I get the hypothetical draw. Bigger, better,newer. I was hoping we could make the jump to 4k when I got my 1080ti. But there is no reason for 4k on a monitor unless it's larger than 27" right? To make 4k worth it, I need a larger investment in all of my hardware including a new monitor. If I could get a benefit from 4k on a 27" monitor okay, but there isn't one right? The only reason to get to 4k is to have a bigger screen, which understandably needs a better resolution. Will we make a jump to 8k, but it will only be useful if it's on a screen at least 42"? What is out there for a 27" screen? Do I need to try a bigger monitor to get it?
Question What is the draw to 4k ?
- Thread starter axlrose
- Start date
- May 27, 2010
- 28,253
- 5,715
- 144,340
27" 4K means high pixel density, which would make for a very sharp image. About 160 if memory serves. Not quite up there with 'retina' displays, but getting there.
I agree that 27" 1440p is the way to go. A lot less demanding and still a good experience. 32-37" 4K has its own appeal, though I would probably still head to 3440x1440 first.
5120 x 2160 might be something to look at in the future.
8K would be more for TVs, and I think that will be in the realms of upscaling for the foreseeable future, so still 4K. 4K is a struggle to run now, and the way things are going with graphics cards, I don't see that being too feasible any time soon. Going to need a break through in integrated circuits first. Unless you want a computer that draws 1500W for gaming.
I agree that 27" 1440p is the way to go. A lot less demanding and still a good experience. 32-37" 4K has its own appeal, though I would probably still head to 3440x1440 first.
5120 x 2160 might be something to look at in the future.
8K would be more for TVs, and I think that will be in the realms of upscaling for the foreseeable future, so still 4K. 4K is a struggle to run now, and the way things are going with graphics cards, I don't see that being too feasible any time soon. Going to need a break through in integrated circuits first. Unless you want a computer that draws 1500W for gaming.
ak47jar3d
Champion
- Mar 3, 2014
- 7,231
- 98
- 54,590
I am not aware of a smaller 4k screens. The pixel density on a 4k 27 would be very high.
Yes there is benefit. The 4k monitor will provide much better visuals in games than any 1080p monitor. 4k monitors are best suited for single player games as more multiplayer will benefit more from higher refresh rates.
Not necessarily. If you want the best visuals at 27 inches, 4k is the right resolutions. As for 8k, its hard to tell the difference in person. 8k is only really suitable for big tvs like 65 inches and up. 8k isn't viable due to its crazy demanding nature in games at least one the GPU side. Monitors side is kind of a preference more than anything. I prefer ultrawides while others may not. The 32 inch 4k tend to be better the 27 inch 4k monitors.
- May 27, 2010
- 28,253
- 5,715
- 144,340
In terms of TV and monitor sizes, no it doesn't go smaller. That is a result of the motherglass sizes used to produce screens. Probably something like 30 or more 27" panels out of a sheet, or what they call multi-model where they fit 3 or so large format screens and a set of 6-10 smaller displays on the remaining area.
The older facilities can make 8 27" screens on a sheet, which is still worth doing.
A common one is 3 65" and 6 32", or 8 55" and 8 32"
There is a reason certain panel sizes are much cheaper/common, they can be produced more efficiently. And why 60" panels basically went away, they were making those as a single unit or as a set of two on older setups. When they upgraded, it was no longer efficient to make that size.
- Oct 6, 2014
- 22,304
- 2,392
- 104,240
Actually it depends on the distance you sit from the monitor.
Keep in mind this is the leanght of the monitor a 27" monitor is not 27" long.
https://www.rgb.com/display-size-resolution-and-ideal-viewing-distance
Oh! I have been told at least a dozen times on this forum that there is no way to see the difference between 4k and 2k on a screen 27" or smaller and that 4k should only be for screens larger than 27" to have any noticable effect. No one has ever disagreed with that before. Are you saying different than that?
- May 27, 2010
- 28,253
- 5,715
- 144,340
I think most people would be able to tell if asked to compare them. If they weren't told, probably not. A lot would depend on what was being displayed.
I'm not a fan of desktop scaling though, so it would have to be 32" or bigger for me to want to use it. Native scaling fits well on a 1440p 27".
But I also use native scaling on a 15.6" 1080p laptop. And 1080p on a 24" is a little oversized, but useable.
I'm not a fan of desktop scaling though, so it would have to be 32" or bigger for me to want to use it. Native scaling fits well on a 1440p 27".
But I also use native scaling on a 15.6" 1080p laptop. And 1080p on a 24" is a little oversized, but useable.
- Dec 30, 2016
- 21,671
- 5,764
- 104,690
There's also cost. To keep up with the latest titles, you're going to be spending more money, and probably more frequently. Resolution scaling has alleviated the latter somewhat, but newer generations will have new features that may FOMO you into upgrading just as frequently if you got a mid-range GPU instead.
If money isn't a problem, power to you.
If I recall correctly, on 1080p screens larger than 24", and 2k screens larger than 27", images look stretched out.
If money isn't a problem, power to you.
If I recall correctly, on 1080p screens larger than 24", and 2k screens larger than 27", images look stretched out.
Unolocogringo
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,999
- 797
- 38,390
It also depends on screen type.
I use a massive 50 inch Samsung Quantum dot at about 3 feet distance. LOOKs spectacular.
On my Samsung 6 series tvs 50 and 55 inch you can easily see pixels at 5-6 ft distance.
Edit. Scaling windows fonts and Icons on smaller screens does not work well with all programs and window sizes
- Apr 3, 2018
- 13,215
- 3,718
- 70,890
The only aspect of 4K that I really can perceive any more is the richer colors and contrast on a good screen. I am already apprised of and recommend the distance from argument, even at that I find that when I switch from 1080P gaming to 4K on the PC that the color just looks better. Alongside that I have a serious difference in framerate. It is simply something I notice.
Aside from that aspect my eyesight is getting poor enough that it doesn't matter so much as long as I can scale the desktop to see split screen well for work.
Aside from that aspect my eyesight is getting poor enough that it doesn't matter so much as long as I can scale the desktop to see split screen well for work.
- Oct 6, 2014
- 22,304
- 2,392
- 104,240
It all depends on what you want out of your setup.
I play single-player games exclusively and I have gamed on a lot of different monitors. (1080p, 1440p, ultrawide, 4K, 21.5 inch, 24 inch, 27 inch, 34 inch, etc) My current monitor is by far my favorite: 4K, 27 inches. I appreciate having pixel density so high that it virtually eliminates aliasing.
If you prioritize framerate, you might not appreciate the pixel density of a 4K 27 inch monitor. Those who appreciate pixel density will be very happy with it.
Beware of people speaking in absolutes. Only 5 years ago half of the self-proclaimed experts out there were saying that there is no reason to game at 4K at all.
I play single-player games exclusively and I have gamed on a lot of different monitors. (1080p, 1440p, ultrawide, 4K, 21.5 inch, 24 inch, 27 inch, 34 inch, etc) My current monitor is by far my favorite: 4K, 27 inches. I appreciate having pixel density so high that it virtually eliminates aliasing.
If you prioritize framerate, you might not appreciate the pixel density of a 4K 27 inch monitor. Those who appreciate pixel density will be very happy with it.
Beware of people speaking in absolutes. Only 5 years ago half of the self-proclaimed experts out there were saying that there is no reason to game at 4K at all.
- Apr 3, 2018
- 13,215
- 3,718
- 70,890
It could be reasonable argued that there still isn't. From a cost and desktop perspective 1080P is a tremendous value offering for nice framerate gaming on even low-end current hardware.
Hence why I said it depends what you want out of your setup. You obviously prioritize value and framerate. I specifically mentioned that those who appreciate frame rate more so than pixel density will not be well served by a 4K 27 inch monitor.
Just because you don’t see a reason to game at 4K doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And why did you bring up value? Nobody asked about value. Does my signature scream value to you?
thestryker
Judicious
- Apr 19, 2016
- 5,598
- 3,816
- 36,690
I think resolution benefits largely depend on screen size, how far away you sit and what you're doing with it. I don't really have any interest in a 4k monitor and use 3440x1440 34" and 2560x1440 27" displays with my TV hooked up should I want to play on a big screen (this is 4k 55").
Most gaming doesn't benefit from the higher pixel density and most games have some sort of AA baked in. The hardware requirements for running it are also a huge leap due to 4k having ~67% more pixels than ultrawide 1440p and 125% more pixels than 1440p (1080p to 1440p is ~77% more pixels).
For non-gaming uses the additional pixel density is a much bigger deal. Image and text clarity improvements are nice when doing things like coding and image/video editing.
Most gaming doesn't benefit from the higher pixel density and most games have some sort of AA baked in. The hardware requirements for running it are also a huge leap due to 4k having ~67% more pixels than ultrawide 1440p and 125% more pixels than 1440p (1080p to 1440p is ~77% more pixels).
For non-gaming uses the additional pixel density is a much bigger deal. Image and text clarity improvements are nice when doing things like coding and image/video editing.
Both the color gamut and the framerate make the picture better, but neither of those is the resolution. You can get a 27" monitor to replace your 27" monitor with a better framerate and a better color gamut.
Well, how close I sit affects the picture quality of my current monitor. Sit further away and my current monitor looks better than my current monitor up close right? So that doesn't seem right. If I sit the exact same distance from a 27" monitor at 2k and a 27" monitor at 4k, will I notice the difference?
But that's just my question I think. Is there a reason to game at 4k if you are sticking to a 27" monitor? You would say there is? Setting up a 27" at 2k and at 4k side by side, I would be able to tell which has the better resolution as I played? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking. I'm trying to figure out if my next build should be 4k or 2k if I'm sticking to 27".
There a whole web pages that discuss this topic.
It quickly gets into what can your eye actually see. You have all the guys who were born on krypton and have eyes better than any human that can see more pixels and see faster frame rates than anyone else. Convincing them of anything is impossible.
There have been a number of actual scientific studies that have data but there are many many more studies funded by equipment manufactures that use much more subjective testing methods. Which "looks" better? It has massively confused this topic and unfortantly the marketing deptments have flooded the internet with misinformation and paid google to deliver those results. Makes it really hard to get a valid answer.
I was over a a relatives house recently and he was bragging about his new monitor he had upgraded to 4k. He went on and on about how much better it looked and how much better it performed. I looked at one of the tests and asked how did you get that frame rate it was higher than any I had seen before for the game. Turns out he was still running at 1080p. He just felt it was better because he had spend his money on it.
It quickly gets into what can your eye actually see. You have all the guys who were born on krypton and have eyes better than any human that can see more pixels and see faster frame rates than anyone else. Convincing them of anything is impossible.
There have been a number of actual scientific studies that have data but there are many many more studies funded by equipment manufactures that use much more subjective testing methods. Which "looks" better? It has massively confused this topic and unfortantly the marketing deptments have flooded the internet with misinformation and paid google to deliver those results. Makes it really hard to get a valid answer.
I was over a a relatives house recently and he was bragging about his new monitor he had upgraded to 4k. He went on and on about how much better it looked and how much better it performed. I looked at one of the tests and asked how did you get that frame rate it was higher than any I had seen before for the game. Turns out he was still running at 1080p. He just felt it was better because he had spend his money on it.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 179,213
- 21,750
- 184,590
Same with FPS.
We've had people here who swear that they can tell the difference between 500FPS and 600FPS, and will accept nothing less than 600 on their system.
Yes, there is a reason to game at 4k on a 27 inch monitor; higher pixel density. Yes, I can very easily tell the difference with a 27 inch 1440p and a 27 inch 4k monitor side by side (I’ve owned both). The difference the pixel density makes on fine detail in games is very noticeable in my opinion.
- Jun 20, 2025
- 5
- 0
- 10
- Jun 20, 2025
- 5
- 0
- 10
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 12
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question "Safe" way to own a 5090, and about support brackets ?
- Started by fedefrasis
- Replies: 7
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question Help Me Choose: Laptop for Gaming + AI Tools + Photoshop (Budget 20–30 million IDR)- Latest: Syiva Ramadhani Pabo Putr
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram