Should I get a 1440p Monitor or 4k TV?

[IsaacThePooper]

I really want a big monitor with a 1440p or higher resolution at 60hz.

 

My budget is like around $300 and there are plenty of 1440p monitors that are 32", but not any 4k monitors at 32" that are around $300.

 

But there are these huge 4k TV's for like $300 and they're like 42".

 

I do a lot of productivity and gaming so what should I choose?

I do have the PC to power 4k and 1440p.

[DSD27]

1440p. You may have power for 4k but it won't last long... I have a 32" 1440p 75Hz.

[IsaacThePooper]

10 minutes ago, DSD27 said:

1440p. You may have power for 4k but it won't last long... I have a 32" 1440p 75Hz.

yeah but that BIG screen though, i have a 34" ultrawide rn and I want something bigger or as big but 16:9

[DSD27]

1 minute ago, IsaacThePooper said:

yeah but that BIG screen though, i have a 34" ultrawide rn and I want something bigger or as big but 16:9

Big screens are big (obviously) but at the same time they make you have to sit more far away, so... I think 32" is more than enough.

[dizmo]

What kind of productivity work? If it'll make use of the extra screen real estate, I'd go for a 4k TV. Just don't expect it to be at good as gaming as a computer monitor, as there's usually more latency. You'd have to check reviews of the TV you're looking at to see if it's an issue or not, though with a cheaper unit I'd imagine the answer is yes.

 

Only you can ultimately decide which is right for you. It comes down to what you do, and your personal preference.

[dizmo]

44 minutes ago, DSD27 said:

1440p. You may have power for 4k but it won't last long... I have a 32" 1440p 75Hz.

That makes....no sense.

[DSD27]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That makes....no sense.

Makes... perfect sense because 4k requires much more graphic power to run games, he will need to upgrade way sooner.

[dizmo]

33 minutes ago, DSD27 said:

Makes... perfect sense because 4k requires much more graphic power to run games, he will need to upgrade way sooner.

It doesn't get harder to run 4k as we go forward. If that were true 1080p would be next to impossible to run by now.

He already stated he can run 4k just fine. Not everyone feels the need to play at Ultra settings.

[Berniers]

1 hour ago, IsaacThePooper said:

I really want a big monitor with a 1440p or higher resolution at 60hz.

 

My budget is like around $300 and there are plenty of 1440p monitors that are 32", but not any 4k monitors at 32" that are around $300.

 

But there are these huge 4k TV's for like $300 and they're like 42".

 

I do a lot of productivity and gaming so what should I choose?

I do have the PC to power 4k and 1440p.

Honestly as of right now 4k is still expensive. if you are gaming I would look into 144hz monitors instead I still use 1080p but at 144hz. Your best bet is to get a 4k TV (a good one not a cheapo) use that for productivity and for gaming use 1080p 144hz. But again just my opinion. Good luck!

[Luo]

Are you looking into the new or used market? 

Obviously for gaming we all want the best resolution and refresh rate as possible, but as dizmo asked, what do you do for productivity?

If the work does not require extremely high picture quality, I'd get a used 32" monitor or two (if you're lucky enough to score both for $300).

 

 

 

[IsaacThePooper]

20 hours ago, Luo said:

Are you looking into the new or used market? 

Obviously for gaming we all want the best resolution and refresh rate as possible, but as dizmo asked, what do you do for productivity?

If the work does not require extremely high picture quality, I'd get a used 32" monitor or two (if you're lucky enough to score both for $300).

 

 

 

Probably just new. I do game development for productivity, I only game for like an hour per day or none at all. I'm pretty confused about the refresh-rates of TV's though. Most TV's only have HDMI 2.0 ports, the one's I'm looking at are 4k and can do 120hz. But they can't do 4k@120Hz via HDMI 2.0, would a displayport to hdmi 2.0 cable make any difference and can I achieve 120HZ if I change the resolution to 1080p all via HDMI 2.0?

 

I really enjoy the bigger screens and 4k, but 1440p is still better than 1080p, but all the monitors I'm looking at around my price range can only do 60HZ. 

 

So if I was game developing, I'd probably go to 4k@60hz, but if I wanted to play a quick session of CSGO, I'd like to see how 1080p@120HZ fair.

 

Also, I'm upgrading my GTX 970 to a 980 ti (because I can't find any 1070 or 1080s at a reasonable price, even used)

[minervx]

for a desk monitor of short viewing distance, 4k is probably not as essential as it would be for a television.

[Luo]

On 2/26/2018 at 5:00 PM, IsaacThePooper said:

Probably just new. I do game development for productivity, I only game for like an hour per day or none at all. I'm pretty confused about the refresh-rates of TV's though. Most TV's only have HDMI 2.0 ports, the one's I'm looking at are 4k and can do 120hz. But they can't do 4k@120Hz via HDMI 2.0, would a displayport to hdmi 2.0 cable make any difference and can I achieve 120HZ if I change the resolution to 1080p all via HDMI 2.0?

 

I really enjoy the bigger screens and 4k, but 1440p is still better than 1080p, but all the monitors I'm looking at around my price range can only do 60HZ. 

 

So if I was game developing, I'd probably go to 4k@60hz, but if I wanted to play a quick session of CSGO, I'd like to see how 1080p@120HZ fair.

 

Also, I'm upgrading my GTX 970 to a 980 ti (because I can't find any 1070 or 1080s at a reasonable price, even used)

If you buy a monitor, use DisplayPort instead of HDMI 2.0.

 

Unless you have a really good HDMI cable, you will not display above 1080p as well with a low-end cable. Downside, you’d be limited to 24Hz which is for basic television. 

DisplayPort will support upto 60Hz and well above 1080p. 

 

Unless you’re also using the HDMI for audio, DisplayPort is the way to go since it will go up to 3840x2160 over a 6.5’cable.

 

We are just now getting HDMI 2.1 so you might be able to get a tv with your specifications later this year. Maybe Black Friday? Chances are we have to wait until 2019.

 

It may be better than Displayport with its ability to do 8K and 10K. It will be 2.5x better than HDMI 2.0 (48GB transferee compared to 18GB).  

 

 

Here are some articles I pulled up. I can edit this post later with proper citations. Just too tired now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/hdmi-2-1-is-here-but-dont-worry-about-it-now/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3239026/components-graphics/hdmi-21-spec-10k-resolution-dynamic-hdr.html

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2030669/laptop-accessories/hdmi-vs-displayport-which-display-interface-reigns-supreme.html

 

 

Here are a couple of monitors if you’re willing to not use DisplayPort.

 

SCEPTRE 27 Inch IPS Ultra 4K LED Monitor U278W-4000R, UHD 3840x2160, HDMI 2.0 DVI DisplayPort Speakers, Metallic Black (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073DPBJ7Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_EN8LAbCMKCS4B

http://www.sceptre.com/store/Monitors/LED-Monitor/U278W-4000R-4K-UHD-Monitor-product1003category12category16.html

 

 

 

Samsung U28E590D 28-Inch UHD LED-Lit Monitor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YD3DBOC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_NK8LAb1JQJTVT

http://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/uhd-ue570/

 

 

- Personally, Sceptre would be my choice for its price. It’s an inch smaller but up to you if that  matters. Plus it’s cheaper. 

[skNDstry]

Hz rate matters here

good luck

[DSD27]

On 01/03/2018 at 8:58 AM, Aldog360 said:

Hz rate matters here

good luck

Of course it does mate, but only after resolution. That's how men game

[IsaacThePooper]

On 3/1/2018 at 3:47 AM, Luo said:

If you buy a monitor, use DisplayPort instead of HDMI 2.0.

 

Unless you have a really good HDMI cable, you will not display above 1080p as well with a low-end cable. Downside, you’d be limited to 24Hz which is for basic television. 

DisplayPort will support upto 60Hz and well above 1080p. 

 

Unless you’re also using the HDMI for audio, DisplayPort is the way to go since it will go up to 3840x2160 over a 6.5’cable.

 

We are just now getting HDMI 2.1 so you might be able to get a tv with your specifications later this year. Maybe Black Friday? Chances are we have to wait until 2019.

 

It may be better than Displayport with its ability to do 8K and 10K. It will be 2.5x better than HDMI 2.0 (48GB transferee compared to 18GB).  

 

 

Here are some articles I pulled up. I can edit this post later with proper citations. Just too tired now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/hdmi-2-1-is-here-but-dont-worry-about-it-now/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3239026/components-graphics/hdmi-21-spec-10k-resolution-dynamic-hdr.html

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2030669/laptop-accessories/hdmi-vs-displayport-which-display-interface-reigns-supreme.html

 

 

Here are a couple of monitors if you’re willing to not use DisplayPort.

 

SCEPTRE 27 Inch IPS Ultra 4K LED Monitor U278W-4000R, UHD 3840x2160, HDMI 2.0 DVI DisplayPort Speakers, Metallic Black (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073DPBJ7Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_EN8LAbCMKCS4B

http://www.sceptre.com/store/Monitors/LED-Monitor/U278W-4000R-4K-UHD-Monitor-product1003category12category16.html

 

 

 

Samsung U28E590D 28-Inch UHD LED-Lit Monitor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YD3DBOC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_NK8LAb1JQJTVT

http://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/uhd-ue570/

 

 

- Personally, Sceptre would be my choice for its price. It’s an inch smaller but up to you if that  matters. Plus it’s cheaper. 

i was just talking about TV's, which almost all don't have displayport outputs at all

[geo3]

18 hours ago, DSD27 said:

Of course it does mate, but only after resolution. That's how men game

I think you got that backwards, buddy.

[DSD27]

7 hours ago, geo3 said:

I think you got that backwards, buddy.

Nop.

[geo3]

2 hours ago, DSD27 said:

Nop.

yup

[DSD27]

1 hour ago, geo3 said:

yup

Most people do but not me.

Unless you think you're some kind of fps pro player (and that's what most kids think), resolution/size > hz.

I would take a 27" 1440p 60Hz IPS panel instead of a 1080p 144hz TN panel every single day of the week, better picture quality, richer colors, amazing gaming experience.

I really like my monitor, 31.5" 1440p and 75Hz, I think it's a great sweet spot. Refresh rate is good for fps games but for every other game, RPGs like The Witcher, single player games like Asssassin's Creed, Middle Earth, etc, games with amazing grahpics, the experience on a 1440p monitor is on another level.

[geo3]

3 hours ago, DSD27 said:

Most people do but not me.

Unless you think you're some kind of fps pro player (and that's what most kids think), resolution/size > hz.

I would take a 27" 1440p 60Hz IPS panel instead of a 1080p 144hz TN panel every single day of the week, better picture quality, richer colors, amazing gaming experience.

I really like my monitor, 31.5" 1440p and 75Hz, I think it's a great sweet spot. Refresh rate is good for fps games but for every other game, RPGs like The Witcher, single player games like Asssassin's Creed, Middle Earth, etc, games with amazing grahpics, the experience on a 1440p monitor is on another level.

Maybe your eyes are not sensitive enough to really feel the difference. It's not about playing at a competitive level, it's just that everything on a slower display feels worse, sluggish and not smooth. The difference between 120 and 60 is quite massive, hell anything under 100 looks like a stuttery mess to me, 60 is practically a slide show. Meanwhile the visual quality difference between 1080 and 1440 is marginal in games (productivity apps are a different story).

[DSD27]

1 hour ago, geo3 said:

Maybe your eyes are not sensitive enough to really feel the difference. It's not about playing at a competitive level, it's just that everything on a slower display feels worse, sluggish and not smooth. The difference between 120 and 60 is quite massive, hell anything under 100 looks like a stuttery mess to me, 60 is practically a slide show. Meanwhile the visual quality difference between 1080 and 1440 is marginal in games (productivity apps are a different story).

Maybe your eyes are sensitive enough to feel the difference of 1440p... that's much more serious.

I know there's a difference, I just think the resolution difference is more important.

 

The difference between 75Hz and 60Hz is bigger than between 120hz and 75hz, that's one of the reasons why I'm actually really happy with my monitor. You need to spend a lot of money to play at 1440p 144hz... 60-75hz fps is smooth enough for non competitive gaming. 1440p on a 27"+ monitor gives you much more immersion.

[geo3]

1 hour ago, DSD27 said:

75Hz and 60Hz is bigger than between 120hz and 75hz,

Wrong.

 

1 hour ago, DSD27 said:

You need to spend a lot of money to play at 1440p 144hz...

No you don't.

 

1 hour ago, DSD27 said:

60-75hz fps is smooth enough for non competitive gaming.

It certainly isn't. 

 

1 hour ago, DSD27 said:

1440p on a 27"+ monitor gives you much more immersion.

It's the same. Unless it's a curved ultra wide with the game FOV set higher. 

[DSD27]

18 minutes ago, geo3 said:

Wrong.

 

No you don't.

 

It certainly isn't. 

 

It's the same. Unless it's a curved ultra wide with the game FOV set higher. 

Right. The more up you go, the less noticeable it becomes. Just see the difference between 20 and 30. 30 and 60. There you see how much bigger the noticeable difference is. 60 to 75 is more noticeable than 75 to 120.

 

Yes you need, first, 1440p 120hz monitors are obviously more expensive, then, you need at least a GTX 1080 to play at such high framerate at 1440p resolution.

 

LOL "it's the same"... I rest my case. That just shows where you come from.

I moved from 23" 1080p to 31" 1440p, I can tell you it's totally not the same.