New Monitor woes - 4k vs 1080p at 23-24"

[Skyfireblaze]

So I'm still using a cheap LG 23ET83 1080p 23" monitor from 2012 and I'm reasonably happy with it for the 150€ I paid for it back then as it also overclocks to 75hz just fine. Sadly though as of two weeks ago it has trouble turning on and it gets worse by the day. Once it is on it stays on just fine but I obviously can't keep it running 24/7 and after making sure nothing else is the cause I'm certain it will break fully sooner or later as I lost two other monitors already that exhibited the same symptoms.

Originally I wanted to wait with replacing it till 2021 or however long it would take for proper HDR monitors getting all the way to main-stream but now my hand is somewhat forced and I'm sort of split on 4k vs staying at 1080p for now and after thinking everything through I would like to get some opinions from others.

These two monitors are the ones I'm deciding between more or less:

4k: LG 24UD58-B

1080p: LG 24MP59G-P

They aren't as sleek looking as I would like looking at the bezels but they were the only ones I found in Germany that fit my criteria:

- price around 250€
- FreeSync over DisplayPort thanks to the new Nvidia drivers
- two inputs as I use my PC and my consoles over a HDMI splitter with my monitor
- either IPS or VA, not TN as I like my colors
- at most 27" big

Ideally I want to stay at 23-24" for a multitude of reasons, to house anything bigger I would need a bigger desk and have to rearrange my room too as I have a angled slope roof and I don't have much more space to the top. Furthermore I sit relatively close to the screen and 23" is the sweet-spot for me, anything bigger and I lose too much of the monitor to my peripheral vision.

I know 4k is less than ideal at this size but here's a pro vs contra list I made:

Pro

- theoretically much bigger workspace if I don't loose too much to Windows scaling
- I have a PS4 Pro
- I have a Netflix subscription that includes 4k streaming
- I could finally use the CRT Royale Shader properly for my retro games

Contra

- my GTX 1070 won't be able to drive 4k anywhere well without too many compromises and I won't upgrade my card till the RTX 3xxx or even 4xxx series

I found something that might help with that, a program called Lossless Scaling: https://store.steampowered.com/app/993090/Lossless_Scaling/ I know that won't ever look as good as native but it seems promising, although I'm hesitant about it unless I could see the results on a 4k monitor with my own eyes first as my testing with the demo version from 540p to 1080P wasn't pretty.

I'm aware that 1440p exists which would be much easier for my GTX 1070 to handle but I want to avoid this because it would make the card faster obsolete as I would like, my consoles wouldn't look as nice and there's no good scaling option unless I want to go to 720p.

Now based on all that I came to the conclusion I should rather stick to 1080p for now, also to save money but still net myself a nice FreeSync upgrade. What does everyone here think, is this the right conclusion? Anyone used either of these LG monitors before? Any other monitor suggestions, especially for 1080p?

Don't get me wrong, I'll use my current monitor till it won't turn on anymore or it gets too annoying to handle but I want to be prepared for that case :P

 

[hey it's that dog]

Will the PS4 pro image quality be perceptibly better on a 4K monitor than a 1080p monitor at that screen size? Honest question.

 

[Bricktop]

4k is a waste on a monitor that size, the only they even make them it because of marketing. And, like you said, your 1070 will be dying for very little benefit. Also, the Pro SS's to 1080p and will look just as good at that size.

Unless you just want a 4k monitor to say you have one it's a bad idea unless you go bigger.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Would be cool if that app does what you need, but my general experience is

24": Way too small for 4k, you'' be running Windows at 1080p regardless. I would rather have 1080p144 than 4k60 at this screen size.

27": Still too small for 4k, you'll be using scaling in Windows which is...not great. Perfect on a Mac since MacOS basically assumes you will always be doing UI scaling, but on Windows it can cause UI elements to look soft. This is why 1440p monitors are extremely popular at this size - it's a great non-scaled resolution.

32": Okay now 4K works. Honestly 1440p here is great as well, but 32" to me on a desk is pretty similar to 55"-65" on a wall.

 

[HououinKyouma00]

Go 1080p.
4K isn't worth it at that size. if you were going 27" or above then maybe. I honestly regret going 4K TV wise. You can also keep your PC settings higher for longer without sacrificing framerate and take advantage of supersampling on the Pro side of things or higher framerates on games that allow it.

 

[capitalCORN]

1440p and high hertz is the much better option. I do realize this will probably be more costly to you, but 4k isn't anything to brag about at 24 inches,

 

[Xiaomi]

1080p is still noticeably jaggier than higher res even at 24 inches, but honestly I wouldn't pay the extra for a higher res without a size increase. I would say stick with 1080p and go for high framerates. The only problem is that sticking with 24 inches means choosing between an IPS screen or 144Hz.

 

[ThatsMyTrunks]

Would be cool if that app does what you need, but my general experience is

24": Way too small for 4k, you'' be running Windows at 1080p regardless. I would rather have 1080p144 than 4k60 at this screen size.

27": Still too small for 1080p, you'll be using scaling in Windows which is...not great. Perfect on a Mac since MacOS basically assumes you will always be doing UI scaling, but on Windows it can cause UI elements to look soft. This is why 1440p monitors are extremely popular at this size - it's a great non-scaled resolution.

32": Okay now 4K works. Honestly 1440p here is great as well, but 32" to me on a desk is pretty similar to 55"-65" on a wall.

Click to shrink...

Seconding this. All of it -- except for what I think is a typo with 27" being too small for 1080p.

 

[Stiler]

This is a hard decision. It's sad that the PC monitor market is sooo damn far behind when it comes to HDR support and things.

Also makes me long for CRT's and how they could run at lower resolutions with no image quality loss or anything.

I think it will come down to if you plan to stay with your 1070 or plan to upgrade it anytime after getting the monitor? If so then maybe 4k.

For a 4k monitor you really need a beefy machine to push it.

 

[Sqrt]

The right answer is neither: 1440p.

 

[SliChillax]

Go 1440p. Even at 27inch, I feel like 1440p is the sweet spot and 4K is not essential. At 23-24 inches, I still would go with 1440p rather than 1080p. I can't get go back to 1080p not even on my phone screen lol.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

4k is a waste on a monitor that size

Click to shrink...

.

 

[Duxxy3]

Go 1440p. Even at 27inch, I feel like 1440p is the sweet spot and 4K is not essential. At 23-24 inches, I still would go with 1440p rather than 1080p. I can't get go back to 1080p not even on my phone screen lol.

Click to shrink...

I went back to 1080p 24" from 1440p 27". My eyes do too much scanning around when using the 27", whereas with the 24" there's barely any scanning around. 27" was just a bit too large for me, but I sit fairly close to my monitor.

If Windows didn't have all of the scaling issues, 24" 1440p would be a good option, but I had that monitor and Windows scaling ruined it.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Seconding this. All of it -- except for what I think is a typo with 27" being too small for 1080p.

Click to shrink...

Yep I screwed up ;) Some of my coworkers have 4k 27" displays and it's so tiny that they have to use Windows Scaling to run it at effectively 1440p anyway. Pretty much only running 4K output on X1X or PS4 Pro.

Honestly the only thing keeping 1440p from being the perfect choice is that PS4 Pro only outputs at 1080p/2160p. If it had a 1440p output there would be a huge market for 1440p monitors right now. And in the PC space I would not be super comfortable about buying 4K anyway until HDMI 2.1 pushes the concept of 4k144 into the gaming monitor mainstream.

 

[Troast]

If you have excellent eye sight go 4K, theres a noticeable different between 1080p 24" and 4K unless you cannot see very well. 1440p looks almost as bad as 1080p to me, not enough pixel density.

 

[Skyebaron]

If that size is that important never go beyond 1080p. 4k is great on 49+ inch tvs.

 

[Finaika]

1080p? What year is this, 2005?

Spoiler

Go with 1080p.

 

[staedtler]

If you want to be the best you need to get the best. Don't listen to these losers with 1080p monitors that were forged by proto-humans in some shitty cave. Get your ass down to best buy or whatever and get as many 4k monitors as you can afford no matter what the price. Get with the times. You wouldn't ride a horse if you could get a Ferrari would you?

 

[Jessie.Bristol]

You could look at the BenQ EW277HDR, it is 1080p with HDR. In HDR it gets just over a 4,000:1 contrast ratio and peaks at 418 nits of peak brightness. It also supports Wide Color Gamut (93% DCI-P3 color space). Although it only supports 8-bit color. It can also be overclocked to 75hz quite easily apparently.

Review from PCMonitors.info : https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/benq-ew277hdr/

 

[Xx 720]

Get a 29 inch ultrawide, 1080p, promise it will blow everything else out the water

 

[Shawcroft]

I'll join the bandwagon and say that at those sizes 4k is kind of a waste.

Honestly the only thing keeping 1440p from being the perfect choice is that PS4 Pro only outputs at 1080p/2160p. If it had a 1440p output there would be a huge market for 1440p monitors right now. And in the PC space I would not be super comfortable about buying 4K anyway until HDMI 2.1 pushes the concept of 4k144 into the gaming monitor mainstream.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, indeed. 1440p is a great sweetspot for PC currently I feel, especially at somewhat common monitor sizes.

PS4 Pro not doing 1440p is an annoying oversight and it's a bit puzzling that they still haven't patched it in.

 

[Lump]

Seconding this. All of it -- except for what I think is a typo with 27" being too small for 1080p.

Click to shrink...

34-inch ultrawide is my jam, 3440x1440 (Acer Predator 34). The only problem is it only goes up to 100hz, but not too many modern titles can push over 100fps at that resolution at high/ultra settings on my current hardware anyway.

 

[blitzblake]

24" go 1080, 27" go 1440 if you can. Leave 4k for now I'd say.

 

[evrythngwastakn]

I feel you OP. Pc monitor shopping is terrible and super expensive. I think I want a 24-7" monitor, IPS/VA, 1440p, freesync , with a new USB hub built in like my dell has currently. $700+ cdn for the Samsung that rtings recommends. Buying a 1080p panel seems smart since I only have a 580 but man... I've had a 1080p monitor for like a decade now. And Mac OS looks very nice at higher resolutions when I used my Mac mini. All the "gamer" stuff is gaudy af and most panels are TN (I get why). I'm thinking of not going with vrr since I'm not used to it anyway and it's much easier to find something in my price range if I ignore freesync.

 

[Elven_Star]

I'm on a 25" 2560x1080 LG ultrawide. If you use your PC for work as well, the extra space is a godsend. Everything looks crisp even at this "low" resolution in games. Pixel density is much more important than pixel count.

 

[Deleted member 2474]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p on a 24" display needs their eyes checked. The difference is massive.

 

[myzhi]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p on a 24" display needs their eyes checked. The difference is massive.

Click to shrink...

I can understand not going 4K due to peformnace, but you are correct, 92 PPI vs 183 PPI is huge. I went from 28" 4K (157) to UW 1440p (107) and it took me a few weeks to get use to seeing individual pixels and less clear texts.

 

[chandoog]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p on a 24" display needs their eyes checked. The difference is massive.

Click to shrink...

Difference may be visible if you're actively looking for it, but echoing what other users have said .. 24'' is just way too small for 4K resolution. 32'' or even higher would be preferable.

 

[Cipherr]

Its a nightmare. Been trying to plan for a similar move. I wish there was something between 27" and 32" that wasn't ultrawide. I really would like a larger than 27" but at 1440p and 144hz but I cant find anything.

 

[Agrizzlyadventure]

Its a nightmare. Been trying to plan for a similar move. I wish there was something between 27" and 32" that wasn't ultrawide. I really would like a larger than 27" but at 1440p and 144hz but I cant find anything.

Click to shrink...

I recently bought a 32 inch Samsung monitor with the exact specs you listed, 144hz and 1440p, even has her, this thing is mind blowing and I can't recommend it enough.

Samsung 32CHG70

Edit: forgot to mention I'm running a RTX 2080, FreeSync is fully compatible

Cheaper Alternative: Pixio PX29 - no HDR, and not curved, but still a great panel at 1440p and 144 hz

 

[Pargon]

I know 4k is less than ideal at this size […]

Click to shrink...

False. Higher resolution is always better on a desktop monitor, no matter its size.
Sure, once you get to 400 pixels per inch and beyond there may be an argument that the diminishing returns are no longer worth it, but 4K is nowhere close to that.
4K at 23″ is still only 192 PPI - which is actually ideal for Windows since it's based around 96 DPI, and 192 PPI is exactly 2x.

- theoretically much bigger workspace if I don't loose too much to Windows scaling

Click to shrink...

That's not how pixel density works. Sure, you technically can do that, but everything will be tiny.
Increased pixel density is intended to keep everything the same size while increasing the sharpness/clarity/image quality. Workspace will be unchanged when going from a 1080p monitor at 1x scaling to a 4K monitor with 2x scaling, but everything will look much better.
In addition, using integer scales like 2x, 3x, 4x etc. also avoids legacy applications being blurred, as Windows will use Nearest Neighbor scaling instead of Bilinear.

- my GTX 1070 won't be able to drive 4k anywhere well without too many compromises and I won't upgrade my card till the RTX 3xxx or even 4xxx series

Click to shrink...

That's probably the only downside to this: you won't be running most games at the display's native resolution with your current GPU.

I found something that might help with that, a program called Lossless Scaling: https://store.steampowered.com/app/993090/Lossless_Scaling/ I know that won't ever look as good as native but it seems promising, although I'm hesitant about it unless I could see the results on a 4k monitor with my own eyes first as my testing with the demo version from 540p to 1080P wasn't pretty.

Click to shrink...

Nearest Neighbor integer scaling looks identical to a display of equal resolution.
Your test obviously looked bad because you did not have a 540p monitor next to your 1080p one.
When you do that test with a 1080p monitor and a 4K monitor side-by-side, it should look virtually the same on the 4K display - if anything, it will be clearer and sharper due to the increased pixel density:

Note: any slight blurring is a result of these being photographs of displays. In person, the higher density display looks best.

It's filtered scaling that you need to avoid:

4k is a waste on a monitor that size, the only they even make them it because of marketing.

Click to shrink...

4K displays look significantly better than 1080p displays at that size.

Would be cool if that app does what you need, but my general experience is

24": Way too small for 4k, you'' be running Windows at 1080p regardless. I would rather have 1080p144 than 4k60 at this screen size.

27": Still too small for 4k, you'll be using scaling in Windows which is...not great. Perfect on a Mac since MacOS basically assumes you will always be doing UI scaling, but on Windows it can cause UI elements to look soft. This is why 1440p monitors are extremely popular at this size - it's a great non-scaled resolution.

32": Okay now 4K works. Honestly 1440p here is great as well, but 32" to me on a desk is pretty similar to 55"-65" on a wall.

Click to shrink...

That's not how this works.
macOS always renders at 2x scale, and then scales the output to match your display resolution.
So if you are using anything other than 2x in macOS, the entire display is being blurred. It also blurs legacy applications by default, even if you are rendering at 2x.

Windows renders UI elements natively at any scale, but has to filter legacy applications if you are using a non-integer scale.
Legacy applications are sharp by default on Windows if you are using an integer scale, as the OS then uses nearest neighbor scaling.

This seems to be a common misconception, so I can only think that people somehow notice it less when the entire display is blurred on macOS at non-integer scales, rather than the contrast between razor-sharp native UI elements and blurry legacy applications at non-integer scales on Windows.
But that doesn't apply here if it's a 23″ 4K display since that will be using 2x scaling, so legacy applications will be sharp.

The main difference is probably that Apple has very little support for older applications, so most of them will have been updated to run natively at high DPI.
Meanwhile Windows has decades of legacy support, so a lot of what you will use won't be built for DPI scaling. This even seems to be a problem for many newer applications. It really seems like many Windows devs just don't care.


As for display sizes and resolutions, 23″ and 46″ are the only sizes that 4K should be used at.
27″/32" displays should really be 5K rather than 4K. Actually, the ideal size would be 30.6″. 4K at those sizes is a cost-saving measure, and means that you're stuck with non-integer scaling.
Hopefully 8K displays will get here sooner rather than later, as 8K can support all these sizes properly while still using integer scaling.

Some of my coworkers have 4k 27" displays and it's so tiny that they have to use Windows Scaling to run it at effectively 1440p anyway.

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's how high density displays work.
Workspace is set by display size, not display resolution; unless you want to shrink everything.

 

[Skyfireblaze]

Thanks for all the replies, so it's as I guessed for the most part 1080p seems to be the best way to go here in terms of having a hassle-free experience!

False. Higher resolution is always better on a desktop monitor, no matter its size.
Sure, once you get to 400 pixels per inch and beyond there may be an argument that the diminishing returns are no longer worth it, but 4K is nowhere close to that.
4K at 23″ is still only 192 PPI - which is actually ideal for Windows since it's based around 96 DPI, and 192 PPI is exactly 2x.

That's not how pixel density works. Sure, you technically can do that, but everything will be tiny.
Increased pixel density is intended to keep everything the same size while increasing the sharpness/clarity/image quality. Workspace will be unchanged when going from a 1080p monitor at 1x scaling to a 4K monitor with 2x scaling, but everything will look much better.
In addition, using integer scales like 2x, 3x, 4x etc. also avoids legacy applications being blurred, as Windows will use Nearest Neighbor scaling instead of Bilinear.


That's probably the only downside to this: you won't be running most games at the display's native resolution with your current GPU.


Nearest Neighbor integer scaling looks identical to a display of equal resolution.
Your test obviously looked bad because you did not have a 540p monitor next to your 1080p one.
When you do that test with a 1080p monitor and a 4K monitor side-by-side, it should look virtually the same on the 4K display - if anything, it will be clearer and sharper due to the increased pixel density:

Note: any slight blurring is a result of these being photographs of displays. In person, the higher density display looks best.

It's filtered scaling that you need to avoid:

4K displays look significantly better than 1080p displays at that size.


That's not how this works.
macOS always renders at 2x scale, and then scales the output to match your display resolution.
So if you are using anything other than 2x in macOS, the entire display is being blurred. It also blurs legacy applications by default, even if you are rendering at 2x.

Windows renders UI elements natively at any scale, but has to filter legacy applications if you are using a non-integer scale.
Legacy applications are sharp by default on Windows if you are using an integer scale, as the OS then uses nearest neighbor scaling.

This seems to be a common misconception, so I can only think that people somehow notice it less when the entire display is blurred on macOS at non-integer scales, rather than the contrast between razor-sharp native UI elements and blurry legacy applications at non-integer scales on Windows.
But that doesn't apply here if it's a 23″ 4K display since that will be using 2x scaling, so legacy applications will be sharp.

The main difference is probably that Apple has very little support for older applications, so most of them will have been updated to run natively at high DPI.
Meanwhile Windows has decades of legacy support, so a lot of what you will use won't be built for DPI scaling. This even seems to be a problem for many newer applications. It really seems like many Windows devs just don't care.


As for display sizes and resolutions, 23″ and 46″ are the only sizes that 4K should be used at.
27″/32" displays should really be 5K rather than 4K. Actually, the ideal size would be 30.6″. 4K at those sizes is a cost-saving measure, and means that you're stuck with non-integer scaling.
Hopefully 8K displays will get here sooner rather than later, as 8K can support all these sizes properly while still using integer scaling.


Yes, that's how high density displays work.
Workspace is set by display size, not display resolution; unless you want to shrink everything.

Click to shrink...

I thank you for your very informative and interesting post Pargon !

I understood now how lossless scaling vs pixel-density works, it indeed seems quite simple and logical. If you have a 4k monitor and lossless scale one pixel to four pixels but in return the square of 4 pixels is roughly the same size as one pixel on a 1080p monitor due to pixel density differences you get comparable image-quality. So going with a 4k screen at 24" might not be that much of a waste as I initially thought provided I'm willing to wrestle with Windows scaling or hope that this Lossless Scaling program works with every game going forward, which it should but you never know how engines and games react to having their window messed with.

I'll look around for monitors again now as it seems I have to order one ASAP, my current monitor took around 5 minutes to turn on today.

Oh and I forgot to say, if I would use the monitor purely for my PC I would strongly consider 1440p too but due to me also using a Switch and PS4/PS3 with it that seems like a questionable trade.

 

[Crazymoogle]

That's not how this works.
macOS always renders at 2x scale, and then scales the output to match your display resolution.
So if you are using anything other than 2x in macOS, the entire display is being blurred. It also blurs legacy applications by default, even if you are rendering at 2x.

Yes, that's how high density displays work.
Workspace is set by display size, not display resolution; unless you want to shrink everything.

Click to shrink...

Look, I get what you're saying. Technically speaking, what you say is right. But it takes all of two seconds to see that the output on MacOS, by default, is better. In fact it's so much better that every MBP I've tried in the last two years ships with non-integer scaling by default. The sweet spot is generally 1-2 steps above native, so 1440x900 or 1680x1050 is perfectly usable at 13" even though the 1/2 scale is 1280x800 (13")/1440x900(15").

Meanwhile, if I use a Windows 10 desktop machine with a 27" 4K display, the results are pretty obvious:

• 1080p is sharp but huge, overly so for desktop work.
• 1440p has obvious blurring issues on core apps like Notepad and Control Panel.
• 4K is of course razer sharp but too tiny to be useful.

Now, could this be Nvidia driver issues? Sure. But the basic point is Apple seems to roll non-integer as a matter of everyday and Windows does not.

...Anyway, the point is moot. The OP wants to roll PS4/PS3/Switch, which means a 1080p multiple is ideal. (Edit: And possibly a multi-mon issue with different scale factors?)

 

[Pargon]

Look, I get what you're saying. Technically speaking, what you say is right. But it takes all of two seconds to see that the output on MacOS, by default, is better. In fact it's so much better that every MBP I've tried in the last two years ships with non-integer scaling by default. The sweet spot is generally 1-2 steps above native, so 1440x900 or 1680x1050 is perfectly usable at 13" even though the 1/2 scale is 1280x800 (13")/1440x900(15").

Click to shrink...

Are you sure they ship at non-integer scales by default now? I thought that was only the 12″ MacBook because its display is 2304x1440 (1152x720@2x).
For what it's worth, I had a 13″ Retina MacBook Pro, and I hated using anything other than 1x or 2x scaling - the image is noticeably blurred at anything else.
It's why I've been hoping that they would increase the resolution on the retina displays to match their previous non-retina counterparts. The 15″ Retina MBP is essentially 1440x900@2x (2880x1800) while the old non-retina 15″ models had a 1680x1050 screen option. I'd like to see them upgraded to 1680x1050@2x (3360x2100).

1080p is sharp but huge, overly so for desktop work.

Click to shrink...

That's not the fault of Windows' scaling though; at 27″–32″ in size, a display should have a 5K or 8K panel, not 4K. It's why the 27″ iMacs are 5120x2880 native.

1440p has obvious blurring issues on core apps like Notepad and Control Panel.

Click to shrink...

This sounds like your install of Windows 10 is at least a couple of versions out of date. Microsoft has been improving how they handle display scaling with every release so far.
Legacy applications are always going to be blurred if you are using non-integer scales, but as I said, the way that Windows handles things means that you're seeing blurred applications next to razor sharp ones, which stands out more compared to macOS' softening the entire display at non-integer scales.

Now, could this be Nvidia driver issues? Sure. But the basic point is Apple seems to roll non-integer as a matter of everyday and Windows does not.

Click to shrink...

It's not a driver issue, the primary issue is the fact that Windows actually supports applications >5 years old, built before display scaling was a thing, while macOS kills support for old applications rather quickly so most of what you use on macOS is written to support DPI scaling.


You can actually emulate macOS' display scaling on Windows using NVIDIA's DSR.
Enable all DSR resolutions, and set the smoothness to 50% (any other value will result in aliasing).
Now set Windows to 2x scale and set your resolution to a DSR setting that gives you the desired workspace.

For example:
[email protected] scaling results in a 2560x1440 workspace; ideal for a 27″ display.
2x 2560x1440 = 5120x2880 using DSR.

That's exactly how macOS handles scaling, except their resampling filter is different, and they still use bilinear scaling on legacy applications by default, while Windows will use nearest neighbor scaling if the OS is set to 200% (it doesn't know that you're using DSR to rescale the output).

 

[Skyfireblaze]

This is getting really frustrating, I wanted to stick to either LG or Samsung as I know I can't go too wrong with these although I found this Phillips Monitor: https://www.prad.de/technische-daten/monitor-datenblatt/philips-246e9qjab/ and while the user-reviews are okay on Amazon I can't find any indepth info or review about this screen at all.

 

[Alvis]

I was gonna recommend a 1440p monitor until you said you wanna connect a PS4 Pro to it. Unbelievably Sony still hasn't enabled a 1440p output option, meaning you'd be stuck with 1080p output on it. So if you're playing a game that runs at 1440p natively on PS4 Pro you would get 1440p -> 1080p -> 1440p scaling.

So dumb.

 

[Skyfireblaze]

I was gonna recommend a 1440p monitor until you said you wanna connect a PS4 Pro to it. Unbelievably Sony still hasn't enabled a 1440p output option, meaning you'd be stuck with 1080p output on it. So if you're playing a game that runs at 1440p natively on PS4 Pro you would get 1440p -> 1080p -> 1440p scaling.

So dumb.

Click to shrink...

Yeah that and the Switch are exactly why I will likely stick to 1080p :/

 

[Alex840]

Would be cool if that app does what you need, but my general experience is

24": Way too small for 4k, you'' be running Windows at 1080p regardless. I would rather have 1080p144 than 4k60 at this screen size.

27": Still too small for 4k, you'll be using scaling in Windows which is...not great. Perfect on a Mac since MacOS basically assumes you will always be doing UI scaling, but on Windows it can cause UI elements to look soft. This is why 1440p monitors are extremely popular at this size - it's a great non-scaled resolution.

32": Okay now 4K works. Honestly 1440p here is great as well, but 32" to me on a desk is pretty similar to 55"-65" on a wall.

Click to shrink...

OP said they sit close to the screen. You don't know what is 'too small' for 4K unless you know how far away they sit from the screen. At 1.5-2 feet, 4K would be a massive difference over 1080p.

 

[alexbull_uk]

I was actually in the same situation about a year ago and I ended up going for a 24" 1080p 144Hz display. Overall, I just don't see the point of 4K on a display that's smaller than 32", and especially so if you won't always be able to run games natively at 4K anyway.

Admittedly, I have since swapped the 24" for a 34" 21:9 1440p monitor but I don't know if that would work for you (I recommend if it would).

 

[Skyfireblaze]

Well after looking at many reviews and other things I'm dead-set on 1080p now and found this nice monitor:

https://www.hardwareschotte.de/prei...oll-144Hz-Curved-Monitor-C24FG73FQU-p22053719

It's a Samsung Quantum Dot VA panel with 144hz and honestly it seems too good to be true. I'm still somewhat iffy on VA as I also watch alot of anime on Netflix and I heard IPS still beats VA in terms of colors but yeah I just want this giant headache to end and order something finally. Any opinions on the Samsung?

 

[Gevurztraminer]

quantum dot is iffy I hear. Lots of issues with displaying motion and such. They also don't work nicely with gsync and freesync.

 

[inner-G]

Yeah 1440p is the way to go for that size

Your PS4 will have to run in 1080, but it will be a better experience than 1080p or 4K at that size

 

[Skyfireblaze]

quantum dot is iffy I hear. Lots of issues with displaying motion and such. They also don't work nicely with gsync and freesync.

Click to shrink...

Hmm what issues exactly with FreeSync? I hoped I finally found a good monitor *sigh*

 

[Futureman]

4k is a waste on a monitor that size, the only they even make them it because of marketing. And, like you said, your 1070 will be dying for very little benefit. Also, the Pro SS's to 1080p and will look just as good at that size.

Unless you just want a 4k monitor to say you have one it's a bad idea unless you go bigger.

Click to shrink...

how so? I have the 24" LG 4K linked in the OP.

I don't game, but I edit photos and video. Its on my desk about 1 foot from my face. I can get closer if necessary.

I really wouldn't notice the difference if it was 1080p??

 

[Gevurztraminer]

ghosting and poor motion blur, mainly. I mean, I don't know too much about qleds, but it's a complaint i've seen more often than not about them. I know you're on the monitor shopping struggle train, I am as well, but it'll be worth finding a worthwhile one.

 

[Lashley]

1440p breh

If you have to, then 4k

 

[Skyfireblaze]

1440p is a no-go because of my consoles. Honestly no matter at which monitor I look at there seem to be all great, with a ton of "buts" attached to them.

To list a few things:

I could go with 4k 24" LG monitor, then I probably have great time with my consoles, working tasks over my Macbook and media-consumpion. But native PC gaming would suffer big time with my GTX 1070 and I don't know if I could make it run at 75hz so I would get 4k with FreeSync but an over downgrade in motion-fluidity.

I could go with the 1080p LG, there I get FreeSync and probably 75fps and overall a decent monitor. But nothing exceptional making this the safest, not much of an upgrade option.

Or I could go all in with the Samsung Quantum Dot 144hz which seems a bit like playing roulette at that point. It has apparently great colors for movie and anime consumption and a stunning picture quality. But there seem to be issues with the QDot technology yeah and the viewing-angles are mediocre and apparently it's Free-Sync only works starting at 70fps+ which makes this an equal headache like 4k.

 

[inner-G]

1440p is a no-go because of my consoles.

Click to shrink...

Have you ever played a console on a 1440p screen? You're not really going to notice any degradation at that size imo. I've played on a 1440p monitor a lot and the only thing that bothers me is that the framerate seems janky because everything only runs at 30fps. There's no getting around that for console games though.

 

[Bjones]

My opinion : resolution on monitor doesn't matter as much as screen refresh rate. The blur from a slow screen is the worst thing ever.

 

[SmartWaffles]

4K gaming on PC is stupid at this point. If you play PC games exclusively on the monitor, invest in a premium high refresh rate Freesync monitor at 1440p, if you upgrade your graphics card down the line you can utilize it even better.