Is 27" 4K Too Small for Me?

[ZZZAAA]

Hello there, I am currently deciding on a new monitor to purchase along with the new videocards coming out. I found a monitor with great specs for around $400. Its an IPS 60hz with Freesync but I wanted to know if 27" is too small for 4K. I consider myself a big guy and I'm currently on a 43" 1080p screen which feels very spacious and I feel like it could be a downgrade and not worth the purchase. I have about a $500 budget and would like to know which monitor would be best to suit my needs. They seem to get very expensive at larger sizes and now might not be the time to purchase. Also, has anyone gamed 1080p on a 4K monitor? There should be no issues, correct? Thanks for all your help.

 

[biostud]

Yes, 1440p is ideal for 27"
32"+ for 4K

Unless you just want really crisp text.

 

[ZZZAAA]

I'm also looking into the 1440p monitors at the moment but I can't tell if they would be a worthy upgrade from 1080p. Also with what happened between HD and FHD in the past, I'm being very cautious and if QFHD does become mainstream, I would be wasting my time and money. However, they seem to have much better specs at good prices and I am tempted to pull the trigger. When will 4K become become the norm if ever?

 

[ZZZAAA]

biostud, which monitor would be best for a $500-600 budget?

I remember the crt days when 27" was large enough for a small living room. Now they're not large enough for a monitor to put on your desk. They are also putting 4k on smartphones. Can people even tell the difference on a such a small screen?

 

[ZZZAAA]

And why does widescreen seem so much smaller compared to 4:3 at the same dimensions? There must be some tricky physics equation behind it because the amount of real estate you lose is just ginormous.

 

[Qwertilot]

There are very definite image quality benefits from 4k at 27".

You will need software that supports the 2:1 pixel doubling stuff like Apple have been doing for a bit. That's been getting better steadily, but still isn't always there for everything.

1440 doesn't need that - in some ways 5k is the ideal at 27" (pixel doubled of course!) - and will be rather cheaper. Shrug.

 

[ZZZAAA]

5k cheaper than 4k? I don't really understand what you're saying... I'm not sure about the individual pixel doubling part but I just wanted a perfect aspect ratio so I don't see any stretch on my screen. That stuff looks terrible.

BTW, there is no way that my tv which is described as 43" is actually close to four feet from the bottom left corner to the top right corner. More like closer to THREE FEET. Does anyone know how these things are measured? That is what I am really worried about. That I would order 27" and it would just be miniscule.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Hmmm, you know what, I have gotten a lot taller recently. Sorry to sound like a dunce but I might not be measuring things properly. I hope those 4k tvs with "trumotion 120" give at least a true 60hz. They are so much cheaper at the same resolution.

 

[Gryz]

What are you planning to do with that 4k-monitor ?

One thing you must realize: if you keep doing the same stuff, watching the same websites, watching the same photos, using the same applications, using the same source material: EVERYTHING WILL BE TWICE AS SMALL.

As compared to using a same-size monitor with 1080p resolution. Windows will show you all its stuff twice as small. Icons on your desktop, your file-browser, all applications will be tiny with tiny letters. Now you can enable "scaling" but that just means everything gets blown up by 2, and the result will be just as pixilated as a 1080p screen at that size. Browsers is even worse. You can pick larger fonts, but that only works to a certain extend. Often it gives problems with overlapping text and things going wrong. And every picture, every flash-object every movie in your web-browser will be twice as small.

Games look better at 4k, sure. But it takes 3x the horsepower in your GPU to drive games at the same settings. Games that run at ultra on a 1080 at 60 fps will run at 20 fps on your 4k-monitor. And even if buy 2x gtx1080 in SLI, that power could be used to make your game look better at 1080p. More polygons, more objects, more NPCs on screen. Better AA. Better shadows, better HBAO+. More foilage. You name it. The endresult of such a game 1080p will look better than at 4k with medium settings.

So what is 4k good for ?
Anything that has 4k-source material. That could be 4k-movies. Or large high-res pictures. Those are more likely if you make movies yourself, or are a photographer. But as a consumer, I think there is very little stuff you can do yet that requires a 4k-monitor.

And now all the enthousiast can tell us how 4k changed their lives, and they couldn't live without it. Maybe in a few years (when movies, pictures, applications and websites are made for 4k). But for now, 4k-monitors are about as useful as 3D-tvs.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I have one of the top GPU's you can get, the GeForce GTX 980 Ti Hybrid (water cooled version) and even with it OC'd a bit it struggles with 4K gaming. Using Valley benchmark I typically get an average of 45fps with a high and low of 89fps and 22fps so if high frame rates are critical then 4K is still a work in progress. Pascal may help here but if it's, say. 50% faster than the average would be over 60fps but the minimum would only be about 33fps.

So, if gaming at high frame rates is a must then 4K is probably still about 2 years away and maybe more.

And, as GRYX said, everything at 4K will be a lot smaller and it's for that reason that I have had the most problems as even though I'm not a gamer I do have 4K and need it for my 4K video and image editing work. I had been using a 24" 4K display that was limited to 30fps and with a number of programs the text and icons were so small it made using the programs very difficult. I just recently upgraded to a 32" 4K monitor that does 60fps at 4K and the larger display has really helped with usability. And, repeating what GRYX said the processing power required for 4K is a lot greater than HD (1080P) and that puts a premium on both the GPU and CPU.

So, if gaming is your goal and high frame rates a must then there's not much 4K has to offer at this point and probably not for another couple years. Probably the best bet is 1440P and at the resolution 27" may just be enough though I'd want a bit larger.


Brian

 

[ZZZAAA]

I was planning on gaming and surfing the web on it which is what I usually do. I don't care about photography and editing at all. BTW, how do you guys feel about those 40-43" 4K TV's that go for $400-500? I don't think they support freesync and they don't show input lag in their specifications. I don't get that much ghosting on my current 1080p TV but I get clipping (?) sometimes meaning the character model would cut in half Houdini-style. Also input lag is very important to me since I play FPS games and I wouldn't want too much compromise there either. I'm looking at some LG's and some Sammy's and they seem to have a great feature-set at least for a TV with IPS, HDR, and whatnot. How do you feel about those for a PC monitor?

 

[Qwertilot]

1440 is cheaper than 4k, 5k is (last I checked) massively more expensive!

As per Brian's response you will be relying on interface scaling on a 27" 4k monitor. It looks truly lovely when it works - so outlandishly sharp, as per mobile phone screens - sometimes issues when the software doesn't understand the interface scaling
(This isn't so terrible nowadays. I'm even surviving it OK on Linux.).

If you want really fast frame rates then 1440 is definitely saner. As for a 43" monitor, my mind just boggles 43" 4k obviously wouldn't be relying on interface scaling.

 

[ZZZAAA]

I see. Thank you so much Qwerilot and the rest of you guys. I think I am going 1440p then since I will be using my soon to be spare tv for watching movies. Any recommendations on the 1440p though? I really like ASUS brand and am shopping newegg as I type.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Am looking at the MG279Q. What do you guys think?

 

[ZZZAAA]

I have just realized that none of the ASUS monitors have the right configuration for the right price. I think I am better off going with the 4K at 27" which is actually cheaper than the 1440p 27".

 

[BarkingGhostar]

The Dell P2715Q looks enticing at <$500, but I wonder what one would need to drive it.

 

[Irenicus]

Hello there, I am currently deciding on a new monitor to purchase along with the new videocards coming out. I found a monitor with great specs for around $400. Its an IPS 60hz with Freesync but I wanted to know if 27" is too small for 4K. I consider myself a big guy and I'm currently on a 43" 1080p screen which feels very spacious and I feel like it could be a downgrade and not worth the purchase. I have about a $500 budget and would like to know which monitor would be best to suit my needs. They seem to get very expensive at larger sizes and now might not be the time to purchase. Also, has anyone gamed 1080p on a 4K monitor? There should be no issues, correct? Thanks for all your help.

Before you jump to the 27" monitor size ghetto, listen to this guys take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZAoF9nw0Mo#t=7m36s

 

[Irenicus]

Am looking at the MG279Q. What do you guys think?

I think it's a worse alternative to the korean large format freesync screens like this if you prefer larger sizes.

http://www.amazon.com/WASABI-MANGO-...SC2P0K/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1464661335


That's my current top candidate, I'm not taking the plunge until later this year so my top pick might change before I buy, but that is a pretty nice display.

 

[Tweak155]

To put it in terms most people can relate to, consider 27" 4K density similar to 13.5" at 1080p. To me, that's a little bit small, but some people are good with it. I'd go for at least 30" as a 15" at 1080p is pretty decent.

 

[Mr Evil]

And why does widescreen seem so much smaller compared to 4:3 at the same dimensions? There must be some tricky physics equation behind it because the amount of real estate you lose is just ginormous.

It's fairly easy to visualize; if you imagine the monitor getting shorter while maintaining the same diagonal, eventually a 27" monitor would be 27" wide and 0" high, and have zero surface area. An old Greek called Pythagoras wrote some stuff that can be used to explain why. My algebra is rusty, but I think it looks like this:

A = (c / sqrt(1 + r^2))^2 * r

Where
A = area (which is what monitors should be sold by)
c = diagonal (which is what monitors are actually sold by)
r = aspect ratio, e.g. 1.78 for a 16:9 monitor, 1.33 for 4:3.

So, a 27" 4:3 monitor has an area of 350 inches squared. A 27" 16:9 monitor is only 312 inches squared. It gets even worse with the new ultra-wide monitors - a 27" 21:9 monitor is a tiny 264 inches squared.

I dream of a day when monitors are given honest specs, in mm^2 instead of inches (might as well switch to metric at the same time), and megapixels instead of "HD", "4k" etc.