Weekend Open Forum: Do you use a 4K monitor with your desktop?

4K is fine as a working desktop for document creation, assuming that it is 32in in size. 27in results in small text and problems with decent scaling. For gaming it has not really proven to me that it is ready. I have a pair of GTX 970's in SLI and framerates are pretty poor for 3D images. More interesting to me are the latest 21:9 widescreen monitors for gaming like the LG 34UM95-P, less pixels than a 4K panel so better 3D performance and a better FOV for fps. Still 60hz only.

Currently I prefer 2560x1440 @ 120hz than 4K at 60Hz and I've tried both, however if I had budget and desk space I would be extremely tempted by the new ultrawide 21:9 monitors, decent compromise for both work and play, even at 60hz.
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
I think 4K is probably too much for a monitor sized screen. But regular 1080 isn't enough. I wish there was something in between that was more mainstream. They make tablet screens that are 2560 x 1600 (or whatever), why not a monitor?
Click to expand...

They do make 2K monitors at both 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratio, but the price tag is quite hefty, not actually much less than 4K monitors.

Most people's issues with 4K is the GUI scaling and GPU not handling it. You can get some 4K monitors around £500 now, so I would buy one and just run it at 2K resolution until PC hardware catches up?
 
19" Dell monitor. 1024x768. Still looks okay. Obviously not fantastic, but it does it's job. I won't be replacing it for another two years or so if possible. I want 4k pricing to come down.
 
I will not be getting a 4k monitor for a while. I am guessing that I will be looking into getting one when the majority of games on consoles are made for 4k. Until then, I expect them to be overpriced and under supported. The main limiting factors are driving power and the cost of it.
 
Just like G-Sync monitors, selection is low because the technology is still new, therefore I will go with 25x14 first before I even think about 4K.
 
I'm going to wait another year before considering 4K.
There are several obvious reasons for this ranging from connectivity, refresh rates and overall performance; but I see many annoyances being resolved as it becomes more mainstream.

Also, I've complained on here enough but I am not really impressed with todays GPU's @ 4K and am really looking forward to both green and red's next lineup.
 
I am still quite happy with two 26" 1920x1200 monitors and a 55" Samsung HDTV. I have no need at the moment for 4k. Maybe if 4k becomes the standard for displays in the next year or so, then maybe I will upgrade.
 
Been using a monitor a step between 4k and HD. Dell 29 inch ultra wide. Great for content creation, watching movies, playing games, and surfing the web. The extra wide screen takes the place of two without the bezel so it's pretty great.
 
It will be several years before I even consider making the jump.

Gaming is the only area where I'm interested, but support is still too threadbare and the system requirements are still too high.
 
Desktop, desktop, ... I'm sure I've heard the word before. It's like a really big, screenless tablet, mostly composed of air, right?
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
I think 4K is probably too much for a monitor sized screen. But regular 1080 isn't enough. I wish there was something in between that was more mainstream. They make tablet screens that are 2560 x 1600 (or whatever), why not a monitor?
Click to expand...

They do, you can get 1200 or 1440P screens.

Im typing this on a 27" 1440p screen myself.
 
Nope. Currently using a 1080p monitor along side my laptop display. I would like a 4K monitor for the real estate it would provide for charting, but, like others have said, cost and technical issues have me on the fence at the moment. I would also have to buy a new computer to use actually 4k, which only adds to upfront costs.
 
I'd wait a couple of years, or til they manage to release 4k 120+ hz, in the mean time Asus ROG Swift 27" 1440p 144hz will do the job but it's currently out of stock everywhere or extremely overpriced. (something about quality control I think)
 
I'm really upset that 4k monitors have come down so far in price but 2k is still so high. I'd rather have nice color HD than washed out laggy UHD but still it's ridiculous.
 
I am, personally I had some issues on my Asus PB287Q at 4K 60hz but I recently switched over to the Acer B286HK and have to say I love the monitor. The 4K 60hz works perfectly fine without any questions on my 3 290X cards, games looks great, and I like the extra room for doing tasks on the machine. Honestly a great buy and I ended up getting my Acer for $350 on newegg brand new which I love that price (also it has a 4 port USB 3.0 hub which is something I appreciate).
 
Having recently purchased an Acer xb280 28" 4k monitor, I can actually affirm that the graphics cards in the mid-hugh end can easily render games at 4k resolutions, contrary to what has been stated around gaming sites. Sure yiu light notre ne able tu run AC unity ay t max dels, but I can run BF3, Rage, and FC 3 on Max / 4k and frames are very veryerarely under 40, and mostly at 60. It helps immensely to have gsync on the monitor, but after testing a gtx 670 and a new gtx970, I'm pretty happy with what I see from a single card. The 970 handles it all, eithwith the exception of a couple of games (crysis, tomb raider with tress fx), but not having SLI has not really impeded my gaming, and the 670 was pretty impressive on its own too. Overall, I really enjoy the desktop real-estate (500 files visible in explorer/list view), and the sharpness of the image. As to the rest, I would say that Gsynis an incredible feature to have ifyoure doing things in 3D like gaming or modelling.
 
I bought a Samsung 40" UHD TV on impuise during a Black Friday sale; it's a surprisingly good PC monitor, replacing my old 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC.

Windows and Linux desktops look fine at 30Hz with full 4:4:4 color, and Skyrim plays adequately at 60Hz 4:2:0 color, though I'm only getting mid-40s frame rates with a single GTX 680, no AA or AF. The 340.43 Beta driver won't support SLI, unfortunately.
 
I'm a pc gamer so 120hz/144hz is more attractive than resolution. 1440p, 120hz panels are being used already so if I was wanting higher than 1080p it would be those I would be looking at. Once you game on these higher hz monitors you can't go back. And yeah, I have the pc horserpower to push those resolutions at 120hz.
 
I have been using a 27" 1440p display for several years. I started with a stand-alone monitor, but early last year I moved to an all-in-one Lenovo PC with the same size and resolution screen. It's such a nice machine, nearly as high-quality as an iMac in terms of performance and screen quality.

Looking forward, I would consider either a 32 inch 4K monitor or one of those ultra widescreen monitors from LG. Either one of those would add extra desktop space. I don't have any interest in viewing 4K content, but I often do content production and the extra desktop space of those monitors would be useful. Prices are falling fast enough that I think either of those options will be a fine choice soon enough.

I don't think I would want to use a multi-monitor setup because my desk is kind of small and I hate bezels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Upgraded 4K Chromecast with Google TV set to launch soon with improved hardware
Replies
7
Views
132
Puiu
Puiu
midian182
Samsung unveils the All-in-One Pro: A sleek alternative to the iMac with a 27-inch 4K display
Replies
10
Views
239
Bobbydpue
Bobbydpue
Shawn Knight
Hisense rolls out 100" QLED 4K TV, selling for under $2,000
Replies
6
Views
470
bandit8623
B

Latest posts

Back