Associate
There are many GPU's that can handle 2160p @4K
1440 vs 4K
- Thread starter sybaris
- Start date
There are many GPU's that can handle 2160p @4K
Do you mean 4K/60FPS?
Associate
What did you go for in the end? Sorry to bump an old thread but I'm asking myself the same questions 
1440 or 4k and 27" to 32" or more.
I'm not much of a fast paced competitive gamer and I do love my slower easy on the eyes gaming (Witcher /Skyrim /Death Stranding) type games.
Currently I use an old, Cretaceous period Dell 2409W 1080/60hz, So anything will be an upgrade at this time
Paired with a 6800XT Nitro+ I really do need a new monitor.
1440 or 4k and 27" to 32" or more.I'm not much of a fast paced competitive gamer and I do love my slower easy on the eyes gaming (Witcher /Skyrim /Death Stranding) type games.
Currently I use an old, Cretaceous period Dell 2409W 1080/60hz, So anything will be an upgrade at this time
Paired with a 6800XT Nitro+ I really do need a new monitor.
In the end I went for a Samsung Odyssey 27". I sit fairly close to it and 32 would have been too in my face. Also 1440 is fine. 4K would have been too small for office work and windows. I know you can scale but it's not reliable and no gpu is up to 4k gaming yet. Also the manufacturer had it on sale at £100 off. I have to say its better than my old ips screen and I have no issue with the curve.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,502
Been on 60hz 4K 32inch for 5 years now, finally have a gpu up to the job. Still love it, sure, 144hz would be nice one day.
If you can take the price, 4K would be that big upgrade for such use/non-reflex shooter gaming.What did you go for in the end? Sorry to bump an old thread but I'm asking myself the same questions
I'm not much of a fast paced competitive gamer and I do love my slower easy on the eyes gaming (Witcher /Skyrim /Death Stranding) type games.
Currently I use an old, Cretaceous period Dell 2409W 1080/60hz, So anything will be an upgrade at this time
Non-competive gaming doesn't need the fastest response times and especially slower paced games are fine.
So 100+ Hz 4K monitors being at the moment more or less quirky/with downside or two wouldn't be problem.
For example LG's 27" 27GP950 has good response times with extremely well tuned normal overdrive mode fit for variable refresh rate use.
But 27" just isn't much size for 4K requiring shorter viewing distance to get benefit from resolution.
And at least part of the monitors have black screen issues, though lower hertzes would seem to help to that:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35156975
Innolux panel based 28" and 32" Gigabytes again have very good response times at full refresh rate.
But overdrive is too agressive for lower Hertzes and disabling overdrive makes FI32U/M32U slow for 144Hz.
(M28U again doesn't have real overdrive disabled mode)
Also colour gamut is only mid wide and HDMI 2.1 support really isn't there supporting only half speed of the spec.
Then there are AU Optronics panel based 32" models coming with Asus PG32UQ likely as first.
They have very wide colour gamut good for beautifully colourfull views in games.
But response times are average (including ludicrously expensive FALD backlight model) and wouldn't be good choise for fast paced games.
Myself have few months short of 8 years old Dell U3014 and it looks like just can't find monitor which would be good upgrade in everything...
Consoles are now 4k. We have 4k GPU's, capable of playing many games at 4k between 60-100FPS. Sure, may have to turn some detail down in the latest AAA games, but 4k high looks way better than 1440P Ultra.
I remember there were the same fanatics who insisted 1024×768, 720p, 1280×1024 were superior to 1080P, just because 1080P needed an expensive GPU to use at the time.
Today, 3080ti/3090 are even more expensive than therir equivalents back then (inflation adjusted) , this is one of the main issues why people stick to depreciated and inferior 1080P and 1440P, not because they are better in any way.
I remember there were the same fanatics who insisted 1024×768, 720p, 1280×1024 were superior to 1080P, just because 1080P needed an expensive GPU to use at the time.
Today, 3080ti/3090 are even more expensive than therir equivalents back then (inflation adjusted) , this is one of the main issues why people stick to depreciated and inferior 1080P and 1440P, not because they are better in any way.
IMO I think it depends on the size of the screen, having 4K on 27/28inches is it really gonna look better then 1440p at that screen size ? Also you will be sacrificing FPS ... 4K on 32inch+ I can make case for
Also Consoles dont they do some kind of trickly upscale or change res on the go depending on the action ?
Agreed, I have a 27" and 32" 1440p monitor and the 32" is definitely not as sharp. Anything over 27" I'd go 4k too now.
I went 27" 1440p 165Hz for the following reasons.
- I don't see the point of 4K on a 27" monitor.
- I use it for work as well so 32" is out otherwise I'd go blind or sprain my neck trying to view my other monitor. This is obviously setup dependant.
- I didn't want to splurge on a 3090 or 6900XT to get consistent FPS at 4K. I prefer high FPS gaming because of the consistency.
Soldato
I "borrowed" my son's 43" TV to use as a monitor today as a test to see if an FV43U or upcoming 42" OLED would be feasible, my god it was beautiful, and that's on a relatively poor £300 TV. I'm so very tempted to grab the Aorus now, although it right on the edge of being too big (why are there no 36-38" 4k monitors?! 
)
In terms of productivity - I tried both in full res and "ultrawide" 3840x1620 and found the ultrawide to be a bit easier to use, but for some cases (like writing a very long SQL script), I actually found it better to switch back to full 4k.
In game was great although I only had about 30 mins to test over lunch. Had a quick game of PUBG (yes I'm that bad!), fired up Beyond All Reason to see what that was like, a couple of mins in Doom (2016), and then a round of Splitgate. The only one which wasn't really an improvement was PUBG due to having to constantly scan the whole screen, but otherwise, really immersive!
Basically.... as a comparison between the 2 formats I'm considering (4k vs 3840x1600) my testing was somewhat inconclusive
I think at that size, the ultrawide format is probable more useable on a day-to-day basis, and I really missed the curve when using the TV, but it would be nice to have the option of the full 4k in some circumstances...
Either way, if I was buying a new monitor, I'd pick one of the above over 1440p - currently have a 35" 3440x1440 and going back to it this afternoon it seems tiny in comparison
)In terms of productivity - I tried both in full res and "ultrawide" 3840x1620 and found the ultrawide to be a bit easier to use, but for some cases (like writing a very long SQL script), I actually found it better to switch back to full 4k.
In game was great although I only had about 30 mins to test over lunch. Had a quick game of PUBG (yes I'm that bad!), fired up Beyond All Reason to see what that was like, a couple of mins in Doom (2016), and then a round of Splitgate. The only one which wasn't really an improvement was PUBG due to having to constantly scan the whole screen, but otherwise, really immersive!
Basically.... as a comparison between the 2 formats I'm considering (4k vs 3840x1600) my testing was somewhat inconclusive
I think at that size, the ultrawide format is probable more useable on a day-to-day basis, and I really missed the curve when using the TV, but it would be nice to have the option of the full 4k in some circumstances...Either way, if I was buying a new monitor, I'd pick one of the above over 1440p - currently have a 35" 3440x1440 and going back to it this afternoon it seems tiny in comparison
27" is tiny for this day and age, I agree 4K would be overkill for it.
It depends on how close you are. For me I sit about 60cm away from the screen and 27" is just right. I found 32" like sitting in the front row of the cinema.
4K is nice for optimised games at 60fps but I don't just game so 1440p works well for non gaming apps.