Question Wherefore art thou, 4k?

GunsMadeAmericaFree

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,266
292
136
I was browsing a number of monitors recently, and noticed that the resolution is basically unchanged from 15+ years ago.

I would have thought that 4K resolution on computer monitors would have been getting common by now. Since it isn't, will it ever?
 

WilliamM2

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2012
2,465
541
136
Sure hope it never becomes common. Text is too small.
4K is overated even on TV's.
 

Mahboi

Senior member
Apr 4, 2024
522
837
91
What are you talking about, 4K is everywhere.
Probably not in the price range you were looking at though.
It's easily 66% more expensive than 1440p for the same refresh rate/size/general build quality...
 

adamge

Member
Aug 15, 2022
55
131
66
I'm still dreaming of 16:10, 4:3, and as a last last resort, 2560x1440 32" with good value pricing ($140 USD).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mopetar

WilliamM2

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2012
2,465
541
136
Ehh... That's completely wrong way of thinking. Higher resolution means better text rendering. I'd love to get 5K 27" inch since text rendering is meh at 2560x1440.
It's still smaller, and harder to read. I've already tried it.
I sit back from my monitors.
 

Tup3x

Senior member
Dec 31, 2016
978
961
136
It's still smaller, and harder to read. I've already tried it.
I sit back from my monitors.
It isn't. The whole point of high resolution display is that you get more pixels per inch. That's only true if you do not use any scaling and that makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gdansk

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,220
2,842
136
There are a lot of 4K monitors. But 200% scaling looks so much better and most 4K monitors are too big for it. Apple has this figured out: 5K for 27". I'm amazed the rest of the industry hasn't caught up despite them doing 5K at 27" for 10 years now.

Where are the high refresh rate 5K 27" OLED monitors, Samsung/LG?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,642
8,344
136
It isn't. The whole point of high resolution display is that you get more pixels per inch. That's only true if you do not use any scaling and that makes no sense.
Windows scaling is still wonky. My laptop has a stupid high resolution for a 13 inch screen (3840 x 2400) and its just fortunate that I can run it at a lower resolution that's exactly divisible!
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,098
1,454
126
It isn't. The whole point of high resolution display is that you get more pixels per inch. That's only true if you do not use any scaling and that makes no sense.
I agree, but also have multiple software titles that don't scale, so they are a pain to use yet I must.... so change resolution, and change it back, or run 2nd low DPI monitor just for those.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,098
1,454
126
There are a lot of 4K monitors. But 200% scaling looks so much better and most 4K monitors are too big for it. Apple has this figured out: 5K for 27". I'm amazed the rest of the industry hasn't caught up despite them doing 5K at 27" for 10 years now.

Where are the high refresh rate 5K 27" OLED monitors, Samsung/LG?
Disagree, 27" is far too small, 32" at 1440p would be better than 27" at even 40,000p... and this coming from someone who can't stand 1080p at any (small) size.

Why do silly and expensive things when nice sized 4K monitors exist? Granted I mean if you don't sit with your nose practically touching the monitor. A larger monitor that is a bit further away, that gives you more desk space, is the same difference if you really want the smaller field of vision you'd get with a mere 27" monitor.

Scooting the monitor further away is wonderful, even if it is only a few inches of desk space gained. If the desk is not deep enough, that's the next thing to upgrade.
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,220
2,842
136
Disagree, 27" is far too small, 32" at 1440p would be better than 27" at even 40,000p... and this coming from someone who can't stand 1080p at any (small) size.

Why do silly and expensive things when nice sized 4K monitors exist? Granted I mean if you don't sit with your nose practically touching the monitor. A larger monitor that is a bit further away, that gives you more desk space, is the same difference if you really want the smaller field of vision you'd get with a mere 27" monitor.

Scooting the monitor further away is wonderful, even if it is only a few inches of desk space gained. If the desk is not deep enough, that's the next thing to upgrade.
I am not too picky about the display size but DPI. 190-220 is a good range.
If you want a 32" monitor it should be 6K. 27" should be 5K and 24" should be 4K. Unsurprisingly, Apple has this correct at every display size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tup3x

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,220
2,842
136
I agree, but also have multiple software titles that don't scale, so they are a pain to use yet I must.... so change resolution, and change it back, or run 2nd low DPI monitor just for those.
But there is per application scaling override in Windows 10 and later. Try 'System (Enhanced)'. It usually works and 'System' can look like blurry crap if you don't use a multiple of 100% scaling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tup3x

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,098
1,454
126
^ Per application scaling doesn't do anything useful to scale things that don't scale so they are too small.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,948
6,246
136
What are you talking about, 4K is everywhere.
Probably not in the price range you were looking at though.

4K displays are cheap now. Dell has some 27" ones listed for $230. I paid slightly more than that (a piece) for three of them last year when I upgraded the monitors in my office.

If they're not being more widely adopted it's probably because at sizes below 32" most people tend to prefer 1440p just for size of text and UI elements.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,642
8,344
136
I am not too picky about the display size but DPI. 190-220 is a good range.
If you want a 32" monitor it should be 6K. 27" should be 5K and 24" should be 4K. Unsurprisingly, Apple has this correct at every display size.
Disagree. For 3D stuff 6k is just too demanding and for a desktop 32"@6k is just overkill.
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,220
2,842
136
Disagree. For 3D stuff 6k is just too demanding and for a desktop 32"@6k is just overkill.
Overkill is relative. Apple's been shipping this DPI for a decade. If you've seen a 5K iMac with 200% scaling compared to all these 27" PC monitors you'd know why people like it.
Same working space as 2560x1440, better looking text, and perfect integer scaling for gaming at 2560x1440 if needed (not that this applies to an iMac but for a hypothetical display).

The only downside to a 5K monitor would be cost, limited bandwidth of display interfaces, and the fact it's non-existent.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,642
8,344
136
Overkill is relative. Apple's been shipping this DPI for a decade. If you've seen a 5K iMac with 200% scaling compared to all these 27" PC monitors you'd know why people like it.
Same working space as 2560x1440, better looking text, and perfect integer scaling for gaming at 2560x1440 if needed (not that this applies to an iMac but for a hypothetical display).

The only downside to a 5K monitor would be cost, limited bandwidth of display interfaces, and the fact it's non-existent.
I mean I prefer text on a 1920*1200@24" than a 4K@32" if it's office docs.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,098
1,454
126
Some people like the idealized smoothness of text using highest DPI possible, and others prefer the crispness of not having that edge blur - particularly if having to read for long hours then it is easier on the eyes.

However at a mere 32", unless you are sitting very close to it, the difference isn't much, but this also effectively makes it a waste to have that many pixels at 32" compared to 4K at most and already that at greatly diminishing returns - again unless you sit very close to your monitor which IMO is more of a PITA to be doing anyway.

I'd much rather just have a larger (than 32") display that is situated further away. Easier on your eyes to extend the focal distance, frees up space on your desk as well, and easier on your body to be able to stretch out and work in multiple positions. For better or worse, I could not go back to using a 24" monitor, and would only settle for 32" if it had to fit in some space constrained area.

Certainly cost, especially for the diminutive size you get, is a downside too, as is performance gaming if it is to be used for that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WelshBloke

GunsMadeAmericaFree

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,266
292
136
Ok, I see that some are out there at this point. I guess I was expecting the tech to proliferate and become the standard about $100 to $120 by now. (just like SVGA overtook VGA at some point) It seems like 4k is still treated as more of a specialty item.