Does upgrading to 4K really make a significant visual difference on a 27" monitor?

[ZoSo]

Does upgrading to 4K really make a significant visual difference on a 27" monitor? Thanks in advance

[r.linder]

I wouldn't get anything less than 32~40" for 2160p (aka "4K") because you're not gaining the full benefits when the screen is too small.

The screen should be big enough to fit your peripheral vision at your usual sitting distance for the best visuals (where you can see more of the details which can be missed on a smaller screen due to display scaling) and immersion, that's where it really shines over 1440p.

To give an example, I've played Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p 24", 1440p 27" and 32", and 2160p 40", and while the game looks good at lower resolutions, it looks a lot better on a larger and higher resolution screen because it makes the details 'pop' and even more-so on an OLED display with good HDR settings.

[andreasaspenberg575]

it depends on the game`s assets. if the game does not have 4k assets, it will not affect much. then you need to check your library to find out if it is worth it.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

No... a better visual experience at around 34 inch or lower would be going with 1440p 21:9 (ultra wide) with high refresh rate at or above 120Hz and something that has GSync or FreeSync Premium with HDMI and DP

[matt]

On a 27" display, at 1920x1080, you get 81 pixels per inch; at 2560x1440, you get 109 pixels per inch; and at 3840x2160, you get 163 pixels per inch. A 40" 4k display is very large, but it is pretty nice. That's about 110 pixels per inch.

For comparison, Apple's "retina display" 27" display is 5120x2880, which is 218 pixels per inch. I once had a laptop with a 17" 4k display, which was pretty crazy. It looked nice, though, as long as you could resize the UI in a game. If you couldn't, it was a nightmare to read text.

[Tezzious]

4K on 27" is not worth the expense, 1440p is, i used to have a 1440p ultrawide which was perfect for close up use, I use a 55" 4K TV and sit 6 feet away which is heaven.

[_I_]

for 4k get a 40+in display
32in 4k is like a 16in laptop with 1080p screen, ok if your nose is <1ft from it

[⛧jakey⛧]

4K does look better than 1440p at 27" due to the increased pixel density. It is nonsense how people claim 4K does not matter unless it is a massive screen. Just because people claim it's "not worth it" to jump from 1440p to 4k doesn't mean there is not an improvement in image quality on smaller screens.

I know because I've compared 27" ASUS 4K 160hz (PG27UQR) to ASUS 1440p, 360hz (PG27AQN).
When I used the 24" ASUS 1080p 540hz (PG248QP), the refresh was amazing for fps, but the resolution made it blurry af so I had to get rid of it.
Personally, I would never buy any display that is not OLED now.

[Guydodge]

i have a 28inch 4k side by side with a 1440..and yes 4k looks better people saying it
doesnt probably dont even own a 4k 27-28inch monitor.28 inch is perfect for
a desktop distance monitor.anything larger IMO your to close to the pixels.
im thinking 30-32 4k inch would be fine as well.but without seeing it first hand
.im not gonna throw a worthless opinion at you.

[ZoSo]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

i have a 28inch 4k side by side with a 1440..and yes 4k looks better people saying it
doesnt probably dont even own a 4k 27-28inch monitor.28 inch is perfect for
a desktop distance monitor.anything larger IMO your to close to the pixels.
im thinking 30-32 4k inch would be fine as well.but without seeing it first hand
.im not gonna throw a worthless opinion at you.

I just ordered a 28" last night! I'm concerned about being able to run 4K with my 4060ti card. Most of the games I play are strategy, 4x, turn based games. I'm hoping their lower spec requirements will make this possible.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

No in many games a 4060 of any kind is too weak. You'd want 4070 Ti or Ti Super for 4K.

However given the types of games you play it should be fine. They are not super GPU + Graphics quality intensive. Not like you trying to run Red Dead 2 or Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K + High Quality visuals.

I still say 28 inch will be too small. Many strategy games will have a GUI that you can not adjust. That means tiny icons and tiny text. Unless maybe you happen to sit extremely close, which is also bad.

I still say 1440p 21:9 would be better, especially for those games because then you'll actually have more on-screen real-estate to work with because of the wider FoV and overall wider screen + resolution. 4K is still just 16:9 so while you can fit more on-screen compared to 1080p; it's 16:9 still which means if will still have a tight "wish I could fit more within view" kind of feeling; that's where 21:9 (or wider) helps out.

[r.linder]

For 2160p you should be using at least a 4070 or 3080... ideally a 3090 or 4070 SUPER or better

[Guydodge]

Originally posted by ZoSo:

Originally posted by Guydodge:

i have a 28inch 4k side by side with a 1440..and yes 4k looks better people saying it
doesnt probably dont even own a 4k 27-28inch monitor.28 inch is perfect for
a desktop distance monitor.anything larger IMO your to close to the pixels.
im thinking 30-32 4k inch would be fine as well.but without seeing it first hand
.im not gonna throw a worthless opinion at you.

I just ordered a 28" last night! I'm concerned about being able to run 4K with my 4060ti card. Most of the games I play are strategy, 4x, turn based games. I'm hoping their lower spec requirements will make this possible.

With being turn based games lower fps really shouldnt matter.with AAA games dlss is
going to make or break your experience.its a 50/50 shot it will be even be playable you can
try setting games to 1080p thats 1/2 of 4k

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Well no; 1080p is 1/4 of 4K actually.

[r.linder]

Yeah it's double the pixel count but that means 1080p fits into 2160p four times. That's where it gets confusing for people, because it has twice as many pixels by resolution but that isn't the same thing as how display resolutions scale against each other.

2160p resolution has a total pixel count of over 8 million, four times the total count of 1080p's 2+ million. There's resolution, and then there's how many pixels actually go into making the display itself, which is why it's four times 1080p and not two times.

Diagram comparing 480, 720, 1080, and 2160[i.rtings.com]
RTINGS Article[www.rtings.com]

The same applies to 720p vs 1440p, 720p fits into 1440p four times as it has four times as many total pixels making up the display.

[Guydodge]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Yeah it's double the pixel count but that means 1080p fits into 2160p four times. That's where it gets confusing for people, because it has twice as many pixels by resolution but that isn't the same thing as how display resolutions scale against each other.

2160p resolution has a total pixel count of over 8 million, four times the total count of 1080p's 2+ million. There's resolution, and then there's how many pixels actually go into making the display itself, which is why it's four times 1080p and not two times.

Diagram comparing 480, 720, 1080, and 2160[i.rtings.com]

The same applies to 720p vs 1440p, 720p fits into 1440p four times.

yes but it will give the best visual results when down scaling resolution to gain fps