Is 4k worth it? No seriously

Is 4k worth it?

Is it worth it to replace a 27" 1440p screen?

At what monitor size do you even notice that it's 4k?

depends on what you do.

for most use cases probably not.

1. no

2. no

3. when you don't need to apply anti aliasing anymore

Gaming and standard browsing/coding

But I have 2 monitors anyway..

4k is the only resolution worth buying in 2017.

Tho lots of poorfag idiots are stuck in dead resolutions like 1080 and 1440

>Gaming
The resolution is too high, the low framerates will meme you into buying a better GPU for no real graphical improvement.
>Standard browsing/coding
Depends if you feel that your text is too big. If you think you could deal with a halving of the size of the the letters on your screen it would be beneficial. High DPI is poorly implemented literally everywhere and it has nearly no benefit.

So does 4k not look visually better?

What are you talking about? For gaming a mid ranged vega or Volta will get you great fps on a high pixel density 24" 4k display. And for produtivity scaling is great since things can just double in size.

1. maybe

2. idk

3. idk what you mean
i would look for a monitor with around 192 PPI for no headache scaling so 22"-23"

4k is not worth it, 4K AND HDR is worth it.

22.947" to be exact

i have 4k, and i like the higher resolution. its like having 4 1080 screens smashed together

Isn't 24" way too small to notice the improvement in 4k resolution in games?

what the fuck is hdr

40" 4k is the only choice.
Any smaller screen size and you need upscaling.

34-40" is great for this, with a 40" its like having 4 20" 1080p screens in a square with zero bezels

Holly shit....
It's better than 4k

>i care about monitors but don't have money for tv's

3D
4K
HDR
OLED
VR
Curved screen
Ultrawide
Ambilight

These are memes to avoid.

>3D
>VR (today's standards)
>Curved screens
>Ambilight

Only memes in your list sir...

thats the point
fonts will look better

Yes, it looks great if you can run it

don't forget

ULMB
144hz
VA
TN
IPS
VESA
240V

seems like a waste

1440p 27'' is the the last front with monitors

any monitor above 27'' is too big and any resolution above 1440p on a 27'' makes the text too small

Not when you're looking at objects in the distance.

4K 24" means you can actually see the fine details needed to know what's going on in the distance of a game, instead of just a pixelated mess.

That being said, I'd say 4K 25" or 26" would be the sweetspot.

4K IPS was a big step up from 1080 TN for me, my next upgrade will be OLED to eliminate of backlight bleed hopefully lifespan on OLED is decent by then.

Read a bit about dynamic HDR, apparently the jist of it is that pixels can varying luminosity so if you have light reflecting of surfaces or looking at a flame in the dark stands out better.

You have more shades of colour since the standard requires 10bit colour and 1000lux of luminosity was it? not that I would notice a difference between 8bit and 10bit has more colours than your naked eye can distinguish unless you are doing professional work which deals with colour banding and requires precise colour calibration.

Correct me if I am wrong

No, at regularge viewing disrancestors I can see the pixels on a 24" 1080 screen. With a 4k they are MUCH less noticable. The difference in clarity is huge. It even works great for text. Everything looks crisper.

Moving from a dual 24" ips 1920x1200 ultrasharp to a single 32" ips (cheap) 4K has been very satisfying for me. I mainly use it for software development and rarely play games.
My 7790 can still play decent games @1080 when needed.

Getting 4k at high sizes isn't really an improvement tho. It is just removing bezels from a nultimonitor set up.

The entire point of 4k is that you have a 4x increase in pixel density over 1080 which means less jagged edges on images and text. What you are suggesting is to just play atari on a larger scream instead of upgrading to Nintendo

10 bit color and better brightness.

Jesus you are retarded. Your mind is stuck at 1080 and you think it is perfect. Do you think 1080, 1440, and 4k phones are a waste? Or do you enjoy the crisp clarity of the high pixel density screen?

>seems like a waste
why

>better readability
>wont go blind so fast

4k 23" = ~192ppi = 2x scale

23" is perfect for 4k
anything else is a waste

I bet you think buying new glasses is a waste. All it does in make things look better.

>4K 25" or 26" would be the sweetspot.
the scaling would make you tear your hair out desu
only x2 is realistic which is 23"

4k is a productivity monitor nowadays.
Normally, if you can afford a 4k monitory then you probably afford to have a separate "gaming" monitor.

So to answer your questions
> Depends on what you do
> Depends on what you do
> Depends on what you do

>144Hz

high refresh rate is god tier.

your eyes can't see past 24hz

>tfw 144Hz porn

Yeah, people buy weird ass sizes then bitch about support for scaling at 4k. Of course it doesn't support your snowflake size. They expend you to have standard sizes like 22-24 or 40-45 where scaling is 2x or 1x respectivly.

they can tho

>23" is perfect for 4k
only if you are a fucking ant

proof it

go on utube
watch h3h3 video
now watch 60fps video
do this prefferably in external player with HW accl working

> = 2x scale

>23"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA screenlet

>niggers

How's a 1080p 32'' screen hold up for programming and watching movies?

I'm a third worlder so that's probably the best I can get from nearby stores - need an upgrade from my shitty 17'' LSD

>scaling

>still same real estate as a 1080p screen

No thanks.

>replace
>having just 1 monitor on a PC
user, what are you doing with your life?

>upscaling
lmao, I'd just get a 1080p then.

I've got a 4k on my laptop and I hate it. Half my applications can't deal with it and end up with a postage stamp for a UI. Most games and GPUs can't render that high and still have a good frame rate, which means you gotta drop the resolution which makes the game look blocky because it doesn't match the true res.

Fuck 4K till everything else in the software world catches up. Maybe a few years from now.

Would not buy 4K monitor unless it's DisplayPort 1.4

...

poor for programming bc only 68 ppi and fonts would suck
movies fine, you can watch em at a distance doent matter

>use your gpu to virtualize 4k
>???
>profit

4k is great but there are still a few pixels on tiny details. 8k is the final frontier.

What is the ideal size for 1440p ?

30" = 97 ppi, but prolly 27" = 108 ppi
idk weird size
sven.de/dpi

>tfw bought 144hz 1080p monitor
>Can't ever go back to 60hz
>Buying a 4K IPS 144hz monitor is at least 1k + 1k for the GPU setup needed to run it

30" is best for 2569x1600

>phone
You hold those close to you, that's why the ppi is high. I guess you like burying your face into the pc monitor too.

For me it was, i do alot of work that requires me to have around 30 windows open and its a fucking hassle to work with. and multimonitor setups are just dumb.

So a 4k 40" display helped alot.

and to answer your question. i upgraded from a 1440p 27". again for me it was worth it, the only game i play is starcraft2 and it looks fucking epic in 4k. but i can imagine fps games all look the same.

and 4k @ 28" is probably the minimum. at that small screen you wont need AA and all will look nice.

>any monitor above 27'' is too big and any resolution above 1440p on a 27'' makes the text too small


what is scaling?

4k at 200% is like 1080p except everything from fonts to porn look so much better.

I would kill to see 120hz porn. 144 would also be good, but I doubt anyone would record at 144, it'd just be sped up.
120hz is a possibility.

It's perfect in macOS

No it isnt. first off macs have trouble with 60hz4k. and some of the scaling is fucking retarded.

they are way better suited for 5k. BUT then you get the worst fucking stutters and lag at times.

My hackintosh is way superior. and now that you can run Pascal on hackintosh, life is fucking good.

I did say macOS and not "Macs".

>4k on anything less than 40"

I think I'd prefer it over 1080p 144hz, you should be able to notice it at any size, but for productivity you want a 40" display or larger

I will upgrade when 4k 144hz IPS/Oled is cheaper and feasibly driven.

1440p 144hz IPS/TN is the best most will need, and I'm ok with 1080 144hz honestly.

>going 4k when you can go for 5 or 8k displays

I'm not touching 4K until 144 Hz freesync 4K monitors at a reasonable price are a thing.
virtual super resolution is a thing, virtual super refresh rate isn't.

on a 5.5" display, that shit rocks man I can see the cells on a close up nipple shot when examined under a microscope.

>144Hz
That hertz my eyes.

Yes but modern 4K LCD screens are still not better or in some cases inferior to my 1200p EIZO.
Dell's OLED would've been a day 1 buy for me if it was really 120Hz as announced, even at a $5000 price.

Most people prefer ultrawide 1440p 34in.

It's more productive and immersive.

16k comes to monitor 45" or 55"

This. 1440p is currently the optimum resolution if you game, otherwise get a 4K screen and future proof.

Note that you'll need at least a 1080 Ti for 4K, unless you prefer playing pre-2010 titles only. 1080p on 4K looks like choosing 960 x 540 on a 1080p screen.

>At what monitor size do you even notice that it's 4k?
On my 15" 4k monitor, I always notice it when I switch from a screen with lower resolution. It's just nice.
There is no reason not to get 4k other than cost
Why do people still say dumb shit like this?
>Half my applications can't deal with it
What kind of shitty software are you using? I mostly haven't had any problems with scaling.

Currently have 3 ~22-24 inch 1080p monitors (they are all different brands), is it worth upgrading them to ~27inch 1440p?

The human eye can actually detect individual photons.
In sunlight, your eyes get hit by about 10^16 photons per second.
Tha means you'd need a 10^16 Hz refresh rate monitor for your eyes to genuinely not be able to tell a difference.
Now lets assume that 1 photon = 1 pixel (it is a bad analogy, but lets assume so)
At 4k resolution, this would mean sunlight transfers 10^16 / ~10^7 refreshes of data @4k per second.
Which implies a refresh rate of ~10^9 is what your human eye sees. Now this assumption is likely invalid, since human eyes don't see in "pixels" because they are analog devices, but the principle remains in terms of information/data that they have 10^9 Hz refresh rate @ 4k pixels worth of data.
At 144 Hz, you'd need a monitor the size of 16,000,000 x 9,000,000 pixels to incorporate all the data that the human eye takes in per second.

unless you're producing content in 4k (actual 4k not uhd) then no, not right now

For productivty is worth it imo.

Instead of getting 4 1080p or 2 1440p monitors you could get a cheap 4k korean monitor for $400.

The bang for buck is insane imo. Unless you are a gayman fag that wants to play everything at 144hz ultra settings (in which case fuck off back to Sup Forums).

For anyone else looking to buy a new monitor in the current year, you should be looking at 4k.

Anyone remember the 1080p meme and how everyone used to say my 1280×800 was good enough.

Drawing furry porn isn't productivity.

Which 40" did you get? Is it a TV?
I'm currently using 2 23" old poverty monitors with a couple smaller ancient relics just because I can.
I'm trying to decide if I should buy a large ~40"+ 4k TV or 3 standard HD monitors.

stop projecting. back to Sup Forums

50" 1080p TV's are cheap now. Get that. I got mine for free thanks to a Walmart pricing error.

Get some korean monitor.

i run dual 27" 1440p for work and like it well enough, my boss has triple 27" but my desk won't fit that many and i don't really need them

i'm looking at going to single 32" 4k or a 34" ultrawide as even my second monitor doesn't do much except enable me to keep an extra 50 chrome tabs open that i won't end up reading

can't decide between 4k or ultrawide but i might just do both

back when 1080p was expensive? sure

Just look up a viewing distance chart for 4k. If the chart says it's worth it at your viewing distance and display size AND you're watching 4k content, it will be worth it. It will not improve the quality of 1080p, 720p or 480p content. Your deciding variables here are viewing distance, display size and how much 4k content is personally available to you in a practical manner.

>vr
>today's standards
TOP FUCKING KEK, learn what does standard mean

Is it really worth it? I'm at 60hz 1440p and feel like going back to 1080 would be torture.

>moar pixels!!1
>not better effects
This is what's holding back gaming.
It'll still never compete with crt.

Of course it's worth it, if for the sharpness alone. Only subhumans think >100 PPI is in any form acceptable anywhere.

144hz is absolutely worth it for 1080p

Once you move past that the prices start to hike up by quite a lot.
A 1440p 144hz IPS display is 600€. A 4K equivalent is 900-1000€.

So the problem is really just the price.

If 27" go 1440p
If more than 32 go 4k.
I would advise 2k 144hz for gayming and 4k for productivity.
If you can afford 2x 1080ti or 2x vega go 4k 144hz

ok now ultrawide or 16:9?

curved or not curved?

you mean