• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

4k vs 1440p

W

waldoh

Member
Can I afford 4k? or should I go 1440p?


I would like to buy a new monitor for my main screen. I will be using it for web/graphic design (but nothing close to professional photo retouching and insanely color critical applications). This is not a gaming monitor, I have a ASUS 144hz for that purpose.

I see these relatively cheap 4K monitors that use TN panels, how good/bad are they?

Should I just look to 1440p IPS/PLS/AHIPS/etc... 27inch?


Monitor recommendations are welcome.
I would like to keep it under $1000.
 
Last edited:
there is currently only 1 4k panel which can do over 30hz @ 4K and it requires:

1. a monster videocard
2. dual output from said video card.
3. a price tag 2500 dollars
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236338

personally i couldnt stand any monitor which cant do at least 60hz...
think of as u drag something.. or try to draw a line it will shutter and u will not get the fidelity your getting on a 60hz monitor.

unless u have the budget for a 2500 dollar monitor along with a budget for a 700 dollar video card, stick with 1440p.
 
Last edited:
Unpopular opinion: have you considered a 30" 16:10 panel? If I didn't want TN speed for gaming and wanted to buy a nice monitor now that would be my pick. I
 
That seiki looks really nice. You can run your pc apps at 4k and then switch to 1080p 120hz for gaming and both are supposed to look great. Alas I'm weary of being a test subject. I wish best buy would sell them so I could try one out and return it if I dont like it.
 
2560x1440 or 1600 would be my choice for graphics work if i couldn't get an IPS or similar 4k.

you already have a TN monitor in that asus to make sure it looks good on most people's monitors too.
 
Most users on the web have a TN screen and most of them are probably 6 bit with terrible FRC. The reality is that if your intention is to match what most users see over the web then a TN screen is probably better! Really the colour accuracy is only really necessary for matching colour print or video playback externally of a computer screen - ie professional apps and I don't think you need to concern yourself with that.

However I also think 4k isn't really ready. Its not just the performance but actually the scaling problems with many Windows apps (like photoshop!) that mean its kind of hard to use a 4k monitor. Even core parts of Windows don't work all that well and my feeling is its a couple of years away from being mostly there.

So my main advice would be 1440p or 1600p. Its the better choice as its not too high density to cause serious problems.
 
aigomorla said:
personally i couldnt stand any monitor which cant do at least 60hz...
think of as u drag something.. or try to draw a line it will shutter and u will not get the fidelity your getting on a 60hz monitor.
Click to expand...

Agree. All of the cheap 4K panels out there today are 30Hz only. That's completely unsuitable for any kind of desktop work in my opinion because everything is visibly choppy. You couldn't even watch a 60FPS Twitch or Vimeo video!
 
waldoh said:
1440 it is.

Is the Asus pa279q a complete waste of money without a workstation class graphics card?
Click to expand...

unless you're doing something where you need certified drivers like AutoCAD, a workstation graphics card is probably a waste of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top