Spec me a monitor £1000 max

[4K8KW10]

Well yes, on a purely technical level you aren't wrong, but it depends what you're using your PC for. Gaming on AAA titles is far from guaranteed to be smooth going at 4K (even with a 1080Ti), and for the time being always limited to 60hz, not to mention 27" being small at that res... unless you are sat ridiculously close you aren't going to see THAT much difference vs a bigger 4K monitor. Productivity on 4K has an obvious advantage over 1440p, but again if you're using programmes that benefit from all those extra pixels, you will be better off with a bigger display... I've used Photoshop and Video Editing apps on a 27" 4K monitor and when sat back it can be very fiddly given how small the UI etc. is. The extra width on a 1440p ultrawide was actually more beneficial in certain apps I found.

I see a lot of people jumping on the 4K bandwagon seemingly without asking themselves WHY they actually want it... other than just thinking they should because it's the latest greatest thing. Individual use case is the most important factor to consider.

Going to 3840 x 2160 has a secondary benefit better productivity from the increased real estate. The primary benefit is the increased clarity, sharpness of the screens and much reduced strain on the eyes. Because with higher-ppi screen people eyes' look at a much more natural picture. Similar to looking through a window. Not there quite yet, maybe 16K will do the trick but still.
Most people will be stuck with whatever you throw at them. Most people aren't interested in technology topics and what's hot now and what's not.
And our collective progress suffers from this ignorance.

Screens for 95% of the people or even more don't need anything higher than 60Hz.
Keep in mind that manufacturers like LG are promoting 50Hz screens which they sell with marketing names ala several times higher refresh rates.

Games run at 3840 x 2160 with many of the modern cards, just be careful not to max the settings out.

 

[FishLicker]

Thanks for the kindness but we were over the moon with our 100ish ppi screens in years 2007 and 2008. That's exactly 10 years ago.

There's a lot more to picture quality than resolution. You enjoy your slow refresh rates and suffering crap windows scaling artefacts or squinting at the screen

A QHD superwide is still 5 millions pixels FFS!

 

[Legend]

Going to 3840 x 2160 has a secondary benefit better productivity from the increased real estate. The primary benefit is the increased clarity, sharpness of the screens and much reduced strain on the eyes. Because with higher-ppi screen people eyes' look at a much more natural picture. Similar to looking through a window. Not there quite yet, maybe 16K will do the trick but still.
Most people will be stuck with whatever you throw at them. Most people aren't interested in technology topics and what's hot now and what's not.
And our collective progress suffers from this ignorance.

Screens for 95% of the people or even more don't need anything higher than 60Hz.
Keep in mind that manufacturers like LG are promoting 50Hz screens which they sell with marketing names ala several times higher refresh rates.

Games run at 3840 x 2160 with many of the modern cards, just be careful not to max the settings out.

Yes, but again, use case is of paramount importance here. I don't know too many professionals (myself included) who run a 27" 4K monitor as a daily driver. It can have significant limitations in many professional cases, although certainly has advantages in certain situations and will be enough for some people... so again, it simply comes down the user in question.

And yes, 60hz is fine for most, but again if you're a gamer, 4K is far from ideal given its limitations.

TV's are notorious for peddling quadruple digit refresh rates when the panel is only 50Hz, they've been doing that for years, but TV's are a different ball game altogether of course.