I got my first 4k monitor and I am a little dissapointed.

[Gillbatez_sicromoft]

Plan on buying a 3080 or 3090 when it comes out. So I picked up the Asus rog strix 27 inch  XG27UQ  The monitor I had before was the Aorus fi27q. I am a little dissapointed in 4k monitors, I mean its nice no doubt about it but when I am just browsing or doing basic tasks, I really cant tell that much of a difference. In gaming performance, I can tell a little bit of a difference but my 2070 really struggles to churn out the FPS.  Its not a bad experience but coming from 1440p, I really cant notice much of a difference, in fact I really prefer the colors on the fi27q compared to this one but that is a matter of personal preference. 

[Bombastinator]

4k imho is less than useful.  It’s a bit like 240hz

[JoostinOnline]

4K doesn't look much better, or better at all, for most things. The pixel count is more of a canvas size. Unless there are details that you'd miss at a lower resolution, there's no reason to get it.

[jones177]

4k is a bit like that on a 27' monitor. My first one was about that size. My second one was much better at 32" and that is the size that the text at 1440p start to fall apart.

 

I use a 55" OLED TV as a monitor and 4k at that size is just perfect. 

[Gillbatez_sicromoft]

8 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

4K doesn't look much better, or better at all, for most things. The pixel count is more of a canvas size. Unless there are details that you'd miss at a lower resolution, there's no reason to get it.

I remember the first time I saw a 4k tv circa 2014 and I was really impressed with how detailed the colors were and how you could literally see the sweat on someone's brow sitting far away. I was expecting that on my monitor and that is sort of what it is like but its not the same. 

[Fatih19]

26 minutes ago, Gillbatez_sicromoft said:

I remember the first time I saw a 4k tv circa 2014 and I was really impressed with how detailed the colors were and how you could literally see the sweat on someone's brow sitting far away. I was expecting that on my monitor and that is sort of what it is like but its not the same. 

Well at some point you get diminishing returns.

 

[Tieox]

I still await Linus to try running Cyberpunk at 8k.

[Vishera]

Well,I feel a significant difference between 1440p and 4K.

1440p is less sharp and it's more aliased than 4K.

[Moonzy]

1 hour ago, Gillbatez_sicromoft said:

In gaming performance, I can tell a little bit of a difference but my 2070 really struggles to churn out the FPS.

That's why 1440p is still the sweetspot for gaming as of now. 4K high refresh rate is

1) hard to achieve

2) panels are expensive af

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s a bit like 240hz

now listen here you...

[Bombastinator]

Everyone has different thresholds.  These are mine:

There can be a point to 4k, if your monitor is big enough. The problem is “big enough” is bigger than normal monitors go.  Even 32” isn’t really big enough. At 55” it has some real points.  
1080p is annoying above 27”. It’s about the max size That 1080p works at.  Unless you’re buying a monitor above Oh I don’t know.. say 35” 4k is not really worth the bother.  The thing is most monitors are 24”-32” so 1080p or 1440p  Get above 100” and 4k is reaching the end of its tether.  That’s like 1080p@27”. One might consider 8k at that point. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Bombastinator

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Gillbatez_sicromoft said:

I remember the first time I saw a 4k tv circa 2014 and I was really impressed with how detailed the colors were and how you could literally see the sweat on someone's brow sitting far away. I was expecting that on my monitor and that is sort of what it is like but its not the same. 

I'm sure they were demoing stuff that was designed for 4K. It can absolutely be amazing, but like I said, it's more of a canvas. Most games aren't going to look any different on 1080p compared to 4k because there just aren't any extra details to show.

 

New games that are designed for a more "cinematic" experience are going to look good at 4K, even if they don't run super well. You need to tailor your build to what kind of games you play.

[circeseye]

the way i see it 1080 up to 27", 1440 27" to 40", 4k anything above 40". to use a higher res in a smaller screen is just not worth it

[Doobeedoo]

How the heck not? Just on desktop it should be more than evident difference. 

[Duckson McQuack]

XG27UQ isn't such a special monitor, nothing about it is super noticeable. Make sure you're using DP and DSC enabled. What GPU do you have? It might be running with shitty colors

 

Anyways, whoever says they can't notice a difference between 4K and 1440p must have terrible eyesight. The difference is there but if you just want to game I'd stick with 1440p 144hz 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Duckson McQuack said:

XG27UQ isn't such a special monitor, nothing about it is super noticeable. Make sure you're using DP and DSC enabled. What GPU do you have? It might be running with shitty colors

 

Anyways, whoever says they can't notice a difference between 4K and 1440p must have terrible eyesight. The difference is there but if you just want to game I'd stick with 1440p 144hz 

It depends on the size of the monitor.  The bigger the monitor the more noticeable the difference is. Eventually it becomes glaring and an actual issue.  What size bigger is likely depends on the person.  Apple apparently did or at least read about research on this.  It’s what the whole “retina” thing is about.  There is visible difference and useful difference.

 

thoughts about the history of monitors

Spoiler

 The bigger a monitor is the bigger the pixels are.  Eventually you just need more of them. 480i/240p was once a standard but monitors were also frequently much smaller.    There were 48” 480i/240p devices.  They were pretty blurry if one got too close to them though. The whole i For interlace thing is basically gone.  No longer needed. There was a time when a 24” 1080p monitor was large. This is one reason I think why iPhones don’t really go over 720p. A diminishing returns issue. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s useful.  There were wall sized monitors imagined in the 1930’s used by big brother.  They were also cameras iirc.  Such a monitor might want to be 8k At 4k it would get a bit blurry if one got too close. 8k can apparently be done at the consumer level now. 

 

[kopi0hun]

The main benefit of 4k for me is that I can fit lots of stuff on the screen at once, and use it as like 3-4 secondary monitors.

Also 4k movies are great, especially once I managed to configure a video decoder to tone map HDR for it. 

 

My primary monitor is a 1080p 144hz one, so yea... Of course the difference is smaller coming from 1440p. 

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Unless you’re buying a monitor above Oh I don’t know.. say 35” 4k is not really worth the bother.

 

15 hours ago, circeseye said:

he way i see it 1080 up to 27", 1440 27" to 40", 4k anything above 40". to use a higher res in a smaller screen is just not worth it

meh, I'm happy with my 28" 4k monitor, though you could argue I'm sitting too close to it. 

[Knight77]

The detail when playing in 4K is insane. 
 

When I had the PG27UQ, you could easily tell the difference between that and any 1440p monitor. 
 

1080p just all round looks bad now, been used to 2K since 2008...

 

Max screen size for that is definitely 24/25. 
 

1440p is a good sweet spot because it’s far easier to run than 4K. 
 

But I would much rather play 4K 100-144FPS, then 1440p 144FPS. 

 

I’m sure the new 3090 will really help make that possible. 
 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Knight77 said:

The detail when playing in 4K is insane. 
 

When I had the PG27UQ, you could easily tell the difference between that and any 1440p monitor. 
 

1080p just all round looks bad now, been used to 2K since 2008...

 

Max screen size for that is definitely 24/25. 
 

1440p is a good sweet spot because it’s far easier to run than 4K. 
 

But I would much rather play 4K 100-144FPS, then 1440p 144FPS. 

 

I’m sure the new 3090 will really help make that possible. 
 

 

“Insane” is not a measurement though.  It’s like “has great body” or “fruity” Do you like it more? Apparently.  It becomes what do you like and what will you pay? 

[SolarNova]

Fun fact, the biggest contributor to 4k display looking better than 1080p display when gaming isnt the Display itself, its the rendering resolution, beyond that theres a whole host of other factors outside of resolution that can make one display better than another.

 

As for being disappointed, if u bought it on specs alone then thats the reason.

As explained in the below thread, specs dont tell u everything, theres more to choosing a display than just finding one with certain 'specs'.