1440 vs 4K

[efish]

I have a decent GPU, thats why I am now looking for a screen to make use of it.
Some 4K video is stunning makes HD look like SD

I would sell my soul for a 32 inch O.L.E.D gaming monitor although it would have to be under a grand (low rent sinner). I got one of the latest Sony O.L.E.D's for the living room, never seen one before, I could not believe my eyes when I turned it on. Did not expect it to be as good as it is.

4k blue ray, something like Bladerunner, moments when it takes your breath away, see detail never seen before. Also upscales really well, so not much of a difference between upscaled Netflix content and 4k online content.

To get that clarity and contrast on a gaming monitor, happen sometime, can't come soon enough.

But yes 4k movies awesome, 2001 a space odyssey tomorrow night, can't wait, in 4k I think its going to be good.

 

[james.miller]

I have a decent GPU, thats why I am now looking for a screen to make use of it.
Some 4K video is stunning makes HD look like SD

Forget 4k 120+. You won't be hitting that consistently no matter what GPU you use. What games will you be playing? That matters. Have you looked at benchmarks for the card you're buying? 3070ti isn't it? Does the rest of your rig match the specs they used in their test rigs?

 

[sybaris]

ok, I am going to throw something else in to the mix.... after looking at a lot of options.
I may be able to just about get a 34" widescreen on to my desk.
Going from a 27" at 2560x1440 (I thought it was 29" but there we go) which is just about readable with all my windows apps, to a 34" widescreen, could I run windows at the same 2560x1440 without scaling it and everything would be roughly the same size?
I want the best size screen without having to scale as I know some of my older apps won't work or scale properly..... or should I knock it all on the head and stick to a 27" 2560x1440 and go for a 144hz - 170hz refresh instead?

 

[GMac11]

ok, I am going to throw something else in to the mix.... after looking at a lot of options.
I may be able to just about get a 34" widescreen on to my desk.
Going from a 27" at 2560x1440 (I thought it was 29" but there we go) which is just about readable with all my windows apps, to a 34" widescreen, could I run windows at the same 2560x1440 without scaling it and everything would be roughly the same size?
I want the best size screen without having to scale as I know some of my older apps won't work or scale properly..... or should I knock it all on the head and stick to a 27" 2560x1440 and go for a 144hz - 170hz refresh instead?

Scaling/PPI etc is exactly the same on a 34 inch 3440x1440 as on a 27 inch 2560x1440 so the answer is a definite yes.

 

[sybaris]

Scaling/PPI etc is exactly the same on a 34 inch 3440x1440 as on a 27 inch 2560x1440 so the answer is a definite yes.

That's good, everything should look the same but more space and can run at native resolution without scaling.

 

[Btone]

Why do people not like X*1600
It a good step up from 1440 and Easyer to run than 4k

 

[EsaT]

Im running 1440 on a 27" at 60hz and hope that if I went 1440p 144hz or even slightly higher on a 32", the text is not going to be much smaller or the upscaling make things blurred.

Actually text is easy to scale when using Windows/OS for that.
All fonts in use should be now vector graphics/similar mathematical definition based, which can be scaled perfectly to any character size.
It's bitmaps (anything pixel based) lacking that that precise mathematical definition which are challenge for scaling.

 

[EsaT]

Why do people not like X*1600
It a good step up from 1440 and Easyer to run than 4k

That's because of marketroids forcing low screens.
I would certaily have bought another 2560x1600 the moment someone had made 100+ Hz model.

 

[sybaris]

Actually text is easy to scale when using Windows/OS for that.
All fonts in use should be now vector graphics/similar mathematical definition based, which can be scaled perfectly to any character size.
It's bitmaps (anything pixel based) lacking that that precise mathematical definition which are challenge for scaling.

And that is where I am at. Do I go 32" at 1440p and my desktop gets smaller or risk somethings not displaying properly when scaling, or stick at 27" and know that 2560x144 will be the same as it is now (just a high hz rate). I'd still consider 3440x1440 on a wide 34" if
I knew there isn't issues with software adjusting to the width. I don't think I can run everything in a window and drag it each time, that will become a pain in the ****

 

[Dave2150]

1440P is now an obsolete resolution IMO. Only good for budget builds.

Consoles dictate game development. The new consoles are 4k, meaning all new games have very high resolution textures, that can only fully be appreciated in 4k.

It's much like years ago when 1080P was the current 4K. You'd have people (usually older folk) clinging onto 480P, 720P, claiming the increased FPS and smoothness made up for it looking like a 20 year old game.

 

[Dave2150]

A 3090 GPU (which is pretty much around the best GPU you can get) struggles to run some games at 144 Hz at 1440p. That to me is enough reason not to go for 4K.

If you are into FPS games then you definitely want 144 Hz at a minimum.

The 3090 struggles to maintain 360FPS on the new 1080p 360hz monitors (24.5" ASUS ROG Swift PG259QN for example) in some games. This is reason enough not to go 1080P - best to stick to 480P for 1000fps/hz.

To anyone slow on the uptake, I'm being sarcastic above.

 

[Quartz]

The 4k 144hz are about £3K so they are out of the question.

My Acer Nitro 4K cost well under £1k and does 120 Hz on a single Displayport cable.

 

[silvagti]

I would sell my soul for a 32 inch O.L.E.D gaming monitor although it would have to be under a grand (low rent sinner). I got one of the latest Sony O.L.E.D's for the living room, never seen one before, I could not believe my eyes when I turned it on. Did not expect it to be as good as it is.

Yeah, it's weird that smaller 32" OLED 4k monitors/televisions don't seem to be commonly available yet. It feels like the ideal size, resolution and form factor for a computer monitor. Many on here seem to rave about the 40" OLED panels but I personally feel that's too large for a monitor.

I'd agree that having seen what OLED can offer it puts me off spending big money on current high end backlit monitors.

 

[sybaris]

Ok, really confused now
My current screen = 27" @60hz
GPU = 3070 Ti (actually its in transit).

Use for a screen = MS Office, legacy apps and software. Old and new games, streaming
Mounted on an arm and is about 60cm to 80cm away.

I want the least fuss with scaling as I still use some older software that I don't think will scale well but I would like to go up a size or possibly two.

Option A
Go for another 27" monitor with 144hz or 165hz refresh rate
2560x1440.
+ Everything stays the same resolution and continues to work
+ Least power hungry out of all my options (lower W rating)
- Was hoping a slightly bigger screen would help with having a bit more real estate which I may have to forgo if I stay with 27"
- 4K probably not worth it and would limit me to 60hz which I may as well stay with what I have

Option B
Go up to a 32" screen at 1440p and 144hz/165hz
+ More real estate
+ Can sit further back
- Things may not scale properly
-Native resolution at 1440p may be too small

Option C
Get a 34" ultrawide at 3440x1440
+ Higher refresh rates
+ More desktop real estate (can have a zoom window and a word doc open together at a decent size
+ I just about have room for one of these at a push ... not literally, dont want if falling on the floor.
- looks cool but that's a lame reason to get one.
- Not all software can stretch at a bigger aspect ration
- Some software may not run at all
- Not everything can run in a window and its a pain each time to window size everything that will run in a window.

Sensible head says stick with Option A - It works, why move the goal posts?
Impulse head says get a 32 and risk it
Wishful head says yeah go on get the biggest display you can physically stick on the desk.

 

[GMac11]

Option C
Get a 34" ultrawide at 3440x1440
+ Higher refresh rates
+ More desktop real estate (can have a zoom window and a word doc open together at a decent size
+ I just about have room for one of these at a push ... not literally, dont want if falling on the floor.
- looks cool but that's a lame reason to get one.
- Not all software can stretch at a bigger aspect ration
- Some software may not run at all
- Not everything can run in a window and its a pain each time to window size everything that will run in a window.

I see you mentioned this a bit further up. I just need to reiterate that a 34 inch UW will behave in exactly the same way as a 27 inch 16:9. A 34 is just a 27 with a few extra inches on either end.
Scaling is the same and save for a very small number of legacy games content doesn’t get stretched it just takes up the space that a 27 inch screen would usually cover.
I use a fair few legacy applications for work and with home working I have been using my UW as my main workstation and my applications have no problem making use of the wider display.
Furthermore, there is software out there that you can use to divide up your screen into effective ‘virtual’ displays for want of a better word. LG have a really good one but that only runs on LG monitors AFAIK.
I know it may seem like I’m some sort of rep for UW monitors but having used one for the past 3 years or so I’m sharing my experience.
I only briefly owned a 4K monitor but not long enough to dispense any sort of meaningful advice on it.

 

[mid_gen]

Second that. The negatives for UW are....not a thing, tbh....and I'm running 32:9.

It's much more useful than 4k for productivity, and better for gaming imo.

 

[sybaris]

I went to the local store and looked at the 27 32 and 34 UW, they look a lot smaller on the shelves.... but as much as I like the 32 I have a feeling that sitting up close to it, it may be like sitting in the front row
of the cinema. It made the 27 look tiny, which I know is an illusion and the 34 sits in the middle. I think to day I will scope out some more 34 UWs. Are there any with a 165hz or 170hz refresh rates?

 

[Quartz]

For me, anything over 100 Hz is not noticeable. But I’m not a pro gamer and in my 50s to boot.

 

[Grim5]

4k is better end of

 

[GMac11]

I went to the local store and looked at the 27 32 and 34 UW, they look a lot smaller on the shelves.... but as much as I like the 32 I have a feeling that sitting up close to it, it may be like sitting in the front row
of the cinema. It made the 27 look tiny, which I know is an illusion and the 34 sits in the middle. I think to day I will scope out some more 34 UWs. Are there any with a 165hz or 170hz refresh rates?

Looking at monitors (and TVs for that matter) in a store will have that effect. You could look at 60 inch TVs that won’t look that big in store, especially if there’s a 75 beside it. It can be very deceiving.
Then you get that bad boy home and it looks mahoosive!