Going from 4k to 1440p?

[ZeusXI]

Hello. So I currently have a https://www.samsung.com/us/business/support/owners/product/ur550-series-u28r550uqn/ 28inch 4k monitor 60hz. My friend has a 1440p monitor, and I realized that from where I sit at my desk, I see a difference in quality, but not near the amount that I was thinking.

 

I am thinking about getting the same monitor as them and sell my 4K

 

This is the monitor they have, and it is on sale as well.

180hz, AMD Freesync, 1440p, IPS panel, and it doesn't seem to be a bad price.

https://www.newegg.com/black-acer-nitro-vg271u-m3bmiipx-27/p/N82E16824011467?Item=N82E16824011467&ignorebbr=1&ignorebbr=1&cvtc=1585037

 

 

I have a Ryzen 5950x with a RX 7900 XTX card, so frames wouldn't be a problem. But I am interested in the anti-tearing which I do see on my 4k display currently. I really enjoyed how smooth the gameplay is on their monitor, and was wondering what you guys thought. I don't do "High quality" video editing and I don't do anything really color oriented.

 

I play Palworld currently  But I also play a little Fortnite, Avatar, Enshrouded, Ark, and few other games like those.

[NinJake]

Yes, you can. Should you? That's up to you to decide. If you see a lot of tearing on your current monitor, you could just set the in game resolution lower to ensure you're maintaining 60fps. You could also lower the game's graphical settings.

 

If you have the budget and cost isn't an issue, go for it. If you're still on the edge of deciding, maybe determine if it's something you truly need, maybe you can put that money elsewhere?

[Andrewtst]

Actually 4K is not that wow if your monitor size is around 27”.

 

I also downgrade from 4K to 1440p and no regret, but I am from Wide to Super Utrawide, which is longer version of Wide.

[ZeusXI]

1 minute ago, Andrewtst said:

Actually 4K is not that wow if your monitor size is around 27”.

 

I also downgrade from 4K to 1440p and no regret, but I am from Wide to Super Utrawide, which is longer version of Wide.

And looking at your PC specs, we have similar performance (bit less for me but still close enough haha) And I am assuming you have no issues running 1440p Super Ultrawide yeah?

[Alex Atkin UK]

14 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Actually 4K is not that wow if your monitor size is around 27”.

 

I also downgrade from 4K to 1440p and no regret, but I am from Wide to Super Utrawide, which is longer version of Wide.

I went from 4K 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and couldn't wait to go back as the pixels/aliasing were so visible - but the motion smoothness WAS a big deal too so now on a 28" 4K 144Hz.

 

I have a 28" 4K and 27" 4K right next to each other, the 27" looks a whole lot cleaner due to the higher PPI.

 

Then again I mostly use these for looking at photos and video work.  Photo and video does a lot to hide the pixels due to natural anti-aliasing, its text and 3D rendering where its night/day difference to me.  Of course it always comes back to what you personally can tolerate.

[ZeusXI]

2 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I went from 4K 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and couldn't wait to go back as the pixels/aliasing were so visible - but the motion smoothness WAS a big deal too.  Now on a 28" 4K 144Hz.

 

I have a 28" 4K and 27" 4K right next to each other, the 27" looks a whole lot cleaner due to the higher PPI.

 

Then again I mostly use these for looking at photos and video work.  Photo and video does a lot to hide the pixels due to natural anti-aliasing, its text and 3D rendering where its night/day difference to me.  Of course it always comes back to what you personally can tolerate.

Thank you for the info. I may stop at Best Buy after work since its like 10 minutes down the road haha. See if they can show me a side by side. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

2 minutes ago, ZeusXI said:

Thank you for the info. I may stop at Best Buy after work since its like 10 minutes down the road haha. See if they can show me a side by side. 

Actually I was mistaken, its a 24" 4K 60Hz which explains how much cleaner it looks.

[Dedayog]

4 minutes ago, ZeusXI said:

Thank you for the info. I may stop at Best Buy after work since its like 10 minutes down the road haha. See if they can show me a side by side. 

100% do this.  See both near side by side if possible.

 

I will say for me.... I do love an Ultrawide and find 1440p just fine.  Some people like higher res, some do not.  Just depends where you are on that spectrum.

 

I personally will take 3440x1440p all day everyday.  

[Andrewtst]

13 hours ago, ZeusXI said:

And looking at your PC specs, we have similar performance (bit less for me but still close enough haha) And I am assuming you have no issues running 1440p Super Ultrawide yeah?

Hi, no issue with maximum quality setting. but due to it is 5120x1440 which also a lot pixels, so the performance is actually very closed to 4K but slightly much faster.

13 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I went from 4K 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and couldn't wait to go back as the pixels/aliasing were so visible - but the motion smoothness WAS a big deal too so now on a 28" 4K 144Hz.

 

I have a 28" 4K and 27" 4K right next to each other, the 27" looks a whole lot cleaner due to the higher PPI.

 

Then again I mostly use these for looking at photos and video work.  Photo and video does a lot to hide the pixels due to natural anti-aliasing, its text and 3D rendering where its night/day difference to me.  Of course it always comes back to what you personally can tolerate.

If your usage mainly 3D rendering not gaming, and text usage, surely 4K is much better.
 

Another reason I ditch 4K is I prefer 100% windows scaling, and 27” and even 32” everything is too tidy if under 100% scaling. 42” seems just nice but then 42” size a bit too big for my liking especially on productivity usage.

 

So at the end I prefer and I find the best is 1440p in 27” wide, 34” ultrawide or 49” super ultrawide.

[Alex Atkin UK]

53 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Hi, no issue with maximum quality setting. but due to it is 5120x1440 which also a lot pixels, so the performance is actually very closed to 4K but slightly much faster.

If your usage mainly 3D rendering not gaming, and text usage, surely 4K is much better.
 

Another reason I ditch 4K is I prefer 100% windows scaling, and 27” and even 32” everything is too tidy if under 100% scaling. 42” seems just nice but then 42” size a bit too big for my liking especially on productivity usage.

 

So at the end I prefer and I find the best is 1440p in 27” wide, 34” ultrawide or 49” super ultrawide.

I use 100% scaling even on the 24", although I could use new glasses I can still read tiny text in fact smaller than on 1440p thanks to the higher PPI making it clearer.  I then have the option to zoom when necessary.

Similar in gaming where 1440p + DLSS to 4K looks a whole lot better, though I game primarily on a 55" OLED TV.

[Stahlmann]

Resolution isn't the only factor going into picture quality. It's pretty clear once you have a 27" 4K IPS and a 27" 1440p OLED monitor side by side. The OLED will just look better in most cases, even though it's running on lower resolution. But it also depends on the screen size. At 27" the difference isn't that big and 1440p is perfectly useable. If you go to 32" or higher, the difference between 4K and 1440p will be a lot more noticeable.

[Doobeedoo]

Really depends how much you value pixel density. 4K to me is just good enough, lower I easily see pixels.

[Andrewtst]

17 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

100% scaling even on the 24

This is torturing, not for me and I already 45 years old.

 

I don’t zoom Windows text also as certain apps will look weird and ugly.

[Andrewtst]

17 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

It's pretty clear once you have a 27" 4K IPS and a 27" 1440p OLED monitor side by side. The OLED will just look better in most cases

Agreed but not the text clarity, so if text clarity is top priority, the user can’t lower down the resolution once use 4K, it will be only increasing resolution in future.