Author Topic: Just tried using a 4k monitor in my setup, did not like it (Read 17793 times)

mouser · « **on:** December 11, 2017, 09:44 AM »

When it comes to a monitor, higher resolution is better, right?

Not for me. Tried using a 27 inch 4k monitor (3840x2160) for my main monitor today, and was very disapointed.
This was replacing a 27 inch monitor running at 2560x1440 that I was very happy with at 2560x1440 -- lots of real estate on the screen, but text large enough that I could read it.

At 3840x2160, the normal text size in windows is too small to read. So the solution would require changing desktop scaling in windows -- which would be ok except in a multimonitor setup that can cause issues when you have one monitor with higher scaling than another.

The high resolution also seemed to strain the abilities of full screen apps.
And the brightness of the new ($500) monitor left much to be desired; far inferior to my 2560x1440 one.

And lastly, trying to set the resolution of this 4k monitor back down to my previous 2560x1440 resulted in a very blurry display, so that isn't an option.

I'm returning it -- just thought I'd post a word of caution to anyone considering the move to a 4k monitor -- unless you have a really serious reason to need 4k, and you've sat down in front of one to confirm you like what you see, I would reconsider whether you really want one.

If you only have a single monitor, or plan to run multiple monitors ALL at 4k, and have the spare horsepower, and have the money to get very high quality 4k bright monitors, then 4k may still be for you.

AzureToad · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2017, 10:38 AM »

Do you think this cautionary tale applies to ALL 4k monitors, or the particular make & model you tested?
Do you have additional specs such as what graphic card you're using? What are the make and model of your monitor you're returning?

mouser · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2017, 10:44 AM »

A higher grade monitor could solve the brightness issue, but most of my problems are based on simply the fact of using such high resolution, and are not monitor specific.
The bottom line is that even for someone like me, who loves high-resolution and small fonts, there is a limit beyond which it's not only diminishing returns but counter productive.
For me that looks like 2560x1440 resolution on a 27 inch monitor.
Anything higher than that makes my life worse.

The specific model I tried was a DELL U2718Q (my graphics card is an nvidia gtx 660).

wraith808 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 11, 2017, 11:50 AM »

A higher grade monitor could solve the brightness issue, but most of my problems are based on simply the fact of using such high resolution, and are not monitor specific.
The bottom line is that even for someone like me, who loves high-resolution and small fonts, there is a limit beyond which it's not only diminishing returns but counter productive.
For me that looks like 2560x1440 resolution on a 27 inch monitor.
Anything higher than that makes my life worse.

The specific model I tried was a DELL U2718Q (my graphics card is an nvidia gtx 660).

-mouser (December 11, 2017, 10:44 AM)

It could possibly be your graphics card, i.e. it doesn't have the power to run that resolution. You might be able to overclock your 660 for better performance. In short, I don't think it's anything intrinsically wrong with the monitor nor going 4k. 4k is just demanding hardware-wise.

IainB · « **Reply #4 on:** December 11, 2017, 11:55 AM »

Things were just fine under DOS, but then Microsoft introduced Windows and that was when it all began to turn to custard.

...Where's me specs?...

(@mouser: thanks for posting. Is interesting.)

tomos · « **Reply #5 on:** December 11, 2017, 12:05 PM »

Wondering to what percentage you increased the font-size in windows?

(FWIW I would worry that a lot of software just doesnt cater to that resolution...)

Ath · « **Reply #6 on:** December 11, 2017, 12:36 PM »

I'm with mouser; a 27" monitor on 2560*1440 resolution is really close to perfect

4k (3840*2160) should best be scaled to 200% on a 27" screen, but effectivly is equal to 1920*1080... Better would be a 30" 4k monitor @ 150%, but that's a different price-range

wysiwyg125 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2017, 01:48 PM »

Good to know, as I've been considering going 4K...maybe I'll first try 1440p.

For something like gaming though, I'd assume 4K works well? Most modern games are not so text-dependent, so I'd think the text size problem would not be an issue

IainB · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2017, 03:20 PM »

...Most modern games are not so text-dependent, so I'd think the text size problem would not be an issue...
-wysiwyg125 (December 11, 2017, 01:48 PM)

That's probably generally true, but on my laptop (Resolution 1366 x 768 x 60 hertz) there was a perceptible down-sizing of the fonts in the scrolling Pip-Boy displays of Fallout New Vegas, when played in Ultra High Definition mode, compared to the default standard mode definition. The fonts were still readable OK (though I have to use specs anyway), but it made me wonder whether that might make them more difficult to read on higher dpi displays.

mouser · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2017, 05:57 PM »

For something like gaming though, I'd assume 4K works well? Most modern games are not so text-dependent, so I'd think the text size problem would not be an issue

Well you're not going to have a problem with text SIZE when playing a game full screen on a 4k monitor.
However, what you are going to be doing is demanding a hell of a lot more processor power from your computer and graphics card to render a 4k image.

So the question you should ask yourself is are you willing to pay a real cost in performance of the game in order to have the increase in resolution. For me, 4k feels like overkill on a 27 inch monitor that is 2 feet away from my eyes. So even for games I think the trade-off is not worth it. At that distance, 2560x1440 feels like the sweet spot to me.

rgdot · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2017, 07:16 PM »

27 inch with most resolutions would be the limit so close to my eyes, I dare say even 24 is too big for that close.

Deozaan · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2017, 11:17 PM »

A few years ago I had an experience similar to mouser's.

See this thread (both pages) for full details: https://www.donation...ex.php?topic=37160.0

The short of it is that I had a 39" 4K monitor and I loved the space but hated how tiny everything was, especially text. Some older games really didn't like the extra space (or didn't support it) and having a multi-monitor setup meant changing (lowering) my resolution for those older games was out of the question because it moved all my windows and icons around. Ultimately I came to the same conclusion as mouser: You need to set the text/UI scale to 200% but then you're back at 1080p again, so what's the point? I returned it. Then I got myself a 27" 1440p monitor and have been loving it ever since. I agree with mouser that it hits the sweet spot.

Though, I've wondered in the interim if maybe the text/UI scaling has improved in Windows 10. My previous attempt was on Windows 7, which didn't handle high DPI/resolutions very well. So my question for mouser is which version of Windows did you test that 4K monitor on?

And for a counterpoint: I know someone who has a dual-monitor 4K setup at work and he says he loves it and has plans (or hopes) to get a similar setup at home. Maybe when/if he does, I'll go check out his setup and see if I can be convinced of trying it again. But for now I'm still skeptical.

tomos · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2017, 01:32 AM »

You need to set the text/UI scale to 200% but then you're back at 1080p again, so what's the point?
-Deozaan (December 11, 2017, 11:17 PM)

You're just changing the text size, and not the resolution:
so the point is still the higher resolution / definition, better quality visuals.

Edit// I presume you understand that, and are just saying you don't need the higher resolution (?)

mouser · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2017, 11:18 PM »

I'm back to a 2560x1440 27" monitor as my center monitor and it feels so much better

wraith808 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2017, 08:15 PM »

I'm thinking about trying it... just found an awesome deal.

Samsung 28" 4K Ultra HD Monitor for 269.99$ through Costco. I've been looking to switch to a single monitor setup with a secondary one just to use while I'm gaming. At that price, it's very tempting, though I'd really wanted to go for a 32" or 34" WQHD monitor. If I pull the trigger, I'll update this thread.

Deozaan · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2017, 08:23 PM »

My recommendation if you go for a multimonitor setup with different resolutions is to make your 4K monitor your secondary (right) monitor, so if its resolution changes for a game or something, it won't affect anything on the other monitor.

mouser · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2017, 08:25 PM »

My recommendation is don't do it.. But then you should have gotten that from this thread already

Flatop0315 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2018, 12:34 AM »

I have been looking at 4k monitors as well, thinking that I could just change the resolution to my liking. But from mouser's experience, sounds like that will not be successful. Perfection is a 30 inch at 2560 x 1600, of course that is just my opinion. I am using a SyncMaster 305T that I got for nothing, since it is known to have over-heating issues; however, upgrading the cooling on it with a couple of USB fans seem to have taken care of that problem. I think it is funny that people buy these 4 and 5K iMac computers and by default the resolution is set to a lower resolution like 2560 x 1440. They end up paying extra for something that they will never use.

mouser · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2018, 12:38 AM »

by default the resolution is set to a lower resolution like 2560 x 1440. They end up paying extra for something that they will never use.

Not only that but when I got my 4k monitor I figured if I didn't like it I could set set the resoltution lower to something closer to what I was used to -- but the problem was the image was horribly fuzzy at lower resolutions.

wraith808 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2018, 06:10 AM »

The 4k resolution is in many cases utilized for games and movies, even if they change the nkrmal operating resolution

tomos · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2018, 08:51 AM »

by default the resolution is set to a lower resolution like 2560 x 1440. They end up paying extra for something that they will never use.

Not only that but when I got my 4k monitor I figured if I didn't like it I could set set the resoltution lower to something closer to what I was used to -- but the problem was the image was horribly fuzzy at lower resolutions.
-mouser (April 03, 2018, 12:38 AM)

I think changing the default resolution of a monitor is always going to be a poor second-best. (There may be exceptions out there.)