1440p v 4k

[andrewf93]

I want to buy a new screen, but cant decide what to get.

I use my computer a lot for work, so I am really eager to get a 1440 or 4k due to the extra screen real estate, this will make things alot easier.

However, since I also watch movies (most content is at 1080) and play games (my gtx 780 probably cant handle 4k gaming) there would be an issue of running a lower resolution than the native resolution.

I was going to get 1440, but read 1080p will turn out blurry on this screen due to the upscaling, and in terms of running 1080p content it is better to get a 1080 screen.

In regards to the 4k, i read since the resolution is exactly 4 times 1080, therefore when scaling, 4 pixels become exactly 1 pixel and therefore, 1080 will look just as crisp on a 4k screen compared to a 1080 screen of the same size. - although 4k is expensive and still new in tech.

My question is, if i am planning to buy 1440p, would I be better of just with 1080? or just go ahead and do 4k?

 

[Steven Stuu]

If you have the money, go 4k

 

[HEXiT]

4k is a gimmick atm. theres nothing that uses it other than pc games. most video is 720 p when broadcast to tv, blue ray is 1080p at best and all but the most expensive gpu cant run @4k and keep a playable frame rate above medium settings.
1440p is more of a reasonable ask. but your still gonna struggle to maintain 30+ on most new games.
yes you have people like linus saying 4K,4K,4k but the reality is he bought his 4k cam for his youtube channel and a year later still isnt filming at 4k.

 

[genrldisaray]

I would stick with 1080p for now. 1440 is pretty nice, but you need some serious video cards to run it at reasonable frame rates. Give 4k another year or so, and you'll be able to get one with a single panel that can run at 60hz for a lot less than you'd pay now. Plus there will be better graphics cards available that can actually handle the resolution without costing you thousands of dollars.

 

[Nicholas24]

Hi there, I've been having a burning question on this topic as well, is 4K much better in image quality than 1440p (2560x1440)? Please respond, I need answers as I am about to select the monitor!

 

[andrewf93]

4k is a gimmick atm. theres nothing that uses it other than pc games. most video is 720 p when broadcast to tv, blue ray is 1080p at best and all but the most expensive gpu cant run @4k and keep a playable frame rate above medium settings.
1440p is more of a reasonable ask. but your still gonna struggle to maintain 30+ on most new games.
yes you have people like linus saying 4K,4K,4k but the reality is he bought his 4k cam for his youtube channel and a year later still isnt filming at 4k.

What your saying is true, but if i went 4k i'd be doing it for the extra screen real estate when using my computer for work. I know right now, games and movies are generally 1080p, so I wanted to know if running 1080p on a 4k screen would be ok..

Basically, I would be using my screen for work in 4k, and games and movies in 1080p. I just dont want to get a 4k screen and find out 1080p performance is poor, and think have to end up getting a 1080p aswell.

 

[andrewf93]

Hi there, I've been having a burning question on this topic as well, is 4K much better in image quality than 1440p (2560x1440)? Please respond, I need answers as I am about to select the monitor!

Put is this way. 1080p is almost 2k, 1440p is around 2.5k, and then there is 4k.

the 'k' means thousands of pixels (approx) horizontally. The more pixels the higher the image clarity and larger the screen space (but require more GPU processing power for games)

so yes, 4k is better in that regard.

 

[genrldisaray]

There is no reason 1080p performance should have any problems on a 4k screen. In fact, I know people who bought the first wave of 4k 30hz TVs just to play games at 1080p and 120 fps, and I haven't heard any complaints. I still think it's better to wait for 4k to come a little further though, in another year or so you'll be able to get a better screen for less money since the technology is still relatively new.

 

[andrewf93]

I would stick with 1080p for now. 1440 is pretty nice, but you need some serious video cards to run it at reasonable frame rates. Give 4k another year or so, and you'll be able to get one with a single panel that can run at 60hz for a lot less than you'd pay now. Plus there will be better graphics cards available that can actually handle the resolution without costing you thousands of dollars.

The thing is, I am on 1440x900 at the moment, and just build a new computer with GTX 780. so wont be upgrading in a few years. I am happy to purchase a 4k just for the larger screen real estate, i just want to be sure that playing 1080 content on it will be just as clear as if i were to buy a 1080p screen

 

[andrewf93]

There is no reason 1080p performance should have any problems on a 4k screen. In fact, I know people who bought the first wave of 4k 30hz TVs just to play games at 1080p and 120 fps, and I haven't heard any complaints. I still think it's better to wait for 4k to come a little further though, in another year or so you'll be able to get a better screen for less money since the technology is still relatively new.

Thanks buddy, I'll think ill do that, wait it out. That way, I can always go back to 1080p without distorting the image (like 1440 would) but also have the benefits of higher res.

 

[genrldisaray]

A 1080p image should look identical on a 4k screen and a 1080p screen. I can't speak for the quality of every TV, but there's no technical reason you should be able to tell the difference. If you're planning on waiting a bit for a 4k TV, one thing to consider would be buying a decent 1080p TV now. That way, when you upgrade, you'll have a TV you can put somewhere else, instead of a monitor you may not use anymore.

 

[Nicholas24]

Btw I don't think cheap 4k monitors are going to come out for the next 5 years, given that the technology is so good and new to pass up lightly, really, the only $1000 4K monitors you'll ever see are those that have huge cost-and-corner cutting, like DisplayPort 1.2 required for 60Hz, terrible contrast ratio, awful TN panels, atrocious color accuracy, dreadful brightness adjustment, horrible PPI balance, and tiny screen sizes. The list could literally go on forever.

 

[Nicholas24]

I hope everyone who reads this thread knows this, for I'm saying it loud and clear.

 

[andrewf93]

Btw I don't think cheap 4k monitors are going to come out for the next 5 years, given that the technology is so good and new to pass up lightly, really, the only $1000 4K monitors you'll ever see are those that have huge cost-and-corner cutting, like DisplayPort 1.2 required for 60Hz, terrible contrast ratio, awful TN panels, atrocious color accuracy, dreadful brightness adjustment, horrible PPI balance, and tiny screen sizes. The list could literally go on forever.

So you think 4k isn't worth it at the moment. You would rather get a 1440p without all the cost cutting methods. Also what is wrong with using Display Port 1.2?

 

[genrldisaray]

Btw I don't think cheap 4k monitors are going to come out for the next 5 years, given that the technology is so good and new to pass up lightly, really, the only $1000 4K monitors you'll ever see are those that have huge cost-and-corner cutting, like DisplayPort 1.2 required for 60Hz, terrible contrast ratio, awful TN panels, atrocious color accuracy, dreadful brightness adjustment, horrible PPI balance, and tiny screen sizes. The list could literally go on forever.

So you think 4k isn't worth it at the moment. You would rather get a 1440p without all the cost cutting methods. Also what is wrong with using Display Port 1.2?

There is some fairly ridiculous exaggeration in that post. He's right that the first 4k TVs were pretty bad, but the ones available now are much better, and they're only continuing to improve. You can already buy an IPS panel 24" Dell for about $1000, and a 32" for less than $3000. As more manufacturers start producing them, they're just going to keep getting cheaper. As far as HDMI 2.0, it would be nice to have once there is some 4k content available, but if you're using it as a monitor you'd be using Displayport anyway. I would still wait a bit to buy one, though, since they are still making pretty significant progress, and you'll definitely get a better value in another year or so.

 

[Linkdrive]

A native 1080p 60hz TN panel can easily hit 3840x2160 if you downsample. Until programs become more mature to handle 4k resolutions, the absolute highest resolution I would consider is 2560x1440.

 

[Nicholas24]

I'm not saying DisplayPort 1.2 is bad, it's just that not many people own DisplayPort 1.2 connectors nowadays as opposed to HDMI!!! And the way this is gonna work out, even if 4K monitors keep getting cheaper, by the time you see a $1000 32" 4K monitor get released, 8K 120Hz 3D IPS monitors would've been released. ..isn't that always the case? You wait for something good to become affordable... And then something MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better comes along and eclipses it out of existence.

 

[Nicholas24]

Remember when people thought 1440p monitors were expensive 2 years ago? And if they had tried to wait to get the price as it is now, there're already next-gen 4K monitors at our disposal. Waiting never pays. Either get it now, or settle for something inferior.

 

[Nicholas24]

Now don't take it that I'm saying anything bad about 4k, in fact it would be really awesome to have an Asus PQ321Q, but sadly now it's not that affordable

 

[JNor]

There is no reason 1080p performance should have any problems on a 4k screen. In fact, I know people who bought the first wave of 4k 30hz TVs just to play games at 1080p and 120 fps, and I haven't heard any complaints. I still think it's better to wait for 4k to come a little further though, in another year or so you'll be able to get a better screen for less money since the technology is still relatively new.

A 1080p image should look identical on a 4k screen and a 1080p screen. I can't speak for the quality of every TV, but there's no technical reason you should be able to tell the difference. If you're planning on waiting a bit for a 4k TV, one thing to consider would be buying a decent 1080p TV now. That way, when you upgrade, you'll have a TV you can put somewhere else, instead of a monitor you may not use anymore.

When playing on a monitor up close, 1080p looks starts to look noticeably pixelated on anything 27"and higher imo. I think the "perfect" screen size based on the amount of pixels is actually like 23.6.
Screen size does effect resolution quality. It's why you can't find any 1440p monitors smaller than 27". Everything in windows is already a lot smaller on the 27", I couldn't imagine if the screen was a 23". Like when they use the 1080 resolution on larger cell phone displays like the Note 3. It would be way too small unless the user interface (icons and text etc) were implemented separately and programmed/altered in size to be manageable somehow. I made the jump from a 22.5 inch 1080 monitor to a 1440 monitor and love the crap out of it. But 1080p youtube videos enlarged to full screen look pixelated on a 27 inch screen. Especially after you get so used to the badass-ness that is 1440p clarity in games.

And just why the hell would anyone spend that much money on a 4k tv and play at 1080p? That's like paying for a hooker and just sitting in a hotel room playing Uno.

 

[JNor]

I want to buy a new screen, but cant decide what to get.

I use my computer a lot for work, so I am really eager to get a 1440 or 4k due to the extra screen real estate, this will make things alot easier.

However, since I also watch movies (most content is at 1080) and play games (my gtx 780 probably cant handle 4k gaming) there would be an issue of running a lower resolution than the native resolution.

I was going to get 1440, but read 1080p will turn out blurry on this screen due to the upscaling, and in terms of running 1080p content it is better to get a 1080 screen.

In regards to the 4k, i read since the resolution is exactly 4 times 1080, therefore when scaling, 4 pixels become exactly 1 pixel and therefore, 1080 will look just as crisp on a 4k screen compared to a 1080 screen of the same size. - although 4k is expensive and still new in tech.

My question is, if i am planning to buy 1440p, would I be better of just with 1080? or just go ahead and do 4k?

BTW andrew a single 780 or ti is enough for 1440p, and when paired with a great cpu the SLI of either of these cards is killer. I got 2 780's from amazon for about 450 bucks a piece and you can find them lower than that on ebay. People who bought the 780's then wanted to turn around and sell them (cheap!) for the ti's when 4k started dropping in price, not really knowing the minimal amount of real world difference in a 780 and ti. Why spend 1450 dollars for two ti's when you can get two 780's for 800-900 bucks at the cost of around 15% performance? BF4 gives me around 75-110 fps on larger maps, and that's with this shitty FX 8350 from AMD. If I had the 4770k or 4790k i could easily squeeze another 20+ fps out.

 

[HEXiT]

4k is a gimmick atm. theres nothing that uses it other than pc games. most video is 720 p when broadcast to tv, blue ray is 1080p at best and all but the most expensive gpu cant run @4k and keep a playable frame rate above medium settings.
1440p is more of a reasonable ask. but your still gonna struggle to maintain 30+ on most new games.
yes you have people like linus saying 4K,4K,4k but the reality is he bought his 4k cam for his youtube channel and a year later still isnt filming at 4k.

What your saying is true, but if i went 4k i'd be doing it for the extra screen real estate when using my computer for work. I know right now, games and movies are generally 1080p, so I wanted to know if running 1080p on a 4k screen would be ok..

Basically, I would be using my screen for work in 4k, and games and movies in 1080p. I just dont want to get a 4k screen and find out 1080p performance is poor, and think have to end up getting a 1080p aswell.

that will depend on the quality of screen you buy and whether it supports display port 1.2. as to how well the overall display works. you want at least 60mhz @4k a lot of cheaper screens only do 30@ 4k. also the quality of scaling the monitor has as the better.