4k

[CatXice]

am looking at a 4k 28" monitor but will i notice the difference between 4k at 28" and 1440p at 27"

purly for gaming i want to go 4k coz of the looks but will i see a difference at 28"

4k = pixal per inch 157

1440p = ppi 108

is this enough to tell the difference

[Oshino Shinobu]

Yes, you will notice a difference. However, I would say 4K (assuming we're talking 3840x2160) at 28" is too small for practical everyday use without the use of a lot of scaling, which causes some issues in some programs. It has benefits for some productivity applications and of course watching native 4K content, but for general use it's not worth it. If you're gaming, I'd say 1440p 144Hz is a better choice. 

[xentropa]

I couldn't.  But then again, I have crappy eyes.

[CatXice]

6 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Yes, you will notice a difference. However, I would say 4K (assuming we're talking 3840x2160) at 28" is too small for practical everyday use without the use of a lot of scaling, which causes some issues in some programs. It has benefits for some productivity applications and of course watching native 4K content, but for general use it's not worth it. If you're gaming, I'd say 1440p 144Hz is a better choice. 

gamin only will it look better on the 4k panel or will there be no real difference 

[xentropa]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Yes, you will notice a difference. However, I would say 4K (assuming we're talking 3840x2160) at 28" is too small for practical everyday use without the use of a lot of scaling, which causes some issues in some programs. It has benefits for some productivity applications and of course watching native 4K content, but for general use it's not worth it. If you're gaming, I'd say 1440p 144Hz is a better choice. 

I agree with this.  For gaming, it might be better to go 1440 and 144 hz.  

 

On the side note.  Slightly curious why people say xxxxp or xxxxi when referring to computer monitors.  Interlacing video xxxxi to my knowledge was never used on computers I think.  Only TV.  Computer monitors have been progressive scan the entire time.

[Orangeator]

For a 4k monitor you are going to want a 32-34inch'ish monitor that way you don't have to use windows scaling. 

[Glenwing]

6 minutes ago, xentropa said:

I agree with this.  For gaming, it might be better to go 1440 and 144 hz.  

 

On the side note.  Slightly curious why people say xxxxp or xxxxi when referring to computer monitors.  Interlacing video xxxxi to my knowledge was never used on computers I think.  Only TV.  Computer monitors have been progressive scan the entire time.

It's not that we say 1080p because we think people might think we're talking about 1080i, we just say it because saying a number by itself like "1080" is somewhat confusing

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

It's not that we say 1080p because we think people might think we're talking about 1080i, we just say it because saying a number by itself like "1080" is somewhat confusing

am on about displays not graphic card bruh....  *point made*

[Enderman]

You will not notice the additional pixels but you will definitely notice the 12fps you will get.

[Glenwing]

2 minutes ago, CatXice said:

am on about displays not graphic card bruh....  *point made*

I was replying to the guy I quoted

[CatXice]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

I was replying to the guy I quoted

i know i was makin yr point

[CatXice]

5 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

For a 4k monitor you are going to want a 32-34inch'ish monitor that way you don't have to use windows scaling. 

32" 4k is like £900+ were this 28" is £450

[Oshino Shinobu]

15 minutes ago, CatXice said:

gamin only will it look better on the 4k panel or will there be no real difference 

You will notice a difference, but 4K takes a lot to run. If you're going to be using the RX 480 in your signature, any game that you can get a decent framerate at 4K with isn't really going to benefit from 4K anyway as it will likely have pretty low quality textures. For gaming, you get more for your money by going for high refresh rate if you ask me. 

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

You will notice a difference, but 4K takes a lot to run. If you're going to be using the RX 480 in your signature, any game that you can get a decent framerate at 4K with isn't really going to benefit from 4K anyway as it will likely have pretty low quality textures. For gaming, you get more for your money by going for high refresh rate if you ask me. 

a 1080 is coming soon i hope money dependin but i can run bf1 at 4k vsr and all my other games at 4k

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

I have a 4k 24-inch (I love me some pixel density), and the difference it make in gaming, especially in things like battlefield and Verdun, is absolutely crazy. I much prefer 4k to 1440p, but that's my opinion.

a guy with an answer haha

[Oshino Shinobu]

16 minutes ago, CatXice said:

a 1080 is coming soon i hope money dependin but i can run bf1 at 4k vsr and all my other games at 4k

It's up to you really, but it's hard to actually compare them without having seen and used both. Personally, I find 144Hz better than 4K for games, though 4K is useful for things like 3D modelling and editing. There's so little native 4K content worth watching that I don't really consider it a selling point right now. I normally run my 4K monitor at 1440p for general use and gaming because it's just more practical to use and still looks good in games (obviously 4K looks better, but to me having to sacrifice texture quality or frame rate in order to run the game in 4K isn't worth it). 

 

I think the last time I used my monitor at 4K in a game was to take screenshots of Skyrim. It looks fantastic, but I barely get 10FPS with all the mods I have installed. 

 

4K Skyrim Screenshots if you're interested

 

 

 

 

[Orangeator]

32 minutes ago, CatXice said:

32" 4k is like £900+ were this 28" is £450

And why do you think that is? Lol... Because of what I said (other factors as well obviously, but you get the point).

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

And why do you think that is? Lol... Because of what I said (other factors as well obviously, but you get the point).

the 28" am looking is 1ms gtg the 32" is 6ms gtg and looks worse (the stand) 

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, CatXice said:

the 28" am looking is 1ms gtg the 32" is 6ms gtg and looks worse (the stand) 

Yes but when it comes down to usability and practicality the 32 inch makes a whole lot more sense. I have seen 4k on a 32 inch and on a 28 inch, ultra-wide for the win every time as there is more screen real estate without it being super tiny.

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Yes but when it comes down to usability and practicality the 32 inch makes a whole lot more sense. I have seen 4k on a 32 inch and on a 28 inch, ultra-wide for the win every time as there is more screen real estate without it being super tiny.

its purly for gaming

[Orangeator]

Just now, CatXice said:

its purly for gaming

Well then do what the people said above, 1440p with a better response time is always better for gaming then a 4k monitor. But for productivity nothing beats a 4k ultra-wide. It's like a word processors dream. Lol.

[CatXice]

1 minute ago, Orangeator said:

Well then do what the people said above, 1440p with a better response time is always better for gaming then a 4k monitor. But for productivity nothing beats a 4k ultra-wide. It's like a word processors dream. Lol.

the 4k is 1ms GTG did u mean refresh rate? 

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, CatXice said:

the 4k is 1ms GTG did u mean refresh rate? 

Wow 1ms for a 4k display is actually really good. And yes refresh rate as well.

[JoostinOnline]

3 hours ago, xentropa said:

I couldn't.  But then again, I have crappy eyes.

People make such a big deal about how only 60fps is unbearable, but I can barely tell the difference between 60 and 30.