4k is nothing compared to Ultrawide

no_1_dave

no_1_dave

no_1_dave

Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2004
Posts
8,418
Location
Gloucester
My LG 3440x1440 Ultrawide has been sent back for repair so whilst waiting I bought a Samsung 28" 4k monitor. I ordered it from the rainforest knowing full well I will be returning it for a full refund next week when I get mine back.

1) I have to adjust the font size to read desktop icons (minor inconvenience)

2) Game support just isn't there yet. In many games the menus are tiny

3) It feels small, at 28" I can not tell the difference between 4k and 2560x1440 apart from games have that washed out look that you get when you use a lower resolution then your display supports. This means you need to run in 4k and get small menu's and less performance

To be fair, I think a lot of my negativity is because the 28" is so much smaller than my ultrawide. Maybe if I'd got a 38" or something it would be ok. This monitor just seems small and not suited for 4k at all. From now on my advise to people will be @ 28" stick to 1440p. This is going to be a long 7-10 days. I don't really want to play any of my games on this because the small screen is ruining the experience compared to the ultrawide :(
 
Yeah, try not to generalise so much. I've found the Acer XB321HK and Philips 40" 4k monitors to be excellent!! I briefly tied a 28" 4k monitor and it was pretty terrible for the small menu text!!!
 
Ordering from a retailer with the full intention of returning it is kinda scummy.

Anyway, silly generalisation, you have a personal taste, that's fine, others opinion may differ - plenty of very happy 4k users around.
 
whyscotty said:
4k 40" is awesome :)
Click to expand...

It is missing G-Sync/Freesync and anything above 60Hz before it can earn that moniker. It may be quite a while before we see such monitors, and until then ultrawide has it beat for immersion and fluidity. 4K only wins out on pixels, that's all.
 
AiiR said:
It is, but so is dodging taxes. :D
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Anyone who thinks this has no idea just how much money amazon generate for the country they operate in. Just because they are legally avoiding corporation tax doesn't discount or disregard the amount of tax their turnover generates by means of collecting VAT and the income tax/NI from all their employees.
 
no_1_dave said:
I wanted to test 4k and this was the perfect opportunity :)
I also didn't have a spare monitor to use while mine is being repaired :D
Click to expand...

"Testing" UHD (3840x2160 is UHD, not 4K) makes no sense. It's just a resolution. There's nothing special about it in and of itself. The importance is pixel density and screen size.
 
Man Manne said:
Jedi, how do you like that X34? Do you play BF4? If so, any differences against a TN 1MS etc etc.
Click to expand...

Not really, but I'm not a competitive gamer tbh. I had the Swift TN and that was awesome imo and really got me into the Gsync game :)

If response is key to you then def stick with a nice fast TN like the RoG Swift, it'll serve you well :)
 
I can (and often do) play 34" SW on my 40" 4K when a game is too rough on the GPU. It's nothing special. I'll probably go back to a high refresh 27" 1440p when funds allow, but high refresh 4K when it arrives is going to be better than UW in my opinion.
 
Personally I prefer 16:10, more suited for productivity and non-fps games, imho. Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program are equally about up/down as they are about left/right :)

But I quite agree that 28" feels too small for 4k. Too many Windows programs that do not scale gracefully on higher DPI displays. Tbh, even 32" is pretty tight for something that will be at arm's length or more.
 
Loving all the e police in this thread. 4k in my opinion only comes to life if you got a 40 inch monitor so you can see all the textures and detail and appreciate it. anything smaller and you want a superwide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom