Just simply curious...

[Eighjan]

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product/GzWzK8/

 

Is this worth consideration... and what card would it realistically need to get the performance it can offer?

[jaslion]

No at 28inches 1440p is totally fine and 4k is overkill. To get those fps you'd need at least a rx6800xt. Not a 3080 because that 10gb or now 12gb vram is not gonna last long at that resolution.

 

I'd honestly skip it and just get the m27q. Your card will be able to play your games much longer at the res of the display and it would be very hard to notice a difference.

[Eighjan]

So; 32", minimum for 4K...?

[jaslion]

2 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

So; 32", minimum for 4K...?

At least. Even there 1440p is ok but that is depending on how far you put your monitor 4k will start becoming a nicer benefit the closer you put your screen.

[RONOTHAN##]

5 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

So; 32", minimum for 4K...?

32" 4k you'll still have to deal with the mess that is Windows Scaling, but it's a lot better than 28". 

[Eighjan]

Gonna stick to 27", 1440p...

[IPD]

30 minutes ago, jaslion said:

At least. Even there 1440p is ok but that is depending on how far you put your monitor 4k will start becoming a nicer benefit the closer you put your screen.

Captain Jack will get you high again, and take you to your special island.

 

--

 

1440p is laptop resolution; that's where the benefits become quite clear over 1080p.  2160p is beneficial well below 32".  I'd put money on being able to spot the difference (1440p to 2160p) at 24".  Granted, I am someone whose ideal panel diagonal is longer than my viewer distance. 

[SolarNova]

Being able to tell whats 1440p vs 4k as a rendering resolution is rather easy. being able to tell the physical resolution of a display showing the same resolution image, that becomes harder. Its still noticeable, but harder, especially at smaller screen sizes.

 

4k at 28" is fine, but u would see more a benefit at 32" and since a 32" option is available i'd go with that, but ofc its more expensive.

 

As for a GPU to drive a 4k screen at 120fps+, ur looking at the top of the line.

A 3080ti , 3090, or 6900XT. And i really dont advice buying one atm, even at MSRP they are overpriced significantly.

 

Frankly at 4k, the top AAA games at higher/ultra settings will not be hitting anywhere close to 144fps, some will be around 70 even.

 

Cyberpunk wont break 60fps without things like DLSS enabled, BF 2042 wont break 100, The latest Assassins Creed will be hard pressed to hit 60 at 4k ultra. Horizon Zero Dawn iirc will be around 90 at 4k highest. Battlefield 5 i think can hit around 120, and tomb raider is around 100.

 

So understand that these 4k 144hz displays are ahead of GPU's atm when it comes to the most visually modern games. less demanding games and older games will be fine though.

[jaslion]

27 minutes ago, IPD said:

Captain Jack will get you high again, and take you to your special island.

 

--

 

1440p is laptop resolution; that's where the benefits become quite clear over 1080p.  2160p is beneficial well below 32".  I'd put money on being able to spot the difference (1440p to 2160p) at 24".  Granted, I am someone whose ideal panel diagonal is longer than my viewer distance. 

Yeah if you hug the screen for sure. But at normal viewing distances 1080p on a 15 inch screen is more than enough. Good luck seeing pixels. Sure 1440p and 4k may look a tiny bit sharper but this is beyond the point of diminishing returns.

[IPD]

5 hours ago, SolarNova said:

 

So understand that these 4k 144hz displays are ahead of GPU's atm when it comes to the most visually modern games. less demanding games and older games will be fine though.

 CS, for example.  And there's nothing wrong with that, imho.  And at any given point in time, we're like 1 GPU generation away from today's games being 150+ hz in 4k.

[IPD]

5 hours ago, jaslion said:

Yeah if you hug the screen for sure. But at normal viewing distances 1080p on a 15 inch screen is more than enough. Good luck seeing pixels. Sure 1440p and 4k may look a tiny bit sharper but this is beyond the point of diminishing returns.

I did a comparison on 1080p on my 15.6" GX660R to my 15.6" GT60 3k IPS edition.  The resolution bump was stark and immediately visible.

 

So no, that's a myth that 1080p is sufficient on a 15.6".  Might work for 1440p--I haven't tried.  But it is DEFINITELY north of 1080p.

 

p.s.

24-32" for a 40" monitor isn't "hugging the screen".

 

Additionally, @SolarNova it's far easier to identify resolution bump with text or icons or some such.  Images in a given resolution will certainly appear quite similar on different resolution displays.