Is 23 inch 4K monitor worth it?

asdfguy · 2 Oct 2015 at 23:00

I currently have a Dell 24 inch 1080p IPS monitor and I was thinking of buying a 24 inch 4K IPS monitor. The question is, will I see a huge difference? I always hear that 4k is useless on a phone because the human eyes wont see all of those pixels. But is it worth buying it for a 24inch monitor?

Rofflay · 3 Oct 2015 at 01:18

It would be classy IF you could re-size UI in all games but i find that doubtful. Mate i use DSR on a 23.5 inch 120hz panel and in games the difference is good, So real 4K on that size is around 180ppi lol. But the UI will be so small you will not be able to read text or tooltips it will be so small that like me you will not be able to read text in Natural selection 2... 27 inch is the smallest you can go i reckon with UI. In the future this will probably be solved i guess?

Still risky but the PPI is fantastic it is basically free antialising with no fps hit. I am a big fan of PPI when grass and trees come into play.

Disco_P · 3 Oct 2015 at 02:08

One major caveat to high dpi is windows scaling sucks balls.

Text will overflow, or go all burry, icons go awol, some things don't scale so you need a magnifier to read them.

Windows 10 was meant to fix this. It didn't.

momo56 · 3 Oct 2015 at 07:20

Disco_P said:
One major caveat to high dpi is windows scaling sucks balls.

Text will overflow, or go all burry, icons go awol, some things don't scale so you need a magnifier to read them.

Windows 10 was meant to fix this. It didn't.

+1.

Even at 2560x1440, 25" it's still a headache in Windows 10.

PCM2 · 3 Oct 2015 at 07:30

momo56 said:
+1.

Even at 2560x1440, 25" it's still a headache in Windows 10.

Have you ever used a 27" 2560 x 1440 model (and did you need to use scaling), incidentally? Most users I've come across wouldn't need/want to use scaling on a 25" WQHD model. Although I appreciate some would.

The main issues with scaling comes from third party applications, not elements of Windows itself. I kept on telling people this when they were expecting miracles from Windows 10, that they were simply setting themselves up for disappointment. It isn't Microsoft's fault, it's the program developers really.

P.B · 3 Oct 2015 at 07:34

i would say it's far too dense packed pixels as others have said above the highest i would want to go is 2560x1440 at that res

varkanoid · 3 Oct 2015 at 08:59

PCM2 said:
Have you ever used a 27" 2560 x 1440 model (and did you need to use scaling), incidentally? Most users I've come across wouldn't need/want to use scaling on a 25" WQHD model. Although I appreciate some would.

The main issues with scaling comes from third party applications, not elements of Windows itself. I kept on telling people this when they were expecting miracles from Windows 10, that they were simply setting themselves up for disappointment. It isn't Microsoft's fault, it's the program developers really.

Hear Hear. Windows 10 OS itself scales very well. For instance reading this forum the text it the same size is would be on 1080p. I just get more real estate.
The problem is with games developers. World of Warships doesnt scale for 4k text is tiny. Same with Total War series. Yet games like Mad Max, Planet Annihilation, GTA V are fine at 4k size wise.

Howling · 3 Oct 2015 at 10:04

That size monitor is just far too small. I'm on the Samsung 28" 4k and I'd say that's the absolute smallest acceptable size for it.

D3K · 3 Oct 2015 at 10:26

I had an Acer 4k which is 27" and 4k is wasted at that size. I had to press my nose to the screen to really appreciate the fidelity.

32" minimum imo. YMMV at 27". Absolutely no way for 23".

andybird123 · 3 Oct 2015 at 10:40

Yeah, I find around 100ppi is sufficient for desktop use, that's 1440 @ 27" and 40" at 4K

I had a 28" 4K and sold that because it was of little benefit without it being uncomfortably close, I can only imagine 24" being even more so

willieaames · 3 Oct 2015 at 13:28

If I were you I would forget about 4K until you have enough graphics cards in your PC to be able to play the game at above 60 FPS. Wait and see what DX12 does for performance. Hopefully by then there will better cards and 4K monitors with G-Sync/Freesync that are capable of 100Mhz or so.

Wucked · 3 Oct 2015 at 13:45

I'm surprised they even bother making a 4k monitor that small.

Rofflay · 3 Oct 2015 at 16:52

Yeah, I find around 100ppi is sufficient for desktop use, that's 1440 @ 27" and 40" at 4K

I had a 28" 4K and sold that because it was of little benefit without it being uncomfortably close, I can only imagine 24" being even more so

Yes but this is only due to scaling, If it scaled corectly it would be fine. But saying there is no benefit is just so so wrong. At 109ppi the image without MSAA is downright disgusting.

Moving up to 180ppi at 4K still does not get you a crisp enough image to not see aliasing on things like telegraph lines. In short the benefits are there right up until 5k or 8K on a screen around 27". For people here to say 4K is not needed i mean cmon really? So you all think that in a few years we will not be using 8K screens? I forsee a time when we are gaming with around 200ppi and technology like V-Sync and MSAA are long dead.

momo56 · 3 Oct 2015 at 21:10

PCM2 said:
Have you ever used a 27" 2560 x 1440 model (and did you need to use scaling), incidentally? Most users I've come across wouldn't need/want to use scaling on a 25" WQHD model. Although I appreciate some would.

The main issues with scaling comes from third party applications, not elements of Windows itself. I kept on telling people this when they were expecting miracles from Windows 10, that they were simply setting themselves up for disappointment. It isn't Microsoft's fault, it's the program developers really.

Haven't used a 27" before. I came from a 23" at 1080p. The difference in PPI is about 22% so I use 125% scaling. Too small otherwise.

a66as · 3 Oct 2015 at 21:21

personally i think go 32-40 inch minimum or dont bother with 4k

better off with a 1440p at 25-27 inches

smilertoo · 3 Oct 2015 at 22:01

it wouldnt really be usable as a big desktop on 24", you would just have to scale for basically the same desktop you had but smoother looking.

varkanoid · 3 Oct 2015 at 22:43

a66as said:
personally i think go 32-40 inch minimum or dont bother with 4k

better off with a 1440p at 25-27 inches

Dont forget not everyone has the space/desk size for a 32" or above. I sit about 32" from my screen and I feel I get the benefit. The difference between the Rog Switft and my Sammy was very noticeable towards 4k.
I remember first few games I played did give me the WOW factor and Far Cry 4 vistas looked stunning.
I would love a 32" screen but there is no way I could disguise it from the missus as it would overlap onto her desk to my left and cant fit right due to the printer. Also makes me wonder whether it would be just too big.

Blackjack Davy · 4 Oct 2015 at 23:13

momo56 said:
Haven't used a 27" before. I came from a 23" at 1080p. The difference in PPI is about 22% so I use 125% scaling. Too small otherwise.

I have a 26" @ 1200p and I have use 125% scaling on that or I need a magnifying glass to read text otherwise lol. Can't imagine what 4K on 24" would be like. Miniscule I imagine.

Disco_P · 5 Oct 2015 at 01:55

Here is a screenshot of my 1440p 13.3" where I have to use scaling otherwise text is about 2mm in height (click for full size)

As you can clearly see both steam and device manager suffer from blurry text. It's just balls and annoying as hell.

Joe! · 5 Oct 2015 at 06:30

I used to be really fond of high(er) DPI, but after trying to use Windows Scaling @ 163 PPI (3840x2160 @ 27") I told myself I'd never go that high again.

As others have mentioned, Windows DPI scaling is absolutely awful but for games, 2160p @ 24" would be absolutely stunning in visuals.