Some 1440p monitors reportedly use 4K panels

midian182

Posts: 5,678   +43
Staff member

Citing sources close to panel manufacturers, German website Prad.de writes that the costs of producing a 27-inch 4K 3840 x 2160 panel is often lower, or at least the same price as, creating a 27-inch 2560 x 1440 QHD panel. As such, some companies have reportedly been producing monitors that use 4K panels despite being advertised as 1440p. This is said to happen often when panel supplies are low, or monitor demand is high.

The site didn’t mention which manufacturers might be engaging in this practice, or what 1440p models could be using 4K panels, but there are a lot of QHD monitors out there, so it’s likely that at least some will fall into this category.

If you do unknowingly own one of these monitors, don’t expect to be able to access its 4K capabilities. The native resolution is limited to 1440p through the panel’s firmware. And as the input signal is scaled, it can result in a reduction in the image quality.

Prad.de included a simulated monitor test image in its report (below). It shows native 1440p on the top and 1440p scaled to 4K on the bottom.

One way to spot if your 1440p monitor is using a 4K panel is by looking at the screen text, which may appear blurrier than monitors that feature actual QHD panels. A reduced image quality is unlikely to be noticeable when playing games or watching video clips, though. But if you want to be certain, try to find where it specifies the model's pixel size. On a 27-inch 1440p monitor, it should be around 0.23mm, whereas with 4K panels it’s 0.16mm.

For the best monitors of all resolutions, check out TechSpot's Best Monitors 2018 and also our gaming-specific version of the monitor buying guide.

Permalink to story.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

davislane1

That would ruin the fun.
One wonders the fun that could be had with a video about saving money on a “VR ready” PC by swapping out an expensive GPU with much cheaper “3D NAND”
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
No wonder people at times say high resolutions suk. I'd rather have straight up 1080 that this blurry mess.
This topic in some ways, ties back into the Nvidia super slo-mo issue, with respect to inter frame interpolation. In this case scaling algorithms and compression artifacts are only secondary culprits.

What people fail to understand, is that pixel wall thickness plays a huge role in the issue.

For example IPS and VA panels are consistently advertised as having "178 x 178 degree angle of view".

This isn't anymore true, than TN panels having a 170' x 160' viewing angle being massively overstated as well.

4K is worthless in monitors smaller than 30", and a better entry point for their use, (IMHO), would likely be somewhere around 40".

The problems in all cases, stems from the necessity of pixel walls to surround each pixel. While true that IPS and VA panels show little color shift when viewed off of the straight on 90' angle, the pixel walls do cloud up the picture, dropping the available contrast quite severely viewed off axis. This is simply by virtue of the fact, the oblique viewing angle, interposes the pixel wall(s), between the viewer's line of sight, and the actual pixel itself.

So, crunching 4K resolution into what should be a 1440p 27" monitor, doubles the pixel wall's potential for image degradation, and quadruples it, were a 1080p intended monitor, be equipped with a 4K panel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Luca1980

Danny101

Posts: 1,292   +513
Not surprised. Manufacturers try to keep their lines as simple as possible. If they're able to produce multiple trim models off of one line, they will. I worked as a painter in autobody shops and getting the correct part often hinged on selecting the correct variant on the same year model. Basic, Special Edition, and Sport; same part but each slightly different than the others. I'll be shaking the part at the parts guy. "Dude, you picked the wrong version."
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
Not surprised. Manufacturers try to keep their lines as simple as possible. If they're able to produce multiple trim models off of one line, they will. I worked as a painter in autobody shops and getting the correct part often hinged on selecting the correct variant on the same year model. Basic, Special Edition, and Sport; same part but each slightly different than the others. I'll be shaking the part at the parts guy. "Dude, you picked the wrong version."
You're actually describing the opposite phenomenon as the article.

Current practice is to change every part every year, to avoid after market manufacturers from selling cheaper replacements than the OEM dealers. This is becoming prevalent in the motorcycle industry. When last I heard, Suzuki had gone so far as to create new tire sizes for their cycles, and patent them. Again to limit or curtail after market replacements being available until the patent expires.

Once upon a time, American car makers wouldn't change the basic vehicle in its entirety through several production years, but rather only retool only the exterior sheet metal. As an example of this, I had a 1957 2 door Chevy hardtop, brush painted blue, (gimme a break, I was an impoverished teenager at the time), with a 1955 Chevy passenger side door. It bolted up perfectly, but the exterior sheet metal on no way, shape, or form, lined up.

Now, in 1955, Chevrolet had a hideous coral pink color option, which was the color of the door on my trashy blue '57. In deference to its pinkish hue, I nicknamed it, "the ladies entrance". (Although as a horny teenage boy, I was always hoping they weren't really ladies that got in). ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Batmanspiderman

Danny101

Posts: 1,292   +513
I was noting that they were using the same 4k panels across multiple lines with only the inside graphic drivers that was changed. I was thinking of door handles in my example. Same basic design enters 3 separate lines. Each line cuts out a different design depending on if it's going to be a manual, electronic, or a keypad installed for that door handle.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
Recommended 27" 1440P monitors? I will use 2 monitors.
As strange and incongruous as it might seem, this post appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic....:confused:

Or, you simply neglected to post some additional info to tie it into the topic.
 

Scshadow

Posts: 610   +260
And so these 4K panels locked by firmware, what else is keeping them from 4K? See, this is what I hate about technology. You mass produce to make something cheaper and everyone is supposed to benefit. 1440P monitors shouldn't exist. They should just make 4k Monitors cheaper and sell them as 4K monitors. They can afford to sell 4K monitors and make worthy profits selling them as the price of a QHD monitor, but they choose not to.
 

khuntim

Posts: 34   +0
As strange and incongruous as it might seem, this post appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic....:confused:

Or, you simply neglected to post some additional info to tie it into the topic.
I just wanted to find a QHD monitor with true 1440p panel.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
And so these 4K panels locked by firmware, what else is keeping them from 4K? See, this is what I hate about technology. You mass produce to make something cheaper and everyone is supposed to benefit. 1440P monitors shouldn't exist. They should just make 4k Monitors cheaper and sell them as 4K monitors. They can afford to sell 4K monitors and make worthy profits selling them as the price of a QHD monitor, but they choose not to.
Well, let me see.

First, 4K resolution is a bit of overkill for a 24" to 27" monitor. And I guess they grow them in those sizes, because a lot of people are dumb enough to give them the money for the imagined status of owning one.

But most importantly, we'd have to listen to you whimpering about how much you'd have to spend on a video card to get the FPS performance you think you're entitled 'to, from a dinky 4K monitor.

And lastly, because people have been dumb enough to let slide the amount of standardization which has already been forced on then, so one more affront to their intelligence won't matter.

I have an 8" Windows 10 tablet with 1920 X 1280 resolution. The resolution is so high relative to the screen size, it's pretty much worthless without a stylus ever at the ready.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
I just wanted to find a QHD monitor with true 1440p panel.
Since I doubt if manufacturers are about to freely divulge that information, I guess it's either pot luck, or wait for someone on the web to tear a model you're interested down, to find out what's what..

Speaking of which, I have an old Soyo 24"| 1920 x 1200 MVA monitor which I bought from Staples about a decade ago, on close out.

At one point, the company switched to TN panels, and kept the old model number. You had to be able to read and interpret the specs, to know exactly which type of panel you were getting.

With that in mind, and I hate to say this but, there is the very real possibly that branding "assemblers", such as Dell, Asus, Acer, and so forth, are likely going to start stuffing in what ever panels happen to be available at the best price, at any given time.

(I have an Acer 27" 1440p which I got at a great price, which I haven't even unboxed yet. I was feeling pretty good about it too, until I read this article),
 
Last edited:

Jyrkz

Posts: 105   +87
Why not use virtual resolution to increase res. from 2k to 4k? It should work well
 
Last edited:

gamerk2

Posts: 382   +265
And so these 4K panels locked by firmware, what else is keeping them from 4K? See, this is what I hate about technology. You mass produce to make something cheaper and everyone is supposed to benefit. 1440P monitors shouldn't exist. They should just make 4k Monitors cheaper and sell them as 4K monitors. They can afford to sell 4K monitors and make worthy profits selling them as the price of a QHD monitor, but they choose not to.
Welcome to Capitalism.
 

MilwaukeeMike

Posts: 3,211   +1,455
And so these 4K panels locked by firmware, what else is keeping them from 4K? See, this is what I hate about technology. You mass produce to make something cheaper and everyone is supposed to benefit. 1440P monitors shouldn't exist. They should just make 4k Monitors cheaper and sell them as 4K monitors. They can afford to sell 4K monitors and make worthy profits selling them as the price of a QHD monitor, but they choose not to.
Welcome to Capitalism.
Where you're free to do your research and choose whatever monitor you like best from your plethora of affordable options thanks to all the competition between companies trying to earn your business. There's always junk out there you have to try to avoid.
 

Tom01

Posts: 32   +11
4K is too much for 27"?
The iPhone X has a Super Retina HD display with
5.8-inch (diagonal) all-screen OLED Multi-Touch display
HDR display
2436-by-1125-pixel resolution at 458 ppi
1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (typical)
True Tone display
Wide color display (P3)
3D Touch
625 cd/m2 max brightness (typical)
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,853
4K is too much for 27"?
The iPhone X has a Super Retina HD display with
5.8-inch (diagonal) all-screen OLED Multi-Touch display
HDR display
2436-by-1125-pixel resolution at 458 ppi
1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (typical)
True Tone display
Wide color display (P3)
3D Touch
625 cd/m2 max brightness (typical)
So what's the presumptive takeaway here, "a rookie and his $1,000.00 for an iPhone X are soon parted company"?
 
Last edited: