Choosing a display for productivity and some gaming

[maremp]

I was decided on picking 4K display, most likely Dell P2715Q. But after reading on 4K, it got me thinking about 4K resolution being squeezed onto 27" panel. So I got curious how does it look and will I have to zoom in or scale text up in order to see things without too much eye strain. I tried to call around my area, but none of tech stores are willing to let me try such display, so I have no other source than the internet reviews and forums. At this point I've started thinking about other options, so I'm open to suggestions for other displays. Not necessarily 4K, but a lot of screen estate is a must for my work.

For other hardware details, I'm still deciding about my build, but I'll most likely be getting a 980ti. My "productivity stuff" includes web development and other coding. IPS panel would be great to better see colors when doing web development, but I don't need extreme color quality. I will also be doing some gaming to wind off, so nothing of the hardcore kind. I don't need gsync or any jaw dropping refresh rates. I'm also not yet set on the budget, I was thinking about up to $700. 

 

What are your opinions about 4K on 27" or similarly sized displays in terms of productivity and screen estate? Is it as great as it sounds or would you recommend an alternative, for example widescreen 1440p? 

[stealth80]

From I'm told 1440P is the sweet spot for 27". Pretty sure its 32" for 4k (for gaming monitors, like 50" for TVs)

[Glenwing]

18 hours ago, maremp said:

I was decided on picking 4K display, most likely Dell P2715Q. But after reading on 4K, it got me thinking about 4K resolution being squeezed onto 27" panel. So I got curious how does it look and will I have to zoom in or scale text up in order to see things without too much eye strain. I tried to call around my area, but none of tech stores are willing to let me try such display, so I have no other source than the internet reviews and forums. At this point I've started thinking about other options, so I'm open to suggestions for other displays. Not necessarily 4K, but a lot of screen estate is a must for my work.

For other hardware details, I'm still deciding about my build, but I'll most likely be getting a 980ti. My "productivity stuff" includes web development and other coding. IPS panel would be great to better see colors when doing web development, but I don't need extreme color quality. I will also be doing some gaming to wind off, so nothing of the hardcore kind. I don't need gsync or any jaw dropping refresh rates. I'm also not yet set on the budget, I was thinking about up to $700. 

 

What are your opinions about 4K on 27" or similarly sized displays in terms of productivity and screen estate? Is it as great as it sounds or would you recommend an alternative, for example widescreen 1440p? 

At 27", yes you will need to use scaling with 4K. You can just look at a 27" 1080p monitor and imagine that everything on the screen is shrunk down to fit into one quadrant of the display, that will be the size on a 4K monitor. Realistically you won't get any more screen real estate than 2560×1440 on a 27" monitor. Even if you get higher resolution it will be too small to be usable and you'll have to scale it back up to 1440p-scale. The point of 4K isn't screen real estate though, it's for providing high sharpness and less pixelation, similar to when iPhones started using retina displays, which had double the pixel count in each direction, the same as going from 1080p to 4K. It didn't let you fit 4× as many icons on the screen or make text 1/4th the size, it was used to improve sharpness.

[maremp]

3 hours ago, Glenwing said:

At 27", yes you will need to use scaling with 4K. You can just look at a 27" 1080p monitor and imagine that everything on the screen is shrunk down to fit into one quadrant of the display, that will be the size on a 4K monitor. Realistically you won't get any more screen real estate than 2560×1440 on a 27" monitor. Even if you get higher resolution it will be too small to be usable and you'll have to scale it back up to 1440p-scale. The point of 4K isn't screen real estate though, it's for providing high sharpness and less pixelation, similar to when iPhones started using retina displays, which had double the pixel count in each direction, the same as going from 1080p to 4K. It didn't let you fit 4× as many icons on the screen or make text 1/4th the size, it was used to improve sharpness.

Initially I didn't even think about that point, but when it dawned upon me, I've started this topic and I understand your points. The 4K could be used for more space, but the screen would need to be really big, in physical dimensions. 

I did some calculations, based on my 13" rmbp screen, which I'm using at 1680x1050 (the osx "more space" option) and the native resolution is 2560x1600. So this is almost the same as running natively 4K display at 1440p. I can use it fine for the most part, but having it further away still adds more eye strain than I would like. 

This is exactly what I've feared and I'm not sure how to proceed. I bet that 4K monitor with 1440p resolution (so only 2/3 of native) would amazing, but I'm not sure if it's worth the money, or should I just get 1440p and run it at native resolution. I was thinking about 2 monitor setup anyway, so I bet that will be enough screen estate for me to have all the relevant windows visible at once. Do you have any suggestions?

[Glenwing]

10 minutes ago, maremp said:

Initially I didn't even think about that point, but when it dawned upon me, I've started this topic and I understand your points. The 4K could be used for more space, but the screen would need to be really big, in physical dimensions. 

I did some calculations, based on my 13" rmbp screen, which I'm using at 1680x1050 (the osx "more space" option) and the native resolution is 2560x1600. So this is almost the same as running natively 4K display at 1440p. I can use it fine for the most part, but having it further away still adds more eye strain than I would like. 

This is exactly what I've feared and I'm not sure how to proceed. I bet that 4K monitor with 1440p resolution (so only 2/3 of native) would amazing, but I'm not sure if it's worth the money, or should I just get 1440p and run it at native resolution. I was thinking about 2 monitor setup anyway, so I bet that will be enough screen estate for me to have all the relevant windows visible at once. Do you have any suggestions?

Apple's software tends to handle scaling very well, but if you're going to be running Windows then I think you'd be better off with a native 1440p monitor personally.

[SurvivorNVL]

29 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Apple's software tends to handle scaling very well, but if you're going to be running Windows then I think you'd be better off with a native 1440p monitor personally.

At 27" 1440p, and at 40" 4k, the PPI is the same, so the only benefit becomes real-estate.  At 32" 4K, you get better PPI, so sharpness, and more real-estate / usability than 27" 1440p overall.  So, wouldn't 32" 4K be the best of both worlds?  But then again, some AA with 1440p would be less of a hit when you do end up gaming.

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, SurvivorNVL said:

At 27" 1440p, and at 40" 4k, the PPI is the same, so the only benefit becomes real-estate.  At 32" 4K, you get better PPI, so sharpness, and more real-estate / usability than 27" 1440p overall.  So, wouldn't 32" 4K be the best of both worlds?  But then again, some AA with 1440p would be less of a hit when you do end up gaming.

We're talking about a 27" monitor specifically here, aren't we?

[SurvivorNVL]

8 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

We're talking about a 27" monitor specifically here, aren't we?

We are.  I just thought I'd pose the question above - directly to you.

[maremp]

Yes, I'm most likely picking 27" display. I was also taking a look at Philips BDM4065UC, but at huge 40", it looks like a TV and it will be sitting too close to me for comfortable use.

 

Quote

Apple's software tends to handle scaling very well, but if you're going to be running Windows then I think you'd be better off with a native 1440p monitor personally.

So the Windows wouldn't be any good at scaling, if I choose 1440p resolution in the system? But yeah, I intend to use this monitor on a hackintosh system and the windows usage will be gaming for the most part.

But if native 1440p is really better in this case than 4K scaled down , I will start to look for some other options. But most of the options I can find cost about the same, if not more, than the Dell I've mentioned previously. 

[maremp]

Quote

But most of the options I can find cost about the same, if not more, than the Dell I've mentioned previously. 

Might have found a worthy alternative with around the same price (+5%) and it's Acer XB270HU. But with this trade off to Dell, I get much better refresh rate, g-sync, which will go perfectly with my gpu-to-be and it's still offering all the physical features of the Dell (height and tilt adjustment, swivel, usb hub), except the 4K, but your input helped me figure out that it's not going to be particularly useful at 27". Or is there a better choice for similar price range of ~600€?