4k monitors for the non-gamer?

eidolon

eidolon

eidolon

Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
13,892
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
At the moment I'm running a pair of oldish Hanns G 27" monitors (1920x1080) which are powered by a GTX 650.

I fancy treating myself to a new pair of monitors but is 4k the way to go? And, will I need a new graphics card too?

I don't play any games at all, just mainly office stuff, web browsing, Photoshop, maybe watch the occasional movie.
 
Last edited:
I bought an LG 27UD88-W the other day to go with a new build - running off a GTX 1070 (Asus Strix OC). I also use it with my 12" MacBook. I bought that monitor specifically for USB-C for future Macs.

It's fantastic for my games - which the card can run at max settings in full 4K at well over 100 FPS, which I vsync to 60 - and works perfectly with my MacBook over USB-C too. However, just using it for regular usage in Windows delivers an experience that is far from perfect. Windows is not quite ready for large, HiDPI screens - macOS is far superior in this regard.

I haven't properly used Windows for the best part of 12 years, so this is not something I realised Windows was so far behind with. It's certainly not disastrous, but there's a lot of pixelation in various system apps, let alone third-party ones. This is caused by the HiDPI scaling in Windows. The HiDPI scaling on macOS is far, far better. You will need to use scaling, as the UI is unusable in native 4K.

The pixelation sticks out like a sore thumb to me, having had pretty perfect "retina" or HiDPI Macs for over 4 years now, but if you've been using native 1080p or 1440p, then it's still going to be a huge improvement...80% of the time.

HiDPI 4K or 5K displays will be the norm in the not-so-distant future, but Windows users who use them today are still suffering early adoption issues.

Specifically for you:

- I would hope that MS Office has been optimised
- Chrome is absolutely fine for me
- Photoshop should be fine too, since Adobe have supported HiDPI for a very long time

Your graphics card should be more than capable of handling that - it's on nVidia's list of cards that support 4K (page 2).

Just my 2 cents based on my 12 days with a 4K monitor with both PC/Mac.
 
Last edited:
That's just the sort of answer I needed, many thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

Based on what you've said I think I'll hold off for a 4K monitor for now, at least until Windows and associated software catches up. Might go for a pair of 27" 1440p monitors or an ultra wide of some description.
 
eidolon said:
That's just the sort of answer I needed, many thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

Based on what you've said I think I'll hold off for a 4K monitor for now, at least until Windows and associated software catches up. Might go for a pair of 27" 1440p monitors or an ultra wide of some description.
Click to expand...

No problem. I was looking for a similar review when I was buying one and couldn't really find anything. Most of the reviews are focused on gaming, and graphics cards just aren't there yet for AAA games at 4K.

What you're suggesting sounds sensible. Personally I'd go for the 2560x1440 just because that's a normal ratio and will work nicely with everything. I use my 4K monitor in "2560x1440 HiDPI" (basically scaled, super sharp 2560x1440). That said, I see the value of ultra-wides.

I guess the tl;dr is: Windows users, 4K is not ready. Mac users, 4K and 5K is very much ready.
 
Last edited:
I think 4k is limited to 60hz on windows at the moment so its not exactly perfect for gaming but i manage to play fine on it and still reach the top of the scoreboard most games but if they ever bring out 100hz 4k i will definitely upgrade.
 
Am I the only one who finds 4k to make everything on the desktop too small, even at 32"? :S

I know Win 10 technically has scaling, but... most things look awful with it turned on :/

OT, my preference would be QHD for anything below 40" :)
 
I've been running a 27" 4k monitor under Win 10 for about 6 months. It's running via an unlocked HD 5450 over HDMI (so only 30Hz), which does the job TBH.

I do have it slightly magnified (125% I think) as the text was a struggle to read without (not impossible, but taxing).

It sits beside a sturdy LG 30" running at 2560x1600 I've had for years and blows it away. Much brighter, much clearer. Makes the LG look like the glass has fogged.

Santa brought me a 32" 4k Dell to replace the flickering LG and I'm hoping that size will mean no magnification needed. Just need to find a card to run them both.
 
Update: I can just about get away with 100% on the 32", though some sites are a struggle. Does give me masses of real estate to play with though.

Ended up going with an Nvidia NVS 310 to drive the pair at 4K (only 30Hz).
 
eddiew said:
Am I the only one who finds 4k to make everything on the desktop too small, even at 32"? :S

I know Win 10 technically has scaling, but... most things look awful with it turned on :/

OT, my preference would be QHD for anything below 40" :)
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar camp. For me:

1920x1080: 22-25"
2560x1440: 26-30"
1440p 21:9: 28-35"
4K: 34" upwards (except VR)
8K: Utterly pointless for computers in any way, shape or form currently (except VR).
 
The option of 4k is a no-brainer for Apple users who want to retain that "retina" look. A 4k monitor provides super crisp 1920x1080 resolution.
 
LiE said:
The option of 4k is a no-brainer for Apple users who want to retain that "retina" look. A 4k monitor provides super crisp 1920x1080 resolution.
Click to expand...

Problem is 1920x1080 looks silly on a 27" screen. Would be fine for 21", but who's using those in 2017?!

When I'm using my MacBook with my 27UD88, I run it scaled to 3008x1692. Really odd, but it looks particularly sharp using this scaling and it gives me a huge workspace too, whilst remaining very usable.

When I'm using it with my Windows gaming rig I use "150%" scaling, which scales to look like 2560x1440. But, as I mentioned previously, Windows is not ready for HiDPI displays. It's a world away from macOS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom