Is it worth going 4k with a computer monitor yet?

I've been on 4k since 2015; even if you're not gaming at 4k, for productivity, it's worth it.
 
Axman said:
I've been on 4k since 2015; even if you're not gaming at 4k, for productivity, it's worth it.
Click to expand...

I thought you had to stay at the resolution a monitor is for nowadays ? Can you really game at a lower resolution on a 4k monitor and it still looks as good as the default resolution ?
 
ng4ever said:
I thought you had to stay at the resolution a monitor is for nowadays ? Can you really game at a lower resolution on a 4k monitor and it still looks as good as the default resolution ?
Click to expand...

You can change resolutions, it will not look as good as native, but it will also benefit from less jaggies. That's without DLSS or FSR. 1440p on 4k is kind of a sweet spot IMO.

Also 1080p on 4k is the same as 1080p on a big display, just with a lot more settings turned up.
 
Definitely worth going 4k, even with a crappy gaming setup. 1080p gaming looks same as on a 1080p monitor, because it's just pixel quadrupling. And just surfing the web, text is crazy sharp.
 
Even if you don't game in 4K the benefits for regular desktop are fantastic. If you GPU struggles to hit 4k / 60 you should easily be able to run your game at a non 4k resolution anyways which makes the whole (can i run 4k/60) point somewhat moot. Of course it would be great to be able to run every game at 4k 240hz but we are not there yet. I know some people in this forum change their monitors more often than their underwear but I think most users will probably go through 1 or 2 GPU upgrades over the course of a monitors life which makes getting a "good one" worthwhile. At the end of the day your monitor is the major interface to all the computer goodness and if you have a 4k high refresh monitor but you can't hit high refresh in games you still get the benefit of high refresh for regular desktop usage at the very least.
 
Yes. I can't imagine going below 4K now. A very great desktop/work experience, and noticeably sharper media/games.

My personal favorite is 32" 4K. I tried a 42" 4K, but was way too big and wasn't nearly as sharp. I also tried a 27", was pretty good too and sharper but not big enough for me.

Reserving judgement on a 38" (21:9 UW format of a 32" I think) until a ~4K 144hz version comes, but that seems like it would be amazing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this
No, of course not. We should all use 1440p for another 20 years and then discover the wisdom of going down to 1080p to get 50000Hz in the esports title of the time.
 
Once you go 4K you can never go back.... once you go 4K HDR1000 for gaming, you are locked into even more expensive monitors for life... lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zahua
like this
DLSS/FSR looks best on a 4K screen. I tried it on a 1440p screen and even with the highest quality preset there is a noticeable degradation to the image quality, it's much softer/blurrier while using DLSS/FSR 2.1 in the highest quality mode on a 4K screen looks indistinguishable from native 4K while boosting performance.
 
MistaSparkul said:
DLSS/FSR 2.1 in the highest quality mode on a 4K screen looks indistinguishable from native 4K while boosting performance.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Also, at 1440P with a high end card, you don't need DLSS at all..
 
Dan_D said:
No it doesn't. Also, at 1440P with a high end card, you don't need DLSS at all..
Click to expand...

Fine, it looks nearly indistinguishable to me when not pressing my face against the screen/zooming in 400% or playing at 25% speed that I would prefer to use it :rolleyes:

1663961230986.png
 
Last edited:
TBH, at 4K I find DLSS Quality to look BETTER than native with or without AA. Without AA you get jaggies, but with TAA you get blur, DLSS looks crisp and no jaggies. If you have a game with MSAA, maybe you can argue it looks better (like Forza 5 for example), but MSAA also has a performance hit, not a performance gain.
 
"Is it worth going 4k with a computer monitor yet?"
yes
"What screen size is best ?"
depends.
are you at a desk or on the couch? desk 32ish, couch 50+
 
As a 5K iMac owner, I'm spoiled for anything less than 4K. For that matter, why can't more companies build standalone 5K monitors lately? Your choices largely boil down to Apple, a discontinued LG UltraFine, and ultra-wides from brands like LG and MSI (which are really stretched 4K monitors).
 
Aurelius said:
As a 5K iMac owner, I'm spoiled for anything less than 4K. For that matter, why can't more companies build standalone 5K monitors lately? Your choices largely boil down to Apple, a discontinued LG UltraFine, and ultra-wides from brands like LG and MSI (which are really stretched 4K monitors).
Click to expand...
dell also had one, its now disco'd too and yeah UWs dont count.
 
4K screen is great for gaming as long as you get monitor with high Hz eg. my LG 27GP950 does 160Hz at 4K.

If your GPU isn't powerful enough DLSS/FRS2 are good way to boost FPS. Performance presets will run games at 1/4 resolution so 1080p and while at this drastic reduction of render resolution quality suffers a bit its really only during fast movement where this can be noticed, like slight blurring of image during fast motion. For games which do not support these techniques (or even less powerful GPU...) you can always use integer scaling to get nice square pixels on 4K screen and this looks imho even better than native 1080p screen. At least big 4K screen doesn't have any screendoor effect from normal viewing distance.

What size... depends probably on your desk setup, scaling preferences and eyesight.
It is best to run monitor without scaling set in Windows because most programs allow to scale/zoom and with that you get a lot of space on desktop with toolbars not taking too much space and ability to zoom in actual content to your liking. For that to work however you need to see unscaled text/icons well enough for it to not be bothersome. At 27" size resolution of 4K gives 164 PPI which might be just too much for most people and 32" might be better at 137 PPI.
 
pendragon1 said:
"Is it worth going 4k with a computer monitor yet?"
yes
"What screen size is best ?"
depends.
are you at a desk or on the couch? desk 32ish, couch 50+
Click to expand...
If it’s the couch you want to get as big as you can fit. I had a 92 inch 1080p projector and I would guess that 4k at that size would have been pixel-less from our seating distance ~10 ft or so.
 
Been using 4k since 2014 and I'm enjoying it, the larger resolution even for desktop usage was worth it. The ideal size for a 4k monitor is around 32" or larger but everybody has their own preferences. For me, I'm using a 48" screen and I'm liking it so far.

Also my screen supports 120hz and it is so much smoother, will never go back to 60hz.
 
I've been on 4k for about 10 years now. Can't go back to anything less. Especially 4K HDR is a must for me now. I'm on 3080Ti on water skipping the 4000 series most likely.
 
Aurelius said:
As a 5K iMac owner, I'm spoiled for anything less than 4K. For that matter, why can't more companies build standalone 5K monitors lately? Your choices largely boil down to Apple, a discontinued LG UltraFine, and ultra-wides from brands like LG and MSI (which are really stretched 4K monitors).
Click to expand...
Nobody makes panels it seems. I think BOE is supposed to make a 5K mini-LED panel next year so that's likely to end up in any new 27" iMac Apple might make. Still only 60 Hz. :(

It's really unfortunately that 4K is still the highest resolution where you can get 120+ Hz.
 
kasakka said:
Nobody makes panels it seems. I think BOE is supposed to make a 5K mini-LED panel next year so that's likely to end up in any new 27" iMac Apple might make. Still only 60 Hz. :(

It's really unfortunately that 4K is still the highest resolution where you can get 120+ Hz.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it'd be great if you could buy, say, an Apple Studio Display with a 120Hz panel that matches the MacBook Pro it's attached to, or a 5K gaming monitor that cuts the latency down. With that said, a 60Hz 5K display is still very enjoyable for most tasks, including games (even if you have to scale down to 1440p or even 1080p).
 
4k is the way to go if you have the hardware. I have used 4k at 27, 32, and now 42 inches and at either size it looks fantastic. Going from 27 to 32 was a big jump, but from 32 to 42 is Huge. Everything seemed to small going back to the 32inch from the 42. IF you want an incredible level of immersion with a slight loss in image sharpness, Go for the 42in size.
 
Aurelius said:
Yeah, it'd be great if you could buy, say, an Apple Studio Display with a 120Hz panel that matches the MacBook Pro it's attached to, or a 5K gaming monitor that cuts the latency down. With that said, a 60Hz 5K display is still very enjoyable for most tasks, including games (even if you have to scale down to 1440p or even 1080p).
Click to expand...
The thing that offends me most about Apple is the pricing vs performance. The Macbook Pro displays are incredibly slow pixel response, like you can't get that bad performance out of the cheapest POS external display you can find. The Studio Display is ok, but slightly too slow even for 60 Hz. But it's 2000 euros and that's just ridiculous for what it is. Above 4K really, really needs to get better.
 
kasakka said:
The thing that offends me most about Apple is the pricing vs performance. The Macbook Pro displays are incredibly slow pixel response, like you can't get that bad performance out of the cheapest POS external display you can find. The Studio Display is ok, but slightly too slow even for 60 Hz. But it's 2000 euros and that's just ridiculous for what it is. Above 4K really, really needs to get better.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's bad performance, just different priorities. Apple is focusing on color accuracy, neat UI scaling and a vibrant image; it's not worried that you might miss a shot in CS:GO. Now, the Studio Display is too expensive for most people, but I can at least see the logic; you're getting a surprisingly nice webcam and speaker combo (that is, good enough to replace some dedicated options) that saves you from having to buy extras. The problem isn't so much the price as that Apple is bundling features many people don't need — I already have nice speakers, I don't need to buy more! In my dreams, Apple would release a no-frills 5K monitor at, say, $999 for folks who just want a good panel with a Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 connection.
 
Aurelius said:
I don't think that's bad performance, just different priorities. Apple is focusing on color accuracy, neat UI scaling and a vibrant image; it's not worried that you might miss a shot in CS:GO. Now, the Studio Display is too expensive for most people, but I can at least see the logic; you're getting a surprisingly nice webcam and speaker combo (that is, good enough to replace some dedicated options) that saves you from having to buy extras. The problem isn't so much the price as that Apple is bundling features many people don't need — I already have nice speakers, I don't need to buy more! In my dreams, Apple would release a no-frills 5K monitor at, say, $999 for folks who just want a good panel with a Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 connection.
Click to expand...
The Apple Studio Display is basically a parts bin that was probably an iMac at some point. Its webcam is not great either. Based on Rtings.com reviews besides a higher brightness its performance is not really any better than my 400 euro 4K Samsung IPS so the main selling points are the 5K resolution, Apple design etc.
 
kasakka said:
The Apple Studio Display is basically a parts bin that was probably an iMac at some point. Its webcam is not great either. Based on Rtings.com reviews besides a higher brightness its performance is not really any better than my 400 euro 4K Samsung IPS so the main selling points are the 5K resolution, Apple design etc.
Click to expand...
Eh, not quite — it sounds better than an iMac, and the webcam is now pretty solid (after that much-needed firmware update, that is). You're right that the panel isn't spectacular beyond the 5K, but then that resolution is difficult to find beyond Apple these days... and the design is, let's be honest, a perk if you can't stand plastic.
 
Thats because 5k isn't worth it. Could it be cool? Sure. But as it stands, there is no reason for it to gain much wider adoption and that why it's been relegated to an Apple gimmick. Monitors are more like to skip 5k entirely to either jump to 8k or to goto 4k UIltrawide resolutions.
 
TrunksZero said:
Thats because 5k isn't worth it. Could it be cool? Sure. But as it stands, there is no reason for it to gain much wider adoption and that why it's been relegated to an Apple gimmick. Monitors are more like to skip 5k entirely to either jump to 8k or to goto 4k UIltrawide resolutions.
Click to expand...
True 4k ultra wide is 5k2k fwiw, not 3840x1600 and there are multiple 40" IPS 5k2k monitors out there based on LG panels, just need an OLED version. 5k2k is the best of all worlds since you can run 4k natively which 3840x1600 screens do not allow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top