How much of a noticable difference is there between 2k and 4k resolutions?

Amywalker730

Honorable
Nov 24, 2014
112
0
10,690
I'm trying to decide between a 2k and 4k monitors. I don't have any stores near my area that showcase h 2k and 4k displays, so I'm kind of going on faith. Is there any real difference between the two resolutions, discounting screen size differences.
 
2K reference resolution is 2048 × 1536 pixels, whereas 4K reference resolution is 4096 × 3072 pixels. This means a screen of the same size, say 60", the 4k would have more pixels per square inch, creating sharper and better images.
 
This is one of those divisive questions...

Firstly it's not clear whether by '2K' you're thinking of 2048x1536 or the more common 2560x1440.

On from that, there's plenty of argument that for a person with 20/20 vision they'd need to sit with their head two feet or less from a 28" monitor to even see the pixel difference.

Lots of people with 4K monitors will sing their praises, but that always has to be held against the background that people rarely are downbeat about their expensive purchases, c.f. £1000 hifi mains cables.

4K gives you more screen real-estate for proper semi-professional work. If your main interest is gaming, then it depends on your graphics card - you need two top-end graphics cards in SLI/CrossFire to run games smoothly in 4K.

Personally at this point of time, unless money is no object I'd say 2560x1440 is fine - the marginal visual benefits of 4K will be arguably outweighed by the lower frame rates unless you can afford to go to high-end SLI/CrossFire.
 
At the screen sizes a PC would use, I would not bother with a super high res screen.

I don't see any need to go to 4k outside of special needs use on a screen under 32", even 32" may be pushing it, 42" is probably the smallest you can see a difference in without sitting a foot from the screen. It's the same thing as between 720p and 1080p, if you have a 32" screen, both resolutions for movies will look very similar unless you are close.