looks like the 40" samsung is a TN but gets good reviews. I'd hate to buy something and see it as a backward step!

Jim99 said:

I disagree. With a 4K screen, I could have 4 windows open on the same screen and read / work with all of them at the same time.

Click to expand...

This has absolutely *nothing* to do with resolution. Screen real estate has everything to do with screen size, not resolution. Increased resolution only improves the fidelity of those individual windows.

Sorry, but you dont get to 'disagree' on this. It's not a matter of opinion. You're straight up incorrect here.

Porker said:

Thanks for the replies ... nice to see different opinions

Firstly, I did allude to professional use but that was probably overkill. I do a lot of powerpoint, word, excel type stuff and I'm an amateur photographer. The photography isn't a profession, I just do it for local clubs, societies etc. But i do love editing my photos. My current PC often slows down with multiple windows and apps open. I'd live with the kit I have were it not the need to get the kids a PC anyway.

In the near term I can save the VAT and offset against corp accounts, hence the strategy to get something somewhat overkill, but will be good for the future.

I've done the cardboard cut-out thing and I could get away with 40" at push on my desk. I like the idea of lining up windows as I'm often cutting and pasting between them.

My first flatscreen was a 19" viewsonic in about 2004 or so I guess, think it was a TN panel. Upgrading to the 24" IPS dell in 2010 was a revelation.

I guess there's still a marked difference between TN and IPS? Looks like the 40" samsung is a TN but gets good reviews. I'd hate to buy something and see it as a backward step!

Click to expand...

You've sadly come to a place where most people dont know what they're talking about.

Dont ever buy a TN panel if you care about color vibrancy or accuracy. If you are a photo editor by trade or hobby, IPS should be mandatory.

Seanspeed said:

This has absolutely *nothing* to do with resolution. Screen real estate has everything to do with screen size, not resolution. Increased resolution only improves the fidelity of those individual windows.

Sorry, but you dont get to 'disagree' on this. It's not a matter of opinion. You're straight up incorrect here.

Click to expand...

I disagree with it. You can't put four windows on a 40" 720p display and it be useful as you won't have the resolution in those windows to display a decent amount of information. So yes resolution does give you more "real estate" just not in terms of physical size but in terms of resolution to display information.

You can make your posts as arrogant as you like but it's still your opinion and it is free to be disagreed with.

Seanspeed said:

You've sadly come to a place where most people dont know what they're talking about.

Dont ever buy a TN panel if you care about color vibrancy or accuracy. If you are a photo editor by trade or hobby, IPS should be mandatory.

Click to expand...

Again a very sweeping statement. TN panels have improved substantially so aren't an absolute no for photo work as an amateur - the TN based Swift had pretty good colour presentation. It doesn't sound like the OP has a colour critical work flow.

I would personally go for a nice IPS panel given his needs though.

Minstadave said:

I disagree with it. You can't put four windows on a 40" 720p display and it be useful as you won't have the resolution in those windows to display a decent amount of information. So yes resolution does give you more "real estate" just not in terms of physical size but information.

Click to expand...

You've still only got 40" of space to work with. And if you put 4 different windows in the four different quadrants, you're simply reducing the inherent resolution of each one by a fraction with a limited amount of screen space.

Were the entire screen to have a resolution of 2160p, each window would have the EXACT SAME size, just at a higher fidelity.

I'm not trying to be 'arrogant' here. I'm just genuinely baffled that an enthusiast forum like this doesn't understand how resolution and screen size relate to each other.

Minstadave said:

Again a very sweeping statement. TN panels have improved substantially so aren't an absolute no for photo work as an amateur - the TN based Swift had pretty good colour presentation. It doesn't sound like the OP has a colour critical work flow.

I would personally go for a nice IPS panel given his needs though.

Click to expand...

The TN Swift is absolutely useless for somebody who cares about photo color accuracy as a priority. Even a basic IPS screen will provide a more accurate color space. The Swift may give the best TN color space *for a TN panel*, but dont pretent it's in way as good as an IPS panel.

You're just giving terrible advice at this point. Nowhere did the person say that 144hz or anything was a desire/requirement. They want a monitor for text and photos. Anybody recommending a TN panel in this situation needs to be ignored. It's frankly quite embarrassing from a supposed enthusiast forum.

thanks again for the replies, very helpful (I think ...)

so what i have learned:

- I should go for an IPS panel as I value colours and photography work over gaming (which i hardly ever do)
- Having lots of apps open at a time, I'd value some big desktop real estate
- 27" is a bit too small for a 4k desktop and you need something bigger to get the benefit of 4k
- I should look for a 32"+ IPS panel, which I have and nothing comes up near £600
- very frustratingly, LG offer a 49" 4k IPS TV for £600, but that's really too big for my desk

so I either look again at the budget, look again at a 27" IPS 4k, or prioritise size and get a 32" TN.

why is it never straightforward ...

Porker said:

why is it never straightforward ...

Click to expand...

Did you buy a 1070 yet? If not, then go for a 1060 as you say you won't really be gaming, and use the £100-ish saved for a 32" BenQ BL3201PT (or another if you can find one close to that price).

This one is close to £600:

My basket at Overclockers UK:

• 1 x Acer BX320HKymjdpphz 32" 3840x2160 4K IPS Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Silver (UM.JB0EE.001)= £629.99

>32" 4k monitors is great for none gaming. You love all your desktop space and how much workload you can see on your screen at once.

Seanspeed said:

You've still only got 40" of space to work with. And if you put 4 different windows in the four different quadrants, you're simply reducing the inherent resolution of each one by a fraction with a limited amount of screen space.

Were the entire screen to have a resolution of 2160p, each window would have the EXACT SAME size, just at a higher fidelity.

I'm not trying to be 'arrogant' here. I'm just genuinely baffled that an enthusiast forum like this doesn't understand how resolution and screen size relate to each other.

Click to expand...

No one is arguing that increasing resolution makes the screen bigger. Increasing the resolution makes much better use of that space - Letting you display more information, I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to grasp. You can make much better use of the available space giving the feeling of more space with which to work.

Seanspeed said:

The TN Swift is absolutely useless for somebody who cares about photo color accuracy as a priority. Even a basic IPS screen will provide a more accurate color space. The Swift may give the best TN color space *for a TN panel*, but dont pretent it's in way as good as an IPS panel.

You're just giving terrible advice at this point. Nowhere did the person say that 144hz or anything was a desire/requirement. They want a monitor for text and photos. Anybody recommending a TN panel in this situation needs to be ignored. It's frankly quite embarrassing from a supposed enthusiast forum.

Click to expand...

Again you jump to conclusions and lack basic comprehension. I neither recommended the Swift or a high Hz panel. Just that it is perfectly useable TN based monitor for normal (non-professional) use.

I then clearly recommend an IPS panel would be my recommendation.

You carry on making sweeping statements based on your inability to understand posts though. It's amusing to see you present your opinion as irrefutable fact.

Porker said:

thanks again for the replies, very helpful (I think ...)

so what i have learned:

- I should go for an IPS panel as I value colours and photography work over gaming (which i hardly ever do)
- Having lots of apps open at a time, I'd value some big desktop real estate
- 27" is a bit too small for a 4k desktop and you need something bigger to get the benefit of 4k
- I should look for a 32"+ IPS panel, which I have and nothing comes up near £600
- very frustratingly, LG offer a 49" 4k IPS TV for £600, but that's really too big for my desk

so I either look again at the budget, look again at a 27" IPS 4k, or prioritise size and get a 32" TN.

why is it never straightforward ...

Click to expand...

There a nice choice of 1440P IPS panels at 25 or 27 inch which strike a nice balance between size, resolution and cost.

I'd personally pick up 2 Dell U2515H monitors and use them in a dual monitor setup. This will be under £600 and works very well for photo editing. I use a similar setup with Lightroom.

A 4K TV is a compromise too far for me, you have to be careful to find one with minimal input lag and their motion handling can be a problem.

Benq 3201PT is my 4k IPS screen and can be had on offer for under your budget.