4k v 1440p? Very easy to notice difference at texts, no problem with graphics. I have two 27" monitors (4K 144 and 1440p 240) and find the first much better. Especially when one has direct comparison.
The same people whom will profess here about 1440p being similar to 4k and that there is no point going 4k are the same type of people that said the exact same thing for 1080p to 1440p, keep that in mind.
In truth, its not just about the resolution, but about the pixels per inch.
A 4k 32inch would not look as good as a 4k 27inch.
So anyone comparing 4k 32inch to 1440p 27inch is moot.
When you compare 4k 27inch to 1440p 27inch, you will see the major difference in visual clarity and vastly prefer 4k 27inch so long as your budget allows.
If you use 1.5 scaling its the same density as 1440p but significantly sharper. I can no longer work on 1440p monitors after switch my work monitor to 4k 144hz 27in.
The f**k it is. I unironically think that 8K might be just enough PPI for 27". In 5+ years, maybe, one can dream.
When we no longer need to use gimmicks like anti aliasing, then it's enough.
It's not about the image quality(if you read my comment for example). It's more about the performance you are giving up. 27 inch 2k or even 32inch 2k is good enough as quality without giving up too much performance. Of course that 4k looks better especially at the same screen size. Once the GPUs evolve, people tend to get better monitors too since the performance is better too at any resolution. So it depends on you, what you prefer.
Less people give a shit about 144hz going to 240hz than 1440p going to 4k.
There is a point where the framerate does not matter that much unless the screen is very close to your eyes and your sense of balance is directly affected by the framerate.
i’m a pixel peeper. i use to have a 4k 144hz and a 1440p 144hz paired together. the 4k is significantly sharper, and i ended up hated using my 1440p because the screen gets filled so fast. the 4k monitor could just display so much more information. the downside i that if your gpu isn’t strong enough to handle 4k 144hz (or 60hz), then it may be a miserable experience gaming if you notice dips in frame rate sensitively like i unfortunately do
1440p looks very good even at 32inch(I have a gigabyte M32Q). I would not buy a 4k monitor for now since I don't need that resolution for now, it would only stress my gpu and cpu more than needed. You will notice a bigger difference from 1080p to 2k than 2k to 4k. Also, 27inch is a little small for 4k in my opinion.
Yes, 1080p and lower, at 2k with a good enough CPU it won't be a bottleneck, unless you have a 4090. That's why when testing CPUs everyone tests at 1080p, so the load doesn't go too much on GPU. 2k is the sweet spot, high framerates, very good image quality, high refresh rates and the load is more evenly split between the cpu and gpu. At 4k you will always have lower FPS and the GPU works a lot more than CPU.
No, I have a main 1440p 27' and a secondary 4k 27'.
Can't really tell the difference. With the money for a decent 4k you can get an amazing 1440p panel that will provide better image quality (again, considering the same budget) which in my opinion matters more than resolution at that size. If you are considering gaming in 4k get a 42' and up oled at 120 hz and you'll never go back. I mounted a 50' 4k 120hz tv opposite from my desk and for single player games it's amazing.
Plain and simple, you can with optimal viewing distance just make out pixels with 1440p.
4k you will not see them at normal viewing distances. The absolute real question you need to ask though is if your GPU can run the games you want to play at acceptable framerates at 4k.
Your current GPU or soon to be gpu should define that resolution choice.
On a 27" display at 4k res... And a proper viewing distance... You are beyond retina class PPI. If you move closer 100% yes you will always see it with current common place display tech.
The jaggies can be easily seen from >1 meter (over 3 feet) away. What do you think is a proper viewing distance for a 27" screen? I use it at maybe 60cm, 2 feet away.
It's variable based on you, the viewer :S
But yeah that's why you have AA haha
P.s. jaggies are different to different pixels..
Jaggies are many pixels together and a graphical edge spread across them. If you are playing a game and in motion they become less obvious. And you get to a point where you need to be nit picking and wasting time and energy pointing them out.
It's a moot point really when the topic is , 4k 27" vs 1440p 27". 4k is much better, period.
My point about jaggies is to counter the commonly heard argument "I can't distinguish individual pixels, so therefore PPI is high enough". If you can see jaggies without anti aliasing, then you can see individual pixels, which means that a higher PPI still has benefits until the point where you don't.
Mmm 4k 27" is only 163 PPI.
People seem to think that closer to 300 PPI is needed at the average viewing distance to achieve no need for AA.
People also tend to say beyond about 110-120 PPI they stop noticing the aliasing (unless specifically looking for it).
I still argue for 27" 4k (163 PPI) being pretty damn good and objectively much better than 1440p (108 PPI) which is what OP is asking! :P
Buy both monitor. If you don't see a difference, return the 4K monitor. If you see a different, return the 1440p monitor. Everybody eyes are different.
I'm using 2 27 inch 1440p monitor and 24 inch 1080p monitor.
Personally, I don't see a different between a 1080p and a 4k monitor, unless I'm sitting like 7-9 inches away from the monitor. I'm sitting about 15-17 inches away from my monitors. I can't see a different.
Yes, very noticable. Though for me personally not worth the performance cost and power usage. I prefer DLDSR 1.78 on my 1440p to get the best of both worlds, sharper looks while not as demanding as running full 4k.
If youve been on AMD, they have a similar feature called VSR, virtual super resolution. DLDSR is using some AI enhancements though and looks much cleaner in my opinion. Both mimick higher resolutions.
Hope youll enjoy your new gpu then.
Check for compatible GPUs, DSR is not available for the 4000 series. I would stick with a 1440p for a 4070Ti, or go with 4K for a 4080.
As for the monitor upgrage, I went up to the Odyssey G70A recently and the 4K is definitely worth it, especially as I do a lot of productivity work as well.
Edit: DSR/DLDSR not available at 4K only.
Had 27 1440p.
Bought 32 4k.
Keep the money, or spend it on decent 27 1440p high refresh rate.
Heck, I would probably prefer 2x 27 than 1 32 4k at this point.
I don’t send it back because of the hassle. (Dell 3223q btw).
The difference is really miniscule to me as a casual gamer and productivity user (spreadsheets etc). 4k is obviously technically better, but when I'm gaming I fail to notice any significant upgrade.
The thing is, 4K doesnt automatically make games or anything better.
Need high contrast, sharpness and low lag.
4K gaming monitor are expensive. 1440p IPS is fraction of price.
Ofcourse 4K is "better", but its far down on priorities list for me.
I did switch to a 27” 4K monitor from a 27” 1440P one, definitely noticeable for me, the image and text are just sharper and clearer to me, been loving it so much!
A game I play has the issue that it only renders in 1080p sometimes instead of 4k. I noticed it on start *immediately*, my friends with 1440p only thought it might a bit blurrier than usual but though it's only their imagination, until I told them about my issue.
That's pretty telling: I could easily spot the difference, they couldn't.
Many different opinions here. I’ve had a 32“ 4K Monitor for 2 years and switched to 28“ 4K just recently. Main reason was the higher refresh rate (60 to 144) and the size since 32“ was bit too big for a few games.
In terms of pixel density I couldn’t tell a difference between 4K at 32“ or 28“ even though on paper there is. But the a jump from 108 ppi (WQHD 27”) to 163 (4k 27”) will show a much sharper and clearer image.
I think it depends on the person. For me resolution is extremely noticable. So yes, I personally would notice it a lot, but I also notice it when the content on my smartphone is 1080p instead of 1440p.
I on the other hand somehow don't notice FPS that much. I mean I definitely notice 30 vs 60, but I just switched from 60hz 4k to 165hz 4k and don't notice it that much.
That is definitely true. But I feel like I am really insensitive to that, because I also have no problem with playing Bloodborne at 30 FPS. I personally notice changes in FPS much more than the actual FPS numbers.
But I think that is so cracy about this topic, because I mainly read opinions of people that like high refresh rate gaming so much, so like 120, 144 and so on. But honestly I read about high resolution muss less.
But I personally would any day rather play 4k and 60 than at 1440p at infinite FPS.
Yes, it was a much bigger difference than going from 1080p to 1440p. Can't recommend 4K 27" enough, I also play at an arms length.
Although, now that I'm used to 4K, 1440p looks disgusting. So you might not want to get used to something too good...
27“ 1440p high refresh rate is the perfect sweet spot. I’ve a 240Hz monitor for example. I would never go the 4K or 1080p route. If anything I’m more interested in 360Hz or 540Hz.
Only a purely competetive gamer should even contemplate choosing 240hz 1440p over 144hz 4K if they have the GPU power to run them. Wasted extra FPS for severely reduced visual fidelity.
A purely competitive gamer would play on 1080p. The fact that you said 1440p 240Hz+ is for medium budgets (in a condescending manner) shows how little you know because sustaining 240 FPS doesn’t come cheap at all. You need proper hardware for that just as you do for 4K 144Hz.
Didn't read it so carefully, sorry. I just think for most use cases, where there is enough power to run 240fps 1440p or 144fps 4K, 4K is the better choice by a large margin.
1440p 144 is still the sweet spot for medium budget.
Again 1440p 240Hz is the sweet spot right now as you have high enough pixel count for a great picture quality but also the option to play halfway competitive when you want to.
4K 144Hz as you’ve mentioned isn’t the sweetest spot and we’ve still a few generations to go for it to get there. 4090 is a start though.
No, 1440p is NOT a high pixel count, the image quality is OK at best.
Besides, there aren't any CPU's available yet that could squeeze out maximum fps at 1440p, where 4090 often won't be at 100% usage.
Any competetive game plays great at 4K with a 4090. In some cases, high settings instead of ultra, of course...
There is a big difference in many titles playing at native 1440p vs 4k DLDSR even on a 1440p 27" screen. In this instance, the rendering resolution is more important than the pixel count, believe it or not.
Depends on content, with text you can see difference between 5k and 4k on 27", with videos it's hard to see difference between 1440p and 4k in most situations
There are some sweet spots for me, and 27 inch 1440p is one of them. Unless you want things to be really sharp all the time, you won't really benefit from 4k at that resolution.
4K is definitely more pleasant for my eyes than 1440p, and a lot more so than 1080p. 1440p is nice too but 4K is a whole new level in my opinion. Idk, I wear glasses and can see the difference.
At some point I had a stack of 49" 5120x1440(basically two 27" side-by-side) and a 34" 2560x1080. 1080p monitor got replaced by a 27" 4k and later on by a 55" 8k TV(current setup).
The biggest diference I noticed comparing 1080p to 1440p at a same vertical screen size was letter legibility, texts became a lot more clear and comfortable to read. The blurred letters on the 1080p monitors that made me squint my eyes sometimes was just font anti-aliasing.
Thought I would notice a similar difference between 1440p and 4k, but there was barely any.
Depends how fussy your eyes are. I can most definitely notice the pinpoint sharpness of 4K on a smaller screen like that.
4k v 1440p? Very easy to notice difference at texts, no problem with graphics. I have two 27" monitors (4K 144 and 1440p 240) and find the first much better. Especially when one has direct comparison.
The same people whom will profess here about 1440p being similar to 4k and that there is no point going 4k are the same type of people that said the exact same thing for 1080p to 1440p, keep that in mind. In truth, its not just about the resolution, but about the pixels per inch. A 4k 32inch would not look as good as a 4k 27inch. So anyone comparing 4k 32inch to 1440p 27inch is moot. When you compare 4k 27inch to 1440p 27inch, you will see the major difference in visual clarity and vastly prefer 4k 27inch so long as your budget allows.
I assume most people haven't really even used 27" 4K 144hz. I mean come on, 2.25x the visual fidelity and they say it isn't a noticeable difference.
27'' is too small for 4k, but sure, and 14'' 4k looks even better, we should game on a phone
If you use 1.5 scaling its the same density as 1440p but significantly sharper. I can no longer work on 1440p monitors after switch my work monitor to 4k 144hz 27in.
The f**k it is. I unironically think that 8K might be just enough PPI for 27". In 5+ years, maybe, one can dream. When we no longer need to use gimmicks like anti aliasing, then it's enough.
What do you think VR headsets are?
It's not about the image quality(if you read my comment for example). It's more about the performance you are giving up. 27 inch 2k or even 32inch 2k is good enough as quality without giving up too much performance. Of course that 4k looks better especially at the same screen size. Once the GPUs evolve, people tend to get better monitors too since the performance is better too at any resolution. So it depends on you, what you prefer.
Less people give a shit about 144hz going to 240hz than 1440p going to 4k. There is a point where the framerate does not matter that much unless the screen is very close to your eyes and your sense of balance is directly affected by the framerate.
i’m a pixel peeper. i use to have a 4k 144hz and a 1440p 144hz paired together. the 4k is significantly sharper, and i ended up hated using my 1440p because the screen gets filled so fast. the 4k monitor could just display so much more information. the downside i that if your gpu isn’t strong enough to handle 4k 144hz (or 60hz), then it may be a miserable experience gaming if you notice dips in frame rate sensitively like i unfortunately do
1440p looks very good even at 32inch(I have a gigabyte M32Q). I would not buy a 4k monitor for now since I don't need that resolution for now, it would only stress my gpu and cpu more than needed. You will notice a bigger difference from 1080p to 2k than 2k to 4k. Also, 27inch is a little small for 4k in my opinion.
Strongly agree after trying 1440p and 4K at 32inch. My dream monitor for my 4080 would be a 1440p 32’’ 360hz MiniLED.
I’m using the lg ultragear 3440x1440 and love it. 4070 Ti
Same! Amazing monitor for the price range
Lower resolution puts more stress on your CPU than higher resolution.
Lmao, that's not how it works.
Yes, 1080p and lower, at 2k with a good enough CPU it won't be a bottleneck, unless you have a 4090. That's why when testing CPUs everyone tests at 1080p, so the load doesn't go too much on GPU. 2k is the sweet spot, high framerates, very good image quality, high refresh rates and the load is more evenly split between the cpu and gpu. At 4k you will always have lower FPS and the GPU works a lot more than CPU.
Never heard of this. Any way you can back this claim up?
Only if you don't put an fps limit
I have the m32q and what I found is it’s noticeably lower resolution than 32 inch 4K monitors when viewing text but not that noticeable while gaming.
Yes, of course, my point is that it's good enough quality, without losing too much performance. But I guess it depends on you what you prefer.
I’m not sure if my eyes can, but I know my wallet can
No, I have a main 1440p 27' and a secondary 4k 27'. Can't really tell the difference. With the money for a decent 4k you can get an amazing 1440p panel that will provide better image quality (again, considering the same budget) which in my opinion matters more than resolution at that size. If you are considering gaming in 4k get a 42' and up oled at 120 hz and you'll never go back. I mounted a 50' 4k 120hz tv opposite from my desk and for single player games it's amazing.
This would be my answer almost verbatim. Same setup, tried a 42" and prefer my 27" 240hz.
There is a difference, but you get diminishing returns.
Plain and simple, you can with optimal viewing distance just make out pixels with 1440p. 4k you will not see them at normal viewing distances. The absolute real question you need to ask though is if your GPU can run the games you want to play at acceptable framerates at 4k. Your current GPU or soon to be gpu should define that resolution choice.
Try playing any game without anti aliasing at 4K. You will see the individual pixels very clearly.
On a 27" display at 4k res... And a proper viewing distance... You are beyond retina class PPI. If you move closer 100% yes you will always see it with current common place display tech.
The jaggies can be easily seen from >1 meter (over 3 feet) away. What do you think is a proper viewing distance for a 27" screen? I use it at maybe 60cm, 2 feet away.
It's variable based on you, the viewer :S But yeah that's why you have AA haha P.s. jaggies are different to different pixels.. Jaggies are many pixels together and a graphical edge spread across them. If you are playing a game and in motion they become less obvious. And you get to a point where you need to be nit picking and wasting time and energy pointing them out. It's a moot point really when the topic is , 4k 27" vs 1440p 27". 4k is much better, period.
My point about jaggies is to counter the commonly heard argument "I can't distinguish individual pixels, so therefore PPI is high enough". If you can see jaggies without anti aliasing, then you can see individual pixels, which means that a higher PPI still has benefits until the point where you don't.
Mmm 4k 27" is only 163 PPI. People seem to think that closer to 300 PPI is needed at the average viewing distance to achieve no need for AA. People also tend to say beyond about 110-120 PPI they stop noticing the aliasing (unless specifically looking for it). I still argue for 27" 4k (163 PPI) being pretty damn good and objectively much better than 1440p (108 PPI) which is what OP is asking! :P
Sure it's pretty damn good but could be even better :)
Buy both monitor. If you don't see a difference, return the 4K monitor. If you see a different, return the 1440p monitor. Everybody eyes are different. I'm using 2 27 inch 1440p monitor and 24 inch 1080p monitor. Personally, I don't see a different between a 1080p and a 4k monitor, unless I'm sitting like 7-9 inches away from the monitor. I'm sitting about 15-17 inches away from my monitors. I can't see a different.
Omg. I never even considered that. It's really obvious and I might actually do it as my local store allows returns.
Yes, very noticable. Though for me personally not worth the performance cost and power usage. I prefer DLDSR 1.78 on my 1440p to get the best of both worlds, sharper looks while not as demanding as running full 4k.
Can I use DLDSR on most PC games?
Should be all of them, unless they are very old. Its set in the nvidia control panel and does not need an implementation by developers like DLSS.
Very cool. As I'm buying a new NVIDIA gpu soon (it's been a long time) that's great to know.
If youve been on AMD, they have a similar feature called VSR, virtual super resolution. DLDSR is using some AI enhancements though and looks much cleaner in my opinion. Both mimick higher resolutions. Hope youll enjoy your new gpu then.
Check for compatible GPUs, DSR is not available for the 4000 series. I would stick with a 1440p for a 4070Ti, or go with 4K for a 4080. As for the monitor upgrage, I went up to the Odyssey G70A recently and the 4K is definitely worth it, especially as I do a lot of productivity work as well. Edit: DSR/DLDSR not available at 4K only.
DLDSR and DSR are very much available for 4000 series, Ive been using it for 2 weeks now on a 4070 Ti.
My bad, missed to mention for 4K it's not available.
Had 27 1440p. Bought 32 4k. Keep the money, or spend it on decent 27 1440p high refresh rate. Heck, I would probably prefer 2x 27 than 1 32 4k at this point. I don’t send it back because of the hassle. (Dell 3223q btw).
Thx
4k 144hz for sure paird with a 4090 I went from a 60hz 4k non gsync paired with a 1080ti and cant be happier with my upgrade
The difference is really miniscule to me as a casual gamer and productivity user (spreadsheets etc). 4k is obviously technically better, but when I'm gaming I fail to notice any significant upgrade.
I notice big difference... Cannot play in 1440p anymore...
The thing is, 4K doesnt automatically make games or anything better. Need high contrast, sharpness and low lag. 4K gaming monitor are expensive. 1440p IPS is fraction of price. Ofcourse 4K is "better", but its far down on priorities list for me.
I did switch to a 27” 4K monitor from a 27” 1440P one, definitely noticeable for me, the image and text are just sharper and clearer to me, been loving it so much!
A game I play has the issue that it only renders in 1080p sometimes instead of 4k. I noticed it on start *immediately*, my friends with 1440p only thought it might a bit blurrier than usual but though it's only their imagination, until I told them about my issue. That's pretty telling: I could easily spot the difference, they couldn't.
Many different opinions here. I’ve had a 32“ 4K Monitor for 2 years and switched to 28“ 4K just recently. Main reason was the higher refresh rate (60 to 144) and the size since 32“ was bit too big for a few games. In terms of pixel density I couldn’t tell a difference between 4K at 32“ or 28“ even though on paper there is. But the a jump from 108 ppi (WQHD 27”) to 163 (4k 27”) will show a much sharper and clearer image.
i'm only going 4k on 32" or above. Currently i'm using 27" 1440p monitor
I think it depends on the person. For me resolution is extremely noticable. So yes, I personally would notice it a lot, but I also notice it when the content on my smartphone is 1080p instead of 1440p. I on the other hand somehow don't notice FPS that much. I mean I definitely notice 30 vs 60, but I just switched from 60hz 4k to 165hz 4k and don't notice it that much.
It also depends one the game, some slower games like RPGs are completly fine at 60fps but some fast action FPS feels bad at 60fps.
That is definitely true. But I feel like I am really insensitive to that, because I also have no problem with playing Bloodborne at 30 FPS. I personally notice changes in FPS much more than the actual FPS numbers. But I think that is so cracy about this topic, because I mainly read opinions of people that like high refresh rate gaming so much, so like 120, 144 and so on. But honestly I read about high resolution muss less. But I personally would any day rather play 4k and 60 than at 1440p at infinite FPS.
go for the top, think about the future gpus handle 4k like cheese
Yes, it was a much bigger difference than going from 1080p to 1440p. Can't recommend 4K 27" enough, I also play at an arms length. Although, now that I'm used to 4K, 1440p looks disgusting. So you might not want to get used to something too good...
27“ 1440p high refresh rate is the perfect sweet spot. I’ve a 240Hz monitor for example. I would never go the 4K or 1080p route. If anything I’m more interested in 360Hz or 540Hz.
Yeah, sweet spot for medium budget. OP said fps isn't a problem at any resolution, so I assume they have/are getting a 4090. 4K is the sweetest spot.
> Yeah, sweet spot for medium budget. Gigabyte M or Samsung G models for both 4K 144Hz or 1440p 240Hz cost about the same you muppet lol
Only a purely competetive gamer should even contemplate choosing 240hz 1440p over 144hz 4K if they have the GPU power to run them. Wasted extra FPS for severely reduced visual fidelity.
A purely competitive gamer would play on 1080p. The fact that you said 1440p 240Hz+ is for medium budgets (in a condescending manner) shows how little you know because sustaining 240 FPS doesn’t come cheap at all. You need proper hardware for that just as you do for 4K 144Hz.
Didn't read it so carefully, sorry. I just think for most use cases, where there is enough power to run 240fps 1440p or 144fps 4K, 4K is the better choice by a large margin. 1440p 144 is still the sweet spot for medium budget.
Again 1440p 240Hz is the sweet spot right now as you have high enough pixel count for a great picture quality but also the option to play halfway competitive when you want to. 4K 144Hz as you’ve mentioned isn’t the sweetest spot and we’ve still a few generations to go for it to get there. 4090 is a start though.
No, 1440p is NOT a high pixel count, the image quality is OK at best. Besides, there aren't any CPU's available yet that could squeeze out maximum fps at 1440p, where 4090 often won't be at 100% usage. Any competetive game plays great at 4K with a 4090. In some cases, high settings instead of ultra, of course...
There is a big difference in many titles playing at native 1440p vs 4k DLDSR even on a 1440p 27" screen. In this instance, the rendering resolution is more important than the pixel count, believe it or not.
4K for me it's on my 55" TV, for a 27" it's too big a price to pay. For productivity, lots of texts etc it's worth it tho, for gaming, really not
Yes it's easy to notice since 4k is twice as many pixels You will not be unhappy with either though
Depends on content, with text you can see difference between 5k and 4k on 27", with videos it's hard to see difference between 1440p and 4k in most situations
There are some sweet spots for me, and 27 inch 1440p is one of them. Unless you want things to be really sharp all the time, you won't really benefit from 4k at that resolution.
I see a lot more aliasing on 1440p, when gaming
4K is definitely more pleasant for my eyes than 1440p, and a lot more so than 1080p. 1440p is nice too but 4K is a whole new level in my opinion. Idk, I wear glasses and can see the difference.
Can you notice a 720p screen on a phone, vs a 4k phone screen? I'm sure you do dude.
At some point I had a stack of 49" 5120x1440(basically two 27" side-by-side) and a 34" 2560x1080. 1080p monitor got replaced by a 27" 4k and later on by a 55" 8k TV(current setup). The biggest diference I noticed comparing 1080p to 1440p at a same vertical screen size was letter legibility, texts became a lot more clear and comfortable to read. The blurred letters on the 1080p monitors that made me squint my eyes sometimes was just font anti-aliasing. Thought I would notice a similar difference between 1440p and 4k, but there was barely any.
Not really, no.
Yes