27 qd-oled monitor: 2k or 4k?

[Aelin di Selon]

eh?

[_I_]

unless the monitor is 1ft from your face 27 is way too small for 4k to be useful

27in 1440p is a good res for a display at arms length

[Phénomènes Mystiques]

27" for 1440p is great.

[Aelin di Selon]

but one can use 2k on a 4k monitor, right?

[_I_]

no, evenly divided res looks best, so its double pixeled h+v
720p on 1440p, or 1080p on 2160p

[Roberto]

2k

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by _I_:

unless the monitor is 1ft from your face 27 is way too small for 4k to be useful

27in 1440p is a good res for a display at arms length

Please stop basing your idea of what is useful to everyone based on your limitations.

[ˢᵈˣ FatCat]

i kinda regret buying 2k, because 2k is like a bridge toward 4k, i mean we can change to 2k when using 4k right, but if you have 2K, well i can only change it to 1080P

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by ˢᵈˣ FatCat:

i kinda regret buying 2k, because 2k is like a bridge toward 4k, i mean we can change to 2k when using 4k right, but if you have 2K, well i can only change it to 1080P

Those ratios don't track.

Also 4k isn't magic, if your eyes are good like mine you still want AA and its already a hit to FPS just going to 4k. I'm debating whether to drop from 4k 240hz OLED to 2k 360hz OLED as I like 4k but picture fluidity is really important to me while gaming.

[Guydodge]

Originally posted by _I_:

unless the monitor is 1ft from your face 27 is way too small for 4k to be useful

27in 1440p is a good res for a display at arms length

what ? you really dont understand how pixel vrs distance works.maybe read up
on it.i use a 28 inch 4k at desk top distance which has a superior picture vrs a larger
4k monitor at that distance.be it sharpness,gradation of colors and improved textures
a 27inch 1440 would not compare to a 27inch 4k at identical distances.they will both
look great on a desktop but the 4k will be better without question.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by ˢᵈˣ FatCat:

i kinda regret buying 2k, because 2k is like a bridge toward 4k, i mean we can change to 2k when using 4k right, but if you have 2K, well i can only change it to 1080P

And this is why retailers and manufacturers need to stop using stupid buzzwords like 2K and 4K, because 1440p doesn't scale properly into 2160p, 1080p scales perfectly because it's double the pixel count, because the scaling is off it won't look right if you run 1440p on a 2160p monitor, 1080p on that monitor would actually look better and perform better

720p is to 1440p as 1080p is to 2160p

The buzzwords came from DCI standards, they aren't accurate as DCI 2K is actually 2048x1080, so 1920x1080 is actually closer to 2K resolution than 1440p is, and because 4K is 4096x2160 and 3840x2160, it means 1080p HAS to be 2K

[xDDD]

Honestly I'd say go with the 2k.
If you have a ton of money to burn maybe get the 4k but honestly you should probably get a slightly bigger monitor if you're getting a 4k. At the same price point you could get a nicer 2k that may have better colors, a higher refresh rate, sharper, better features, better stand, etc etc etc.
Resolution is not the only aspect of the monitor.
Plus do keep in mind that you need a pretty high-end GPU to really play 4k at a satisfying level since it is VERY demanding. So if you are rolling with a 3060 ti or something then you should probably not get the 4k.


You could always get the 2k now, enjoy it, and if you decide you want a bigger/better monitor you could get the 4k and use your 2k as a secondary. That is what I'm doing with my old 1080p monitor.

[Karumati]

27inch is too small for 4k.

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by Karumati:

27inch is too small for 4k.

This makes zero sense.

[r.linder]

It does, it's a waste to get the smallest screen possible for 4K because the image is just going to be so compressed, and it's more of an eye strain.

2160p should be ran no smaller than 32" and personally I would go for something larger.

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by r.linder:

It does, it's a waste to get the smallest screen possible for 4K because the image is just going to be so compressed, and it's more of an eye strain.

2160p should be ran no smaller than 32" and personally I would go for something larger.

It doesn't. You're literally trying to argue that YOUR poor vision is a global issue and it isn't.



Personally 26 inch would be great for me as I find 27 bearable and 32 kinda obnoxious.

I have a 13.3in laptop with a 2560x1600 display at 100% scale and can see it just fine. Thats almost 100 more PPI than a 26 inch 4k display would be.

Stop trying to attribute your issues to the world, not everyone shares your handycaps.