How much extra usable screen real estate do you actually get by running a 4k monitor instead of 1080p...

How much extra usable screen real estate do you actually get by running a 4k monitor instead of 1080p? What size do you need to get for it to actually be practical and so you can read stuff without having to run 200% scaling and not just be 1080p but sharper?

Sometimes I like t0 finger my butthole and call it a day. You never know when you need to spread your anal shit cream on a slice of bread for that 10/10 organic experience.

Thanks for the valuable input

I tongue nigger anus

obviously depends on the diameter.
I'm now on a 34" ultrawide 1440p and it's like two usable screens next to each other.

4 times if kept at the same scaling

The 4k is more than worth it for the higher dpi especially on say a 24inch monitor. Text looks absolutely amazing at such a high dpi. Can't wait until 27inch 8k monitors become a bit more affordable.

its just aa shame theres literally 0 content and no infrastructure

>orders a 4k monitor
>it's actually 3840x2160

explain to me how that is "4k"...

>literally 0 content

netflix originals are all 4k
hulu originals are 4k
pretty sure even amazon originals are 4k
youtube has 4k content

if you edit images/video or 3d model you can create 4k content.

the majority of new phones have 4k cameras.

while the content is somewhat lacking its not "literally 0 content" and if you work in a profession to utilize it, its very viable

im talking about 8k you mong. I work with 4k on an a 5k display

my mistake.
it's a common argument on here from misinformed people.

4k was just slow to adapt, although its really picked up now. i think because so much 1080p stuff was avaliable and the jump from sd/ hd to fhd is more significant than 1080p to 2160p people were slow to adapt. I mean of course the difference is huge if you care about it, but to an average person buying 4k equipment doesnt make sense since other stuff was so recent

it's 4 times the pixels of 1080p

I would say 300%
Cecause on my 32" I need 125% scaling to feel comfy/.


It's atill fucking magnificent though.

It's over 4k diagonally

true 4k actally is 4xxx by whatever, its just when you crop it to 16:9 you get a number slighly below. true 4k has barely any content though

I run 2x 4k monitors at work side by side, both 27" IPS and the text is a bit too small for my liking, but usable enough with 100% scaling.

I run a single 32" 4k IPS monitor at home and that's a lot better to use, again native resolution in windows but text is more comfy to read.

In terms of area 4k is actually 4x the size of 1080p, twice the height and twice the width so 4x the area. It's really liberating to have that much work space so I highly recommend for productivity.

Windows seriously needs to step up their scaling game though, holy crap.

40 inch is the ideal size for 4k on Windows

4k is a brand name for the standard, not the number of pixels. 4k isn't just a screen resolution but an industry standard size for media.

>4k is an industry standard size for media

yeah, media that is 4096 pixels wide

what you faggots keep referring to as "4k" is actually UHD, but you want to meme out with your buzzwords.

OP here, I'm asking because I need to upgrade from my old-ass 21.5 inch 1080p gaymen monitor and I do some hobbyist photography, video and music production so I want as much screen real estate as possible. I've been looking into getting a 24 inch 1440p monitor but I'm looking into if it's worth the extra price to just make the jump to 4k right away.

I usually run dual monitors but I might just get one 32 inch+ 4k monitor instead.

I got my 32" for digital art and it fucking rocks, I have room for different windows, references, toolbars and anything on one screen.

I would say 27" is still too small for 4k, you would need more scaling to feel comfy.

since 4k is literally 4 times the resoution, with the same size and no scaling, you need a monitor twice the size.

With a 1440p monitor, 27" has about 110% of the PPI of a 24" 1080p monitor, making it practically "the same".

A single 32" 4k is what I use at home and it's a great balance because it's just the right size for that "big" feel without it being too impractical, you can use it without scaling, and it has a huge amount of retail space. Again it's going to be 4x the area of your old 1080p

You'll also have a higher PPI which is great for making vector stuff or anything that renders look a lot nicer, you kinda eliminate the need for AA for the most part.

Make sure you go IPS, in fact I don't think there's any non-IPS monitors at that size, I went with the BenQ 4k BL3201PT which is great for gaming because it's 4ms response time which is super low for an IPS and 350cd/m2 brightness which is nice and high.

They are quite pricey at £650 new

it's like two screens with shittier multitasking you mean. With two actual screens you can maximize something without it blasting over everything else you have open.

Also with 21:9 you get basically two 7:6 'monitors', which sounds pretty fucking horrific.
I rather have triple 16:9, gives me different information to look at on different panels.

i have a 32" 2k panel. its great being able to see what a 24" 1080p panel will look like without any sacrifices. I have bleed issues due to the size of the panel but that was easy fixed with paper