-
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.
Help: 24in 3840x2160 or 27in 2560x1440?
- Thread starter awsomisq
- Start date
I'd take the 27" for the following reasons:
- 24" is a tiny size for 4K. You'd need pretty high DPI scaling settings to get readable text. Unfortunately many apps still don't support DPI scaling properly or at all.
- 4K requires lots of horse power for games or else you have to deal with blurry lower resolutions. Scaling also doesn't work in most games.
Elfear
Diamond Member
+1
I've used a 28" 4k monitor and it was just about right for PPI (30-32" would probably be ok too). It also required a lot of GPU grunt which is okay as long as you know that up front.
If you can get a larger 4k screen for not that much more, it is better. However, if not possible, then you should aim at some other screens. Also, would you share which country you're in and what is your budget? Someone here may be able to recommend whatever they can.
Personally, i'd wait for a couple of months, unless in dire need, as new tech is coming with A-Sync and higher refresh, and HDCP 2.x+ compliance. Most people don't change their monitors in a hurry, hence the recommendation.
Personally, i'd wait for a couple of months, unless in dire need, as new tech is coming with A-Sync and higher refresh, and HDCP 2.x+ compliance. Most people don't change their monitors in a hurry, hence the recommendation.
I'm in the US, I'm actually looking at NEC EA244UHD and the NEC PA272W. I prefer NEC, when first built my pc a few years ago, I spent a lot on everything but the display, and now it's time to upgrade the display. I'm running the GTX260, that's another factor too. I'm not too keen on getting a new gpu, I'm thinking the existing one should be able to take on the 27", if I get the UHD, I may pick up a cheap gpu, under $250. Again, the only game I play is GTA, so I don't need high refresh rate. Not sure if the pixel density difference is huge and noticeable between the two resolutions? I'm running win7 and don't plan to update OS anytime soon, next OS update will be a new build hopefully in about 4-5 yrs
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
You really owe it to yourself to check out the 3440x1440 screens
xthetenth
Golden Member
This man speaks with wisdom. Check into whether the movies will play nice (worst case should be a 2560x1440 space, but filling it would be awesome), work tasks are better on one 3440x1440 than two 2560x1440s in my experience, and I hear good things about gaming, with it being a lot of immersive real estate while still far fewer pixels than 4k. It's also pretty much the best dpi that won't need any scaling or anything.
It is expensive but I'd consider it against a pair of 2560x1440s in capability. A bit narrower but the flexible space afforded by the lack of bezel is very nice (the LG software that comes with their monitors is great for making the most of that, not sure if other brands have solutions).
EDIT: Also for photography reasons a lot of the price of the bigger screen is amortized by the fact that they're high quality panels, and it's a much smaller delta to other high end monitors.
Last edited:
3DVagabond
Lifer
What are your system specs? You mention hobby photography. A 10 bit color monitor could be of more benefit to you than FPS while playing games.
I thought the 10 bit displays was all a gimmick? I have it on my 590D.
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
3DVagabond
Lifer
No gimmick as long as your hardware and software support it. A lot don't, so it doesn't matter to many people. In the OP's situation, it might have, but...
AFAIK, and someone who follows nVidia more can correct me if I'm wrong, the gtx 260 does not support 10 bit color, so there would be no advantage of 10 bit. The 4k screen is likely 10bit capable, is the only reason I asked. The 27" is often not depending on the model.
If it helps, i don't know...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824025007
31 inch, 4096x2160, 10 bit, RGB 99.5%
Buy something/ anything approaching 30 inches and higher resolution within your budget. If you need a card, well try and work with what you have a couple of months, as new cards are incoming.
Again, my recommendation to wait for newer monitors stands unless you're desperately wanting something. In which case the recommendations above from others, and one i have here is something you could possibly consider.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824025007
31 inch, 4096x2160, 10 bit, RGB 99.5%
Buy something/ anything approaching 30 inches and higher resolution within your budget. If you need a card, well try and work with what you have a couple of months, as new cards are incoming.
Again, my recommendation to wait for newer monitors stands unless you're desperately wanting something. In which case the recommendations above from others, and one i have here is something you could possibly consider.
Makaveli
Diamond Member
So how do I take advantage of my 10 bit display on my 590D?
3DVagabond
Lifer
It used to be only pro cards (quadro and firepro) supported 10bit color. AMD does on their consumer cards now.
Your photo editing software has to support 10bit as well.
Your photo editing software has to support 10bit as well.
3DVagabond
Lifer
Yes. It should be under color management in CCC.
Valantar
Golden Member
In my eyes, the DPI, size and resolution of my 27" 2560*1440 monitor is perfect in almost every regard. Avoiding Windows scaling is definitely a plus too. UHD on a 24" would look amazing, until you run into either a non-scaling (i.e. unusable) or blurry app, in which case it'd be atrocious.
