Considering going from a 27" 2560x1440 to a 32" 4K monitor - thoughts/observations?

BlindZenDriver

I have been using a 27" 2560x1440 as the primary monitor ever since Dell made it available, but more wants more and I am considering moving to a 32" 4K monitor (likely also from Dell, but the jury is still out).

32" to 27" size comparison(Credits to Display Wars):


And the hard numbers (Credits to Sven Neuhaus for his PPI calculator):
27"
Display size: 23.53" × 13.24" = 311.5in² (59.77cm × 33.62cm = 2009.68cm²) at 108.79 PPI, 0.2335mm dot pitch, 11834 PPI²
32"
Display size: 27.89" × 15.69" = 437.55in² (70.84cm × 39.85cm = 2822.93cm²) at 137.68 PPI, 0.1845mm dot pitch, 18956 PPI²


Holding off taking the plunge until a model comes out that comes with HDMI 2.0 and/or a DisplayPort version where one doesn't have to have the display pretend to be displays in one frame might be the smart thing to do in the long run, but my main thing is really that I'd love to hear if anyone has some experience to share on going from a 27" 2560x1440 to a 32" 4K monitor?

I'm using my PC for anything from reading the PA comic to spreadsheets, programming and of course gaming ( I can not wait for the next Unreal Tournament installment) and if possible I may also hook up my PS3 and 360 to the thing just as I have with the 27" right now. It does seem the 4K monitors out there does not exactly have the fastest response rate so I am somewhat concerned about that, even more so on the 1080p sources as the one review I saw mentioning running a 4K monitor in 1080p described that the response time got pretty bad when the monitor had to rescale!

Still, pretending the possible hardware issues are insignificant and letting the lure of new hardware take over. What are your thoughts on taking the plunge?

Donovan Puppyfucker

I think it's a terrible idea. 4k monitors often struggle to output 30 Hz refresh rates, and good luck driving modern games graphics to one without spending thousands on graphics cards.

BlindZenDriver

chrishallett83 wrote: »

I think it's a terrible idea. 4k monitors often struggle to output 30 Hz refresh rates, and good luck driving modern games graphics to one without spending thousands on graphics cards.

Thank you for the thoughts.

For sure one has to pick the right monitor or else it won't do more than 30 Hz, but there is several companies that do offer one which will do 60 Hz so that isn't a issue just a trap to avoid. As for driving modern games in 4K then yes it does take graphics power, but that isn't really a monitor issue as such and it is also something that is manageable.

Donovan Puppyfucker

If you've got what amounts to an essentially unlimited budget, then yes of course it can be done, and done well.

We're talking about enough money to build two or three complete individual gaming systems just for one monitor and the cards, mobo, and PSU required.

davidsdurions

chrishallett83 wrote: »

If you've got what amounts to an essentially unlimited budget, then yes of course it can be done, and done well.

We're talking about enough money to build two or three complete individual gaming systems just for one monitor and the cards, mobo, and PSU required.

Hot swappable 4k blade for the low low price of a decent used car?

LD50

From what I understand though, 1440 monitors are pretty good right now. Graphics cards can push that resolution perfectly well too.

Most of the 4k monitors are 30 hertz because display port can't put out enough bandwidth to go any faster. The 60 hertz 4k monitors push 60 by actually being two separate displays and stitching them together, which leads to it's own set of problems. Also, for gaming, many many games don't support 4k well it at all. There was a post on a different thread that linked to an article detailing the author's experience trying to get a bunch of modern games playable at 4k and all the problems he had.

curly haired boy

yeah, generally for 4K the content isn't there yet. the supporting tech is starting to get there, but the de facto standard is still 1080p and 60 FPS. probably won't see that change for another console generation...

BlindZenDriver

Thank you all. Some good points to consider.

I managed to find a couple of good articles on 4K gaming (not sure how I missed them before doing the OP). Here they are in case you wanna take a look:
extremetech.com/gaming/180402-five-things-to-know-about-4k-gaming-were-glitching-our-way-to-gaming-nirvana
pcgamer.com/2014/07/29/gaming-in-4k-the-future-is-now-if-you-give-up-60-frames-per-second/

I have come to the following conclusions:

• As expected I'll need to add another GPU to get a acceptable framerate (one needs two fast GPU's).
• 60Hz refresh rate calls for either HDMI 2.0 og DP 1.2, with the later then having to pretend the 4K monitor is two monitors and perhaps be locked into just the 4K resolution (or maybe having to reboot to change it).
• Not all games are ready for 4K and of those that will do 4K some have a GUI that doesn't work at that resolution.

The extra GPU needed is okay to me and so is that not all games will be trouble free, but the DP 1.2 with it's "two monitor" make pretend thing look like a lot of pain. Therefore I shall be waiting for a 32" monitor that has a HDMI 2.0 input or even better a couple of those as I'm sure that will be handy at times.

Note. The HDMI 2.0 thing I'd say is a must also for anyone considering getting a 4K TV and not all of them have + some that have only really have a half way implementation and thus won' support HDCP and supposedly there are also other issues with some sets.

Bubby

I think there was a thread about this not long ago. Wait a few years unless you're rich.