Any reason not to buy a 4k monitor?

[SoulWager]

I own a "1440p" monitor, see my sig.
btw. 1440p is not a correct way to refer to it. I also played on a 4k monitor, I wouldn't change right now for free, I don't have enough GPU power. Resolution doesn't impress me much, I have 1080p 5'2 phone, I can't see how any higher resolution would improve my experience. Probably my not so young eyes have something to do with it.
"It's a lot better but didn't blow my socks off" this is my comment about going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440. sorry for not being clear about what it refers to. Also size went up to 27'' from 24'', I noticed that more probably.
What I want in a monitor is 0 input lag, 0ms pixel response like CRTs, huge contrast ratio, calibrated from factory to have delta E below 2 everywhere not more pixels and 240Hz refresh rate.
UPDATE: I forgot to add infinite viewing angles, so no color shift whatsoever.

I have high hopes for QD-LED. Hypothetically you get everything it's unreasonable to hope for in a single panel(color accuracy, viewing angle, 0ms response time, whatever refresh rate your silicon and interface can push, and the contrast ratio of a non-backlit display)

It remains to be seen when we'll see them in desktop form factors, and at what price.

 

[Denithor]

Resolution doesn't impress me much, I have 1080p 5'2 phone, I can't see how any higher resolution would improve my experience.

You do realize that your phone has about a 423 ppi right? So of course higher pixel density is not going to improve things much. That's already 3 times more ppi than a 4K 32" screen.

 

[Lepton87]

You do realize that your phone has about a 423 ppi right? So of course higher pixel density is not going to improve things much. That's already 3 times more ppi than a 4K 32" screen.

Doesn't matter, the new model has 2560x1440 resolution

 

[Borealis7]

so other than blurry text and font DPI problems in Windows, do 1080p games look ok? do they scale properly?

 

[BrightCandle]

In summary the scaling problems with 4k are:
- In Windows some applications will just be doubled (no benefit from 4k).
- In Windows some applicaitons incorrect report supporting scaling, resulting in very small text/images.
- In Games when running 1080p all the scalars on the displays result in quite a lot of blurriness as they are not just 4 pixels per 1 of the input.

The reviewers getting these have been saying they sometimes need to drop to 1080p in Windows to be able to do stuff,that many common apps don't look any better and generally that windows and its applications aren't ready yet for 200% scaling. In gaming unless you can run 4k in games its not going to work out well either, the quality will be worse than just a 1080p panel.

 

[Borealis7]

i am relieved to hear (read) you say that. a thought went through my head to get a 4k monitor next year and sell my 120Hz monitor.
my monitor is safe for now

 

[exar333]

In summary the scaling problems with 4k are:
- In Windows some applications will just be doubled (no benefit from 4k).
- In Windows some applicaitons incorrect report supporting scaling, resulting in very small text/images.
- In Games when running 1080p all the scalars on the displays result in quite a lot of blurriness as they are not just 4 pixels per 1 of the input.

The reviewers getting these have been saying they sometimes need to drop to 1080p in Windows to be able to do stuff,that many common apps don't look any better and generally that windows and its applications aren't ready yet for 200% scaling. In gaming unless you can run 4k in games its not going to work out well either, the quality will be worse than just a 1080p panel.

Can you explain further? Curious to know why this is case. This would be very annoying to me...

 

[bystander36]

Can you explain further? Curious to know why this is case. This would be very annoying to me...

It's pretty simple. Most scaling is done with out perfect conversions, so rather than having 2 different scaling options, they use the one that works for all conversions.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its ironic really that they use a generic scalar that works for everything for 1080p to 4k because I think one of the big selling points of 4k is that it is just 4 pixels to 1. Clearly the manufacturers don't think so and have used generic implementations. But based on were GPU performance is today I think a lot of the time people would like to run 1080p, because its expensive/impossible to go 100% 4k. So far that message hasn't reached the manufacturers and we haven't yet had a message that a 4k monitor is doing it right, nor do we really know if practically it looks better or worse than the generic scalar.

 

[bystander36]

Its ironic really that they use a generic scalar that works for everything for 1080p to 4k because I think one of the big selling points of 4k is that it is just 4 pixels to 1. Clearly the manufacturers don't think so and have used generic implementations. But based on were GPU performance is today I think a lot of the time people would like to run 1080p, because its expensive/impossible to go 100% 4k. So far that message hasn't reached the manufacturers and we haven't yet had a message that a 4k monitor is doing it right, nor do we really know if practically it looks better or worse than the generic scalar.

It doesn't have to be the display manufacturers. It could be AMD or Nvidia. They could make scaling on their GPU do this, which they don't currently.

 

[Lepton87]

If you're going to operate your 4k panel at 1080p even with perfect 4:1 pixel mapping, what's the point? You're better off with a 2560x1600(1440) panel.
Having said that I wish 1080p would look on a 4k panel just like it would look on a native 1080p. Then you could game at 4k in less demanding games and switch to 1080p for the more demanding games, still in such a case 2560 panel would be better, so two monitors is the best choice today IMHO.

 

[bystander36]

If you're going to operate your 4k panel at 1080p even with perfect 4:1 pixel mapping, what's the point? You're better off with a 2560x1600(1440) panel.
Having said that I wish 1080p would look on a 4k panel just like it would look on a native 1080p. Then you could game at 4k in less demanding games and switch to 1080p for the more demanding games, still in such a case 2560 panel would be better, so two monitors is the best choice today IMHO.

The advantage is for non gaming.

 

[MtSeldon]

in windows desktop 2D mode , are there any performans issues? or are gpu 's fast enough for 4k in 2D?

 

[BrightCandle]

I have performance issues with just 2 monitors on Nvidia and saw issues with 3 on AMD. So I suspect there likely is a reduction in responsiveness and how often its drawing happens in 16ms or less. But most people don't seem to notice these sorts of issues so its hard to get good information on it.

One thing a current 4k owner can do is use fraps and record frame times with the desktop monitored. Then if you drag some windows around, highlight some text and open some menus etc you will see the draw times. I tend to measure how good it is as a percentage that don't make vsync, ie anything above 16.6ms(60hz) is a fail.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I have NO ISSUES at all with 3 monitors with my AMD cards.

-2 x 1440p
-1 x 4k

(They are mostly set in Eyefinity at 8026x1440)

 

[King4x4]

Got the same config as karl and had no issues.

 

[BrightCandle]

Fantastic then, lets see some frame times on the test I said. Like I say most people don't notice them by eye but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Its especially prevalent if you have applications open on every monitor. You should see 100% of frames below 16.6ms on a modern system, but in practice you wont with 3 monitors. No point taking a subjective measure when an objective one is available.

 

[SpacemanSpiff46]

I believe HDMI 2.0 should allow for 4k @ 120hz. I would probably wait a little for that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[tweakboy]

If you have eye issues. Because things are very small.. Your resolution is 4X higher. Eventually well be playing games with 4k resolution. WIth a 880 GTX single. It will fly.

 

[bystander36]

I believe HDMI 2.0 should allow for 4k @ 120hz. I would probably wait a little for that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, it won't. It will allow 60hz at 4k, and 120hz at lower resolutions.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Fantastic then, lets see some frame times on the test I said. Like I say most people don't notice them by eye but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Its especially prevalent if you have applications open on every monitor. You should see 100% of frames below 16.6ms on a modern system, but in practice you wont with 3 monitors. No point taking a subjective measure when an objective one is available.

I'll see what I can do tomorrow to test that.