2k IPS vs 4k TN

thefogo · 14 Jun 2014 at 23:24

I have 290 crossfire so am looking for a new monitor to let them stretch their legs a bit more, as I'm currently on a 1920x1080 (TN) monitor.

I've been considering either a 2560x1440 or 4k monitor. These are the two I'm considering:
2k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-067-DE&groupid=17&catid=1120
4k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-019-AO&groupid=17&catid=1895

It will just be for general desktop use and gaming, anybody got advice on which would be better?
I've never used an IPS panel and never used 4k, so it's completely new to me.

nutsnut · 15 Jun 2014 at 00:32

2560X1440 is 1440p not 2k.

I think i'd go 1440p IPS and go for 4k in a few years time when we have better panels and more GPU grunt.

whyscotty · 15 Jun 2014 at 09:03

4K would be my call

I'm biased as I have already made the jump.

With 2 290's you should have a very good chance of running most games at high/ultra setting with AA lowered/off.

Just do your research into the monitor you have chosen,

as it does look as there is a few peeps having flickering issues running 4K with 290/290X's.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26458726&postcount=3469

peahead · 15 Jun 2014 at 10:55

I would recommend you go IPS 1440 for now the current 4K monitors are still in there infancy and have a few issues.

Im sure in the next few years we will see some major improvements in 4K monitors but for now i would not invest in them personally

thefogo · 15 Jun 2014 at 12:14

whyscotty said:
4K would be my call

I'm biased as I have already made the jump.

With 2 290's you should have a very good chance of running most games at high/ultra setting with AA lowered/off.

Just do your research into the monitor you have chosen,

as it does look as there is a few peeps having flickering issues running 4K with 290/290X's.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26458726&postcount=3469

Oh that sucks

I haven't heard of any of the review sites having these flickering problems though which is a bit odd

Aryuvei · 15 Jun 2014 at 12:26

nutsnut said:
2560X1440 is 1440p not 2k.

I think i'd go 1440p IPS and go for 4k in a few years time when we have better panels and more GPU grunt.

Just to add to this before more people start making up resolutions, any number before K has to be a square number.

So it's 1K, 4K, 9K, 16K, 25k, 36k, 49k, 64k, 81k, 100k

This is because of the pixels:
1k/1080p : 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1.777(recurring)k/1440p: 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels
4k/2160p : 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
9k/3240p : 5760x3240 = 18,662,400 pixels

The reason they call it 4k instead of 2160p is because 2160p doesn't bring it enough justice. Since, as you can see, it has exactly FOUR times more pixels. Which is insane. And 4k has exactly 2.25 more pixels than 1440p

TL;DR 4k because it has exactly 4x more pixels (8,294,400/2,073,600) 2k can't exist because it isn't a square number

edit: I was wrong, ignore this post

whyscotty · 15 Jun 2014 at 12:27

thefogo said:
Oh that sucks I haven't heard of any of the review sites having these flickering problems though which is a bit odd

Most of the review sites are using MST monitors,

the issue looks to be with the new TN SST monitors.

I'm no expert and may be way off, but it's something I would look into further b4 buying

whyscotty · 15 Jun 2014 at 12:31

Aryuvei said:
Just to add to this before more people start making up resolutions, any number before K has to be a square number.

So it's 1K, 4K, 9K, 16K, 25k, 36k, 49k, 64k, 81k, 100k

This is because of the pixels:
1k/1080p : 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1.777(recurring)k/1440p: 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels
4k/2160p : 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
9k/3240p : 5760x3240 = 18,662,400 pixels

The reason they call it 4k instead of 2160p is because 2160p doesn't bring it enough justice. Since, as you can see, it has exactly FOUR times more pixels. Which is insane. And 4k has exactly 2.25 more pixels than 1440p

TL;DR 4k because it has exactly 4x more pixels (8,294,400/2,073,600) 2k can't exist because it isn't a square number.

True 4k is 4096 x 2160

UHD is 3840 x 2160

Aryuvei · 15 Jun 2014 at 12:40

whyscotty said:
True 4k is 4096x 2160

UHD is 3840x2160

That's misinformation from uneducated sources (aka media). When they're saying 4k it's in relation to 1k being 1920x1080 16:9 ratio. Which means to have 4x more pixels it's double 1920x1080 (3840x2160).

"True 4k" is so irrelevant and false. It's nothing to do with what the horizontal resolution is, it's to do with how many more pixels this next resolution is. And it's exactly 4x more.

Were not talking about other strange aspect ratios like 4096x2160 which has absolutely nothing to do with Monitors since unless it's UltraWide you won't be seeing anything other than 16:9 aspect ratio.

4k for 16:9 aspect ratio is 3840x2160, it's not "pseudo" or "fake", 4k is just referring to 1k being 1920x1080, and so it's exactly 4x more pixels 8,294,400/2,073,600=4. Hope this makes sense

edit: I was wrong, ignore this post

Surveyor · 15 Jun 2014 at 13:01

4K derives from the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) that standardized the spec for the production and digital projection of 4K content. It refers to a resolution of 4096×2160.

A Consumer Electronics Association group decided that the official name for 3840×2160 is UHD.

TV/monitor makers use 4k (instead of UHD) for 3840x2160 because it's the term most familiar to consumers and the one they associate with high resolution screens.

whyscotty · 15 Jun 2014 at 13:06

Aryuvei said:
That's misinformation from uneducated sources (aka media). When they're saying 4k it's in relation to 1k being 1920x1080 16:9 ratio. Which means to have 4x more pixels it's double 1920x1080 (3840x2160).

"True 4k" is so irrelevant and false. It's nothing to do with what the horizontal resolution is, it's to do with how many more pixels this next resolution is. And it's exactly 4x more.

Were not talking about other strange aspect ratios like 4096x2160 which has absolutely nothing to do with Monitors since unless it's UltraWide you won't be seeing anything other than 16:9 aspect ratio.

4k for 16:9 aspect ratio is 3840x2160, it's not "pseudo" or "fake", 4k is just referring to 1k being 1920x1080, and so it's exactly 4x more pixels 8,294,400/2,073,600=4. Hope this makes sense

So all media sources are wrong and you are right - yeah ok

Aryuvei · 15 Jun 2014 at 13:13

Surveyor said:
4K derives from the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) that standardized the spec for the production and digital projection of 4K content. It refers to a resolution of 4096×2160.

A Consumer Electronics Association group decided that the official name for 3840×2160 is UHD.

TV/monitor makers use 4k (instead of UHD) for 3840x2160 because it's the term most familiar to consumers and the one they associate with high resolution screens.

Cameras have nothing to do with TVs/Monitors. We use 16:9 ratio here. 4k is a bad name because it conflicts with people who are already familiar with it for Camera resolutions. But we're talking about 1920x1080 being 2,073,600 pixels and 3840x2160 being 8,294,400 pixels which is exactly 4x more pixels. So if we're saying 1k is 1920x1080 then 4k would be 3840x2160.

It's 4k and people should stop confusing others with Camera resolutions that have nothing to do with TV and Monitors. I've even seen people saying 4k2k. No, please no more conspiracy theories about 4k. It's called 4k for a reason. It's 4x pixel density of the previous standard.

whyscotty said:
So all media sources are wrong and you are right - yeah ok

This is not up for debate. 4k is it's name, no more spreading of misinformation confusing people. I've explained thoroughly why they call it that. Sorry you can't see that. *shrugs* call it what you like since they won't change its name anyway.

edit: I was wrong (sorry)

Surveyor · 15 Jun 2014 at 13:24

As I said consumers associate 4k with these high resolution screens so that's the name used.

Officially 4k is 4k because it has a 4k horizontal resolution (4096 pixels).

3840 is less than 4k horizontal pixels and is officially called UHD.

I don't follow your "square number" theory.

You say 9k is 5760x3240 (3 times 1080 in each dimension) but this is less pixels than the 8k standard :confused:

Edit:

Based on your theory the current 8k standard would be called 16k :confused:

Aryuvei · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:03

Surveyor said:
As I said consumers associate 4k with these high resolution screens so that's the name used.

Officially 4k is 4k because it has a 4k horizontal resolution (4096 pixels).

3840 is less than 4k horizontal pixels and is officially called UHD.

I don't follow your "square number" theory.

You say 9k is 5760x3240 (3 times 1080 in each dimension) but this is less pixels than the 8k standard

Edit:

Based on your theory the current 8k standard would be called 16k

4k (for TV standard, not camera) talks about pixels being 4x more. So the next standard for TVs would be 9k. Or 9x more pixels than 1080p

Simply 5760x3240= 18,662,400 pixels
1920x1080= 2,076,600

18,662,400/2,076,600=9

Since 4k = double. Means 9k = triple, 16k = quadruple

Edit: yes, 9k will be less pixels than Camera 8k. Even 16k will be less than Camera 8k. 8k has an insane amount of pixels, we simply won't have the technology for that for generations to come.
edit2: I was wrong (sorry)

Quartz · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:03

nutsnut said:
I think i'd go 1440p IPS and go for 4k in a few years time when we have better panels and more GPU grunt.

Two R9 290 cards is plenty of grunt for 4K / UHD.

R400 · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:14

Aryuvei said:
Just to add to this before more people start making up resolutions, any number before K has to be a square number.

So it's 1K, 4K, 9K, 16K, 25k, 36k, 49k, 64k, 81k, 100k

This is because of the pixels:
1k/1080p : 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1.777(recurring)k/1440p: 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels
4k/2160p : 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
9k/3240p : 5760x3240 = 18,662,400 pixels

The reason they call it 4k instead of 2160p is because 2160p doesn't bring it enough justice. Since, as you can see, it has exactly FOUR times more pixels. Which is insane. And 4k has exactly 2.25 more pixels than 1440p

TL;DR 4k because it has exactly 4x more pixels (8,294,400/2,073,600) 2k can't exist because it isn't a square number.

Did you just make that up on the spot?

'K' is a suffix that denotes a thousand, so 4K = 4000.
4K resolution is so called because it has ~4000 horizontal pixels, that's the only reason.

And because it sounds cool.

Helios1234 · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:17

Aryuvei said:
4k (for TV standard, not camera) talks about pixels being 4x more. So the next standard for TVs would be 9k. Or 9x more pixels than 1080p

Simply 5760x3240= 18,662,400 pixels
1920x1080= 2,076,600

18,662,400/2,076,600=9

Since 4k = double. Means 9k = triple, 16k = quadruple

Edit: yes, 9k will be less pixels than Camera 8k. Even 16k will be less than Camera 8k. 8k has an insane amount of pixels, we simply won't have the technology for that for generations to come.

That makes no sense. Why would 4k mean 4 times more pixel than 1080p? What would the 'k' signify and why not just call it 4x if that was the case. It makes more sense that 4k means 4000 (SI) or 4096 (Computer terms).

Edit: Beaten ^

Surveyor · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:20

Aryuvei said:
4k (for TV standard, not camera) talks about pixels being 4x more. So the next standard for TVs would be 9k. Or 9x more pixels than 1080p

Simply 5760x3240= 18,662,400 pixels
1920x1080= 2,076,600

18,662,400/2,076,600=9

Since 4k = double. Means 9k = triple, 16k = quadruple

Edit: yes, 9k will be less pixels than Camera 8k. Even 16k will be less than Camera 8k. 8k has an insane amount of pixels, we simply won't have the technology for that for generations to come.

Everything I've read says that the 3840x2160 standard for TVs is officially called UHD or UHD 4k which isn't the same as 4k.

For marketing purposes it suits that UHD/UHD 4k is referred to as 4k.

You theory of 5760x3240 being 9k because it's triple the size of 1080 in each dimension, giving 9 times as many pixels, doesn't stack up.

8k UHD TVs will be 7680 × 4320 and based on your theory they should be called 16k (4 times as many pixels in each dimension giving 16 times as many pixels).

Aryuvei · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:30

Surveyor said:
Everything I've read says that the 3840x2160 standard for TVs is officially called UHD or UHD 4k which isn't the same as 4k.

For marketing purposes it suits that UHD/UHD 4k is referred to as 4k.

You theory of 5760x3240 being 9k because it's triple the size of 1080 in each dimension, giving 9 times as many pixels, doesn't stack up.

8k UHD TVs will be 7680 × 4320 and based on your theory they should be called 16k (4 times as many pixels in each dimension giving 16 times as many pixels).

That does make more sense, sorry I may have been the one going overboard. Yeah 8k UHD would be 7680 x 4320, that makes more sense. So I guess we have to call it 4K UHD to not confuse it with true 4k :/

edit: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/128...-do-they-mean-4k-uhd-tvs-are-obsolete-already

everything said there is more inline with what you said, I concede this to you

but it also says 1440p is 2k...

thefogo · 15 Jun 2014 at 14:36

whyscotty said:
Most of the review sites are using MST monitors,

the issue looks to be with the new TN SST monitors.

I'm no expert and may be way off, but it's something I would look into further b4 buying

Yep there are quite a few people with the issue and a few videos also

Don't think I want to take the chance.
I'll wait until I can hear some feedback from AMD users on here.