Which is better: UHD display at WQHD or WQHD at native resolution?

[s35]

Hello all,

I believe 3840 x 2160 would be too high for me in terms of text readability on a 27 - 28" screen. However, 2560 x 1440 seems about right for that size; however, some UHD screens sell for the price of some WQHD screens. So I'm wondering how well do some UHD screens do interpolation and run @ the lower WQHD resolution? If they do so just as well as a native WQHD screen, perhaps a UHD screen would be a better choice, so I could have the 4K resolution available to me for other purposes (such as previewing 4K video).

What do you think? Have any of you with 4K screens compared the clarity at 2560 x 1440 to a native WQHD screen? Thanks!

~Adam

 

[ak47jar3d]

Go for the uhd screens. The sharpness of text will be much greater. Scaling used to be a much bigger issue prior to Windows 10, but it seems that the new Os has pretty much correct the issue. The apps are starting to catch up, but are not there quite just yet.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

WQHD will look better on WQHD, than UHD.

 

[s35]

Thanks ak47jar3d and Suzuki for your replies! I guess I'd have to see an UHD screen running at that WQHD res to know for sure.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Nope, scaling is scaling. Native is the best possible result you can get. This is the reason 4k TV's haven't taken off yet.

 

[Eximo]

Though I can say that ta 4K TV makes a splendid 1080p display for desktop use. That scales perfectly (ie without using Windows desktop scaling). So rather then running a 4K display at 2560x1440, try out 1080.

I think the 27" 2560x1440 is also about right when it comes to Windows and nothing wrong running a faster frame rate then the best visuals possible.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

2560x1440 is sharper on a 3840x2160 monitor than 1920x1080 on a 3840x2160 monitor. TV's included.

 

[Eximo]

I wouldn't think so with upscaling, downscaling not so sure, there would have to be some compromises to there, but not something I have bothered to try. I don't run my TV in 4K simply because there is no content and there is no 1440p content either, not that there are particularly any scaling issues. At normal viewing distance it just helps to have the pixel density.

On my 2560x1440 display I can still see the individual pixels at a normal viewing distance, still heaps better then my old 27" 1080p display.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Nope, 1440p is sharper than 1080 on a 4k display. 1080 isn't even sharp on a 4k display, there are high end TV's that don't even get scaling correct going from 1080 to 4k, yet people insist there's a secret formula, which by the way has never been proven, just thrown out there on the internet, as a fact. Those that buy a 4k display, be it TV or a monitor, are making a huge mistake if they run it at 1080, it's not as sharp as a native 1080p display, that's impossible. And when people say they can see the pixels, they actually see the pixel structure, not the same thing. I just think there's too much misinformation regarding 1080 and 4k. If someone buys a 4k TV, and use it as a monitor, it's going to look better or the same as a 1080p TV, but not because of scaling, but because of the better specs of the 4k TV; simply because they stopped improving the picture quality of 1080p TV's.

 

[s35]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. We just ordered a BenQ SW2700PT WQHD monitor. I really liked the write up for that one here on Tom's Hardware. I'll post back with my experiences in a few days! Merry Christmas to you all