4k monitor and productivity

[Paul Siu]

I am looking to upgrade my wife's monitor. She has a dual monitor setup where there is a main external monitor and her laptop. The external monitor is her main monitor, while the laptop is mostly use for secondary when she needs to compare something. She usually uses it for documentation and presentation work and some photo work. She rarely play games. The distance from the main monitor to her eyes is roughly 30 inches. Both of us are middle age, so our eyes are not the best.

 

Currently, her monitor is a 19 inch 1440 x 900 monitor. I like to upgrade it to a 27 inch 4K, but I wonder if the graphics may be too small or too large. How would it compare to her current setup?

 

Thanks.

[Andrewtst]

You need to consider few things before move to 4K

• The main source GPU is powerful enough to draw 4K or not. I mean even for the very basic of Windows itself.
• The main source GPU port (HDMI or DP) is support 4K or not, included the refresh rate support.

I notice you mentioned your wife use laptop as secondary screen and your main screen is 19" 1440 x 900. Is the new plan to buy 4K also connected to same laptop?

If yes then I think mostly not support as your external monitor size and resolution is kind of old type, this possible means the laptop is kind of old also, which means the output is possible HDMI 1.2 which not support 4K in standard refresh rate of 60hz.

 

If you are upgrading the system, either new PC or new laptop, then different story and you best to have HDMI 2.1 (at least 2.0 for laptop) or DP 1.4 (this is very common already for PC GPU now).

 

For visibility wise, 4K is basically unusable in 100% scaling in Windows for 27" or even 32". Increase Windows scaling (for example to 125%, 150% or 200%) is required for 4K.

[Paul Siu]

3 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

You need to consider few things before move to 4K

• The main source GPU is powerful enough to draw 4K or not. I mean even for the very basic of Windows itself.
• The main source GPU port (HDMI or DP) is support 4K or not, included the refresh rate support.

I notice you mentioned your wife use laptop as secondary screen and your main screen is 19" 1440 x 900. Is the new plan to buy 4K also connected to same laptop?

If yes then I think mostly not support as your external monitor size and resolution is kind of old type, this possible means the laptop is kind of old also, which means the output is possible HDMI 1.2 which not support 4K in standard refresh rate of 60hz.

 

If you are upgrading the system, either new PC or new laptop, then different story and you best to have HDMI 2.1 (at least 2.0 for laptop) or DP 1.4 (this is very common already for PC GPU now).

 

For visibility wise, 4K is basically unusable in 100% scaling in Windows for 27" or even 32". Increase Windows scaling (for example to 125%, 150% or 200%) is required for 4K.

 

Supposedly, the laptop will support 4K@50. It's listed in the spec. The monitor is much older than the laptop. It's basically something we found in the basement and has no HDMI. We had to use a converter because the laptop does not have a dsub or dvi output. Basically, due to work at home, we had to come up with a setup that would work in a hurry. The plan is also to get a newer laptop with a newer GPU eventually.

 

So if we need to scale to 125 or 150, wouldn't this make the screen the same size as a 1440p screen?

[Andrewtst]

3 hours ago, Paul Siu said:

 

Supposedly, the laptop will support 4K@50. It's listed in the spec. The monitor is much older than the laptop. It's basically something we found in the basement and has no HDMI. We had to use a converter because the laptop does not have a dsub or dvi output. Basically, due to work at home, we had to come up with a setup that would work in a hurry. The plan is also to get a newer laptop with a newer GPU eventually.

 

So if we need to scale to 125 or 150, wouldn't this make the screen the same size as a 1440p screen?

Good to know that and yup, after scale then it will look similar working space and size as 1440p but much sharpen and clarity on text. 

[Montana One-Six]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:34 PM, Andrewtst said:

For visibility wise, 4K is basically unusable in 100% scaling in Windows for 27" or even 32". Increase Windows scaling (for example to 125%, 150% or 200%) is required for 4K.

It is not. You most certainly can run at 100% scaling even at 27/28". Things will be small true but it is far from unusable. Also if you really want to benefit from the additional space you get from 4K you have to run it at 100% otherwise you could have just gotten a 1440p monitor instead.

 

21 hours ago, Paul Siu said:

Supposedly, the laptop will support 4K@50.

In that case you just have to make sure your cable is at least HDMI 1.4b. Preferably 2.0 or newer.

[Paul Siu]

21 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

It is not. You most certainly can run at 100% scaling even at 27/28". Things will be small true but it is far from unusable. Also if you really want to benefit from the additional space you get from 4K you have to run it at 100% otherwise you could have just gotten a 1440p monitor instead.

 

In that case you just have to make sure your cable is at least HDMI 1.4b. Preferably 2.0 or newer.

I did an experiment where I look at different computers that I own and calculate their dpi and then located computers that I had to scale. My work laptop for example has a FHD resolution screen but is small enough that it had to be scaled to 125%. I think I worked out that I should stay below dpi 111 for a distance of 2.5 feet.

Some of the software don't seemed scale properly. I think I might stick with below 4K for now.

[e22big]

39 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

It is not. You most certainly can run at 100% scaling even at 27/28". Things will be small true but it is far from unusable. Also if you really want to benefit from the additional space you get from 4K you have to run it at 100% otherwise you could have just gotten a 1440p monitor instead.

 

In that case you just have to make sure your cable is at least HDMI 1.4b. Preferably 2.0 or newer.

That is false. You don't buy 4k for screen real estate, otherwise you can just scale UI back on monitor any size and it will do the same thing. You buy 4k because you want the pixel density, so that texts remains sharpe even when scaled larger. 

 

You buy a larger monitor if you want the real estate, scalign is the software not hardware problem. You might as well buy a 1080p and scale it to 50 percent if that's your main use case.

[Andrewtst]

54 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

It is not. You most certainly can run at 100% scaling even at 27/28". Things will be small true but it is far from unusable. Also if you really want to benefit from the additional space you get from 4K you have to run it at 100% otherwise you could have just gotten a 1440p monitor instead.

 

In that case you just have to make sure your cable is at least HDMI 1.4b. Preferably 2.0 or newer.

I don't want to spoilt my eye looking at those tiny font or tiny icon in apps interface. For real estate also need to think of comfortable. 4K in 100% for 27" is not in a comfortable zone to me and this is stress the eye for doing so.

[e22big]

1 minute ago, Andrewtst said:

I don't want to spoilt my eye looking at those tiny font or tiny icon in apps interface. For real estate also need to think of comfortable. 4K in 100% for 27" is not in a comfortable zone to me and this is stress the eye for doing so.

For sure, believe it or not, Windows are pretty smart with the scaling they choose for your display. Unless you have some unusually large screen size, the default scaling is usually the best and most trouble free size by far.

[saintlouisbagels]

36 minutes ago, Paul Siu said:

I did an experiment where I look at different computers that I own and calculate their dpi and then located computers that I had to scale. My work laptop for example has a FHD resolution screen but is small enough that it had to be scaled to 125%. I think I worked out that I should stay below dpi 111 for a distance of 2.5 feet.

Some of the software don't seemed scale properly. I think I might stick with below 4K for now.

Just get a 27" 1440p monitor.

That way it will run native resolution, and everything won't be tiny. I have a 27in 4K monitor at work, and scaling to 150% looks awful.

My coworker recently got this at his desk and he's very happy with it

[Andrewtst]

11 minutes ago, e22big said:

For sure, believe it or not, Windows are pretty smart with the scaling they choose for your display. Unless you have some unusually large screen size, the default scaling is usually the best and most trouble free size by far.

Hahaha! I got to said nope, Windows is very bad on choosing the default scaling because it did bad in my large screen size monitor.

See what Microsoft did to my 5120 x 1440 scale recommendation.

 

Microsoft should recommended the scale based on height resolution only. Not looking to both.

When I 1st setup this monitor, I am shocked! as everything was insanity big!

 

[Paul Siu]

May be things are better now, but I remember obnoixous things that occur with scaling. Hover over on website would be unreadable. Some of programs didn't scale. Remote desktop in particular was unusable due to scaling.

 

Ok, the plan will be using a 27 inch 1440p, and it will be an increase in screen size since the current one is 19 inch. I think if the screen was 1 to 1, it would still be bigger and if you edit photo, that 4K would result in larger space.

[e22big]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

Hahaha! I got to said nope, Windows is very bad on choosing the default scaling because it did bad in my large screen size monitor.

See what Microsoft did to my 5120 x 1440 scale recommendation.

 

Microsoft should recommended the scale based on height resolution only. Not looking to both.

When I 1st setup this monitor, I am shocked! as everything was insanity big!

 

Yeah, like I said, unless you have some unusual size lol

 

In which case their intelligence drop to zero and everything went off the.. well, window

[Montana One-Six]

3 hours ago, e22big said:

You don't buy 4k for screen real estate, otherwise you can just scale UI back on monitor any size and it will do the same thing.

No it would not be the same.

 

4 hours ago, e22big said:

You buy a larger monitor if you want the real estate, scalign is the software not hardware problem. You might as well buy a 1080p and scale it to 50 percent if that's your main use case.

This makes literally zero sense. Running 55 inch 1080p screen will leave you with less usable screen real estate than a 27 inch 4K monitor. Because you cannot read shit scaling 1080p at 50%.

 

Screen real estate isn't tied to the physical screen size but it is tied to the native resolution of the display.

[Paul Siu]

I think we need to make a distinction on use cases. For someone who just do documents, getting 4K may not sense because the text content may be the same. While there may be some improvement in sharepness I would think that it may not be worth the money and trouble with scaling.

 

If you do a lot of photo editing, the 4K would make sense because you can fit more of the pictures on the monitor. For a photo, the small picture and high dpi may actually be good.

 

I am not sure about gaming, but if you have the cash, I guess 4K gaming could be a thing.

[e22big]

10 hours ago, Montana One-Six said:

No it would not be the same.

 

This makes literally zero sense. Running 55 inch 1080p screen will leave you with less usable screen real estate than a 27 inch 4K monitor. Because you cannot read shit scaling 1080p at 50%.

 

Screen real estate isn't tied to the physical screen size but it is tied to the native resolution of the display.

May not be 50 percent, but the point being that the two can pretty much scaled to the same size, doesn't matter what resolution you're running. If you can't read scaled down 1080p text, you can't read 100 percent 4k text, they will be exactly the same regardless of your screen size.

 

Just for fun, this is the scaled 1080p next to 4k. Now tell me that these two had different UI scaling. If you want to be able to read texts while maintaining real estate, buy a larger screen. 

[Needfuldoer]

48 minutes ago, e22big said:

Just for fun, this is the scaled 1080p next to 4k. Now tell me that these two had different UI scaling. If you want to be able to read texts while maintaining real estate, buy a larger screen. 

My main PC "monitor" is a TCL 43S425 43" 4k TV. My only regret is that it's spoiled me; basically any other display feels cramped now. (And laptops feel like you're looking through a periscope.) I don't play a lot of twitch shooters so 'only' having a 60hz display doesn't bother me, and in 'game mode' the input latency is faster than the decade-old 23" monitor it replaced. I think it's set to 100% UI scaling, but I zoom Chrome up to around 125% depending on the site.

 

If using a TV as a monitor doesn't sound like it makes sense, think of it like a permanent 2x2 grid of 22" 1080 monitors or two ultrawides stacked on top of each other, but with no bezel seams.

 

With that many pixels to play with, the FancyZones utility is basically a necessity. Regular, un-augmented Aero Snap doesn't give you enough flexibility.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones

[e22big]

14 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

My main PC "monitor" is a TCL 43S425 43" 4k TV. My only regret is that it's spoiled me; basically any other display feels cramped now. (And laptops feel like you're looking through a periscope.) I don't play a lot of twitch shooters so 'only' having a 60hz display doesn't bother me, and in 'game mode' the input latency is faster than the decade-old 23" monitor it replaced. I think it's set to 100% UI scaling, but I zoom Chrome up to around 125% depending on the site.

 

If using a TV as a monitor doesn't sound like it makes sense, think of it like a permanent 2x2 grid of 22" 1080 monitors or two ultrawides stacked on top of each other, but with no bezel seams.

 

With that many pixels to play with, the FancyZones utility is basically a necessity. Regular, un-augmented Aero Snap doesn't give you enough flexibility.

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones

I totally get you, I really dig Samsung new Neo G7 but I actually can't see myself going back to 32 inch after had been spointed by the massive 43 inch. Luckily there should be plenty of high end 43 inch 4k 120-144hz these years. Both with OLED and Mini-LED. 

 

144hz in game is nice but I actually want a high refresh rate mainly for work. It's just so much nicer to look at and scroll around when you have to work for so long in front of a display. If you have the budget for it, I higly recommend looking for an upgrade option. There should be many to choose from soon.

[Mihle]

Why not go up to 32" 4k monitor?

I love mine.

[Montana One-Six]

8 hours ago, e22big said:

If you can't read scaled down 1080p text, you can't read 100 percent 4k text, they will be exactly the same regardless of your screen size.

What? No. That is not how it works. I can read 4K at 100% scaling on my 28" monitor perfectly fine. But scaling 1080p to 50% so that it would be 1440p I cannot read much (almost nothing) and it is unusable.

 

8 hours ago, e22big said:

If you want to be able to read texts while maintaining real estate, buy a larger screen. 

No. A large screen cannot magically generate pixels that make things readable. If you want usable real estate you need higher resolutions but not necessarily a bigger screen. A bigger screen without a resolution change will not gain you any usable screen real estate, things are just "bigger".

 

 

[xg32]

22 hours ago, Paul Siu said:

.

ive had a 27inch 4k monitor and a 27inch 1440p side by side, i started with 150% scaling then went down to 100% to get used to it, for pure text work, the 4k monitor text is too small and the 1440p monitor text is slightly too big after getting used to the 4k (163 vs 108 ppi) and i can't recommend anything under 100ppi.

 

My recommendation is a 32inch 4k ips screen, 138ppi for a balance of text clarity and real estate

 

 

[e22big]

57 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

What? No. That is not how it works. I can read 4K at 100% scaling on my 28" monitor perfectly fine. But scaling 1080p to 50% so that it would be 1440p I cannot read much (almost nothing) and it is unusable.

 

No. A large screen cannot magically generate pixels that make things readable. If you want usable real estate you need higher resolutions but not necessarily a bigger screen. A bigger screen without a resolution change will not gain you any usable screen real estate, things are just "bigger".

 

 

Resolution doesn't make text bigger, larger screen mean larger text at the same UI scaling. People can use 100 percent scaling more better at 43 inch because the actual text is about the size of 125 percet at 32 inch. So you can actually make UI relatively small and gain the extra real estate but the actual texts you want to read is still just about as big as the larger text scaling on a smaller monitor. 

 

If your screen is about the same size (say 27 inch) and one is 1440p while other is 1080p, you can play with the scaling until the text and UI on both look identical (or very close to) and they will have just about the same real estate. It will just be jagged and more visibly pixlated on a 1080p display. 

 

Arguably, the 110 or so PPI in 1440p 27 inch is enough if you watch the screen from about a meter away or slightly less. The benefit of 4k in that monitor size is that you can pull it right in front of your face (it's pretty cool, I did that with my previous 4k 27 inch on a monitor army, and it gave a similar encompassing vision as a larger screen or curve) and will not see a pixel. 

 

Over kill? maybe but it's certainly not without benefit.

[Montana One-Six]

19 hours ago, e22big said:

Resolution doesn't make text bigger, larger screen mean larger text at the same UI scaling.

No shit that is exactly what I wrote earlier.

 

19 hours ago, e22big said:

People can use 100 percent scaling more better at 43 inch because the actual text is about the size of 125 percet at 32 inch.

At what resolution?

 

19 hours ago, e22big said:

So you can actually make UI relatively small and gain the extra real estate but the actual texts you want to read is still just about as big as the larger text scaling on a smaller monitor. 

Same at what resolution? As i stated numerous times you don't get any usable screen real estate with a huge monitor without upping the resolution at the same time.

 

19 hours ago, e22big said:

If your screen is about the same size (say 27 inch) and one is 1440p while other is 1080p, you can play with the scaling until the text and UI on both look identical (or very close to) and they will have just about the same real estate. It will just be jagged and more visibly pixlated on a 1080p display. 

Yes and no. Sure you can scale the 1440p at 150% so that you have the 1080p UI but if your main goal is more usable screen real estate that doesn't make any sense. If you run the 27" 1440p at 100% scaling you will always have more usable screen real estate than a 27" 1080p monitor scaled at under 100% (to technically have the same res) because with scaling under 100% the monitor doesn't magically gain pixels, which means your UI becomes unreadable and therefore it is not usable screen real estate.

[Andrewtst]

20 hours ago, Montana One-Six said:

What? No. That is not how it works. I can read 4K at 100% scaling on my 28" monitor perfectly fine. But scaling 1080p to 50% so that it would be 1440p I cannot read much (almost nothing) and it is unusable.

 

No. A large screen cannot magically generate pixels that make things readable. If you want usable real estate you need higher resolutions but not necessarily a bigger screen. A bigger screen without a resolution change will not gain you any usable screen real estate, things are just "bigger".

 

 

How you scale to 50%. Please show me. Thanks.

21 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

No shit that is exactly what I wrote earlier.

 

At what resolution?

 

Same at what resolution? As i stated numerous times you don't get any usable screen real estate with a huge monitor without upping the resolution at the same time.

 

Yes and no. Sure you can scale the 1440p at 150% so that you have the 1080p UI but if your main goal is more usable screen real estate that doesn't make any sense. If you run the 27" 1440p at 100% scaling you will always have more usable screen real estate than a 27" 1080p monitor scaled at under 100% (to technically have the same res) because with scaling under 100% the monitor doesn't magically gain pixels, which means your UI becomes unreadable and therefore it is not usable screen real estate.

I not sure on macOS but I don't see Windows have option to scale below 100% to increase the working space.

 

[Montana One-Six]

12 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

How you scale to 50%. Please show me. Thanks.

I didn't mention it first. I just replied using the same percentage that was provided by whoever I replied to.

 

The reason you cannot scale below 100% out of the box is because it simply doesn't make any sense and makes things unusable, which is also what I wrote. 

On Win 10 there are some registry hacks that lets you enable scaling below 100% afaik. Since you are using Win 11 I have no idea if that is also possible there.

 

Easiest way to simulate that to some extent would be using scaling in your browser as these usually allow values far below 100%.