Is a 24-inch monitor too small for 4K?

[Nicholas24]

Just wondering about that.

 

[Rationale]

Ok. Well, I just noticed something recently. I'm using a 1080p monitor (currently), when I tried scaling up the text and UI as the words looked pint-sized, immediately everything became enlarged but VERY, VERY blurry.

Yes. That happens when it gets larger than it's supposed to. It gets smaller and smaller as resolutions increase, and scaling is just supposed to correct it. Anything modern is automatically scaled correctly for 1080p and will look blurry if it's made bigger, but would look tiny at 4K.

 

[Nicholas24]

So that means there's blur for 1080p but not for 4K? 4K just remains ultra sharp?

 

[Nicholas24]

Well, based on what everyone else here has said, I figured it would be wise to go with a 24" Dell UP2414Q 4K monitor.

 

[Rationale]

So that means there's blur for 1080p but not for 4K? 4K just remains ultra sharp?

It means it won't get any blurrier at 4k if it stays the same size, but it won't get much/any sharper when the rest of the screen gets sharper, so it won't look as sharp by comparison.

 

[Linkdrive]

Will 2 GTX 780 Tis do the trick for 4K with all settings completely maxed out at 30fps?

4k will not be a problem for 2x GTX 780Ti unless you set the AA relatively high. I have been gaming at 4k for nearly 2 years on a single GTX 680, and most games usually run between 30 and 45fps.

 

[Rationale]

I'm planning to play at about 4x MSAA, from what I've seen in benchmarks, even at that anti-aliasing quality with highest settings turned on and playing at 4K, most games can hit about 50-70 fps. I'm talking about games like Crysis 3, which will hit 30fps with the above settings. However, I've also read that 30fps is fine for Crysis 3 as it's not very fast-paced.

There's really not a need for 4xMSAA, is there?
At 4K, 2xMSAA should be the same amount of antialiasing as 8xMSAA at 1080p. (still way clearer at 4K of course)

 

[Seth Schaffer]

In short, I'd recommend the larger monitor.

 

[Linkdrive]

I am not sure why to even bother going above 1920x1080 on a monitor smaller than 27". It's not really noticeably different unless you have your face inches from the monitor which is terrible for your eyes anyhow.

I somehow get the feeling that you have very little experience in dealing with 4k at 27". No offense.

Saying that 4k gives no benefit on average sized monitors is like saying SSAA is useless for 1080p at 27", which is simply not true. I sit about 4 feet away from my screens, and back when I had 23.3" screens, the difference between 1080p and 4k (both with no AA) was quite obvious. 4k had significantly less visible artifacts, textures were sharper, there was less shader shimmering, and post process effects were far more defined.

 

[Romanticapped]

Just wondering about that.

If you can find one a 27" would be best to start with, however the viewable difference is not really worth the extra money right now. My advice is to wait until next year when the prices hopefully come down some. I am using a 40" and a 27", the 4k is nice but not worth the cost just yet. Anything under 26 or 27" and it will depend upon your viewing distance and pixel size of your screen, as mentioned somewhere below some games just don't support it very well based upon various font and HUD display settings. If you really want it now start with the 24" monitor and upgrade when prices even out. Otherwise you are wasting money and later more games and video will have taken 4k into consideration in their creation and updates.