Is 4K a Waste? - 1440p vs 4K Monitors
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!
Buy the Ruipro HDMI 2.1 Certified Fiber Optic Cable: amzn.to/432NDGS
Get access to all my ICC profiles & Discord: / thedisplayguy
Updated Video: • Is 4K 240Hz a Waste? -...
Is 4K a Waste? - 1440p vs 4K Monitors
Many gamers have to make the tough choice between 1440p and 4K, and the right decision isn't always obvious. Typically 1440p monitors have higher refresh rates and lower latency whereas 4K monitors have a much more detailed image.
All amazon links are affiliate links. I earn commission based on your purchases.
Music
www.davidcutte... - Наука та технологія
Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!
Buy the Ruipro HDMI 2.1 Certified Fiber Optic Cable: amzn.to/432NDGS
Get access to all my ICC profiles & Discord: patreon.com/TheDisplayGuy
What type of screen did you use for the video? Name, details, and Instagram link, please
As of Nov 2023 the top 2 GPUs used by gamers on Steam are RTX 3060 at 5.04% & the GTX 1650 at 4.75%. 61.49% of Steam Users game at 1080p while only 16.24% at 2560 x 1440 & when you go over 1440 the numbers are extremely low in single digits. Keep in mind this is Steams numbers with Gamers & not average PC users.
Please stop calling 1440P "2K" as per your thumb nail, 2K is a cinema spec that refers to several 1080P formats.
4K isn't a waste but this video sure is. Watched it, learned nothing. And misleading title.
ive downvoted and reported this video
*frfr*
if you get 32" monitor 4K is a WAYYY BETTER not even debatable
only reason to get a 32" monitor 1440p is if you play competitive games a lot and want that sweet 165hz/240hz
and again it's only if you don't have a big budget because for something like 800-1000$ you can get a 32" 4K 165hz
this guy is a straight up clown tho it's sad cause some people will prolly listen to him...
Yeah atlest they get opportunity to play in 4k hdr and yet they talk crap...
Thanks, saved me my precious time.
It's the same person who owns/runs the 'Graphically Challenged' UA-cam channel who spouts nothing but baseless leaks with EXTREMELY misleading and silly clickbait titles and thumbnails. One of the most obnoxious UA-camrs I've ever come across.
I was hoping this would have included a cost comparison for a good 1440p and 4k monitors and the price difference in the video cards to drive them.
Yeah this comparison is lacking. I have both 1440p and 4k both currently at 144 even though the 1440 goes to 240. The real difference here is not all games can run at 4k with high refresh rates, and the cost difference is crazy not just for the 4k display, but the increase needed in pc hardware to drive it. You can get 2-4 nice 1440 monitors for the cost of one nice 4k oled. Unless you are buying a cheap 4k , but that is like shooting your horse as the gate opens in the Kentucky derby.
Minimum I would go for is an RTX 3080.
@@aleksdeveloper698for 4k? With 10 gigs of vram? I'm pressing X to doubt here.
@@elirantuil5003 i play all ps5 ported games, quite well
@aleksdeveloper698 this doesn't align with literally any outlet that tested exactly that.
4K is exceptional I will never go back to anything lower ever.
The monitor cost is one thing, then you need the upgraded pc too, wish I could get that
@@brodymiller9299 True. I did spend big but saved for many years, Got 4090 PC with Samsung Odyssey Neo G8. Ray Tracing and HDR is amazing for example in Spiderman Remastered both features look incredible and the FPS is very good!
Depends on your viewing distance. Y'all are sitting too close or younger than 40.
@@louisfriend9323 depends on what screen you've got. I do most of my gaming on a 65" OLED TV. 4K looks much better.
You and me both lol. 120hz 4k hdr oled. If you try it you can't go back.
So the conclusion is 4k is great, but because almost no system can consistently deliver 120 fps in 4k you should go for 1440p
The ultimate medium
4k is actually seriously worth it, but only the 4090 can really deliver 4k 120 fps in newer titles
@@luukherfst1209 4090 is the price of a 4k oled 65 tv
@@luukherfst1209I literally spent half the price of a 4090 and bought the 7900XTX reference card.
I get 4k at 120FPS+ nonstop on pretty much anything I play. All AAA titles, etc.
My monitor is a 4K Odyssey G7.
I’ve had zero issues with all settings maxed and on ultra. GPU stays at about 68C, and CPU stays around 65C under max load.
I’m running Ryzen 9 7900X CPU
or just play at 4k 6hz
An additional benefit of using smaller sized 4k monitor is that you can run gpu integer scaling to 1080p for games where you'd want higher refresh rate instead of higher resolution. Kind of gives you the best of both worlds.
So is it better to buy 27 inches 4k monitor instead of 32 inches?
@@omar-pb8qe If you plan to play some games at 1080p, then yes.
Don’t listen to this guy. If your Gpu can’t 4k,never buy that kind of monitor
@@julianc691 Well that's a given. He never stated his GPU wasn't strong enough, so what's your deal? Plus what you're saying makes no sense since we don't even know which games he plays. If someone plays mostly older games, 4k shouldn't be a problem.
You are correct sir. I bought a 24 inch 4K Monitor and integer scaling 1080p on it looks amazing.
1440P 240hz is still the sweet spot for me. Been absolutely loving my LG 240hz monitor
Yup its the best of both worlds the odyssey g7 is great also
27@shockwave9916
I dunno, i got the alienware 1440p 27inch 280hz monitor, everything looks slightly blurry compared to my old 4K 60hz monitor.
@@s1gnexyes but the smoothness of the monitor is massively improved. Especially noticeable in competitive games
The DPI or PPI or whatever on 27" with 1440p is pretty much at the edge of what our eyes can discern at around 2ft from the monitor, maybe add like 10 to 15 more PPI and that's pretty much it. The 40 PPI extra is mostly a waste, the difference is minute and the potential performance impact is high. I would say it's mostly a scam, you pay a lot extra for little to no benefit, and you even get worse experience in many cases having lower performance on native. People who defend this got duped and they're subjects of the sunk cost fallacy.
2 27" 1440p monitors is still my sweet spot. When you factor in everything I just find it the best bang for buck for how I work. A good 4k monitor even at 27" looks wonderful and I might upgrade to 27's or 32's in a few years but for now I'm fine with what I have.
i got a 4k 144hz 27" and I dont think its worth it. With my 6800xt i prefered to use 1440p or 1800p for better performance because the difference isnt that much. 32" is better for 4k.
@@deagle7776I pretty much agree but I have seen some 27's that look pretty good at 4k. Gaming is way less important to me than my day to day work though, if I were mainly thinking about gaming then to be honest I'd just stick to 1440p.
totally agree. I have two 27s 144hz with my macbook m1 pro and I runn all the screens at 120hz refresh rate. Smooth af, lots of space... totally worth it.
@@deagle7776ha dude should't buy it 4k with that gpu is weak that is for 1440p but for 4k u need amd like rx 6950 xt 7800 xt or those beast 7900 xt and 7900 xtx
@@apcetojako8219 I agree. I bought the 4k monitor for my PS5, but I recently sold my PS5.
I have found that playing fps games in 4K helps me to see enemies further in distance because I can see so much more detail.
Especially in Hell Let Loose where you are looking sometimes for individual pixels moving in the distance.
I sit at a computer desk and my face is about 1.5 feet away from the monitor screen.
I use a LG Ultragear 27" 27GN950-B monitor running at 160hz, Nvidia 3090 FE video card.
Also, I find playing Battle Bit Remastered in 4K Ultra Native, ultra settings, no DLSS, no Ray Tracing at 160 fps to be
extremely satisfying and exceptionally smooth.
Playing BF 2042 with the same settings at 80 fps does not feel as smooth but is playable.
I won't buy an OLED monitor until they release a 27" flat screen in 4K 240hz with DP2.1. A 32" is too large for my computer desk.
you can get 28 inch ones
Actually for competitive multiplayer FPS the more detailed the image the harder it becomes to spot enemies. That's why CS pros will still play at stretched low res/aspect ratio, you get more fps and enemy player models are bigger and easier to spot against the backdrop.
Even better when playing in a small 4k screen
The term "PPI" "Pixels Per Inch" is actually not what we should be using to determine what resolution is best, what we should be using is "PPD" "Pixels Per Degree".
You have to calculate the user's viewing distance vs. screen resolution and size to find "PPD" but that is why PPD is comprehensively the correct metric.
When it comes to maximum perceivable PPD for the average person that number is "300 PPD" (look up "Visual Hyperacuity").
300PPD still isn't an absolute limit but it is where diminishing returns on improved clarity drops off a cliff, but with the way most people use 4K monitors today (viewing distance of two feet from a 32" 4K monitor) you've got a massive 60 degrees field of view and that results in only a pitiful 64 PPD.
In absolute terms, 4K monitors are still "low visual clarity".
8K resolution on a 32" monitor at a two foot viewing distance still only gets us 128 PPD, just barely into "medium visual clarity".
16K resolution on a 32" monitor at a two foot viewing distance is finally in the realm of "high visual clarity" at 256 PPD.
Do I advocate for the tech industry to standardize on 16K? No.
The signal bandwidth of 16K at 120hz would be 512Gbps and is impossible to transmit with copper cables. The only form of data transmitter capable of that is an industrial optical fiber hub for global internet traffic.
16K is just not achievable until we have a dramatic shift in data transmission tech, or with the GPU integrated directly into the display.
8K 120hz is within the capabilities of current hardware and is the ideal middle ground of both sharpness and fluidity.
We're just very very far away from this kind of tech. 4k only became so popular because TV makers pushed it incredibly hard. When it comes to gaming even a monster GPU like the 4090 struggles with raytracing in 4k and most people care about graphics over having very low settings on 8k. The idea of 4k gaming being a realistic option only came to fruition in the past few years. We might see 8k gaming in the next 10 years but it's really not going to mature into a usable gaming platform any time soon.
16k (15360 x 8640) is like driving 16 x 4k monitors! Not to mention cramming 132.7 million pixels into a 32" panel at 559dpi! Boggles the mind and shows what amazing tech our eyes truly are!
I don't know much about servers but they must be capable of 512Gbps internal data transfer rates?
Basically to even consider that as a possibility, home PC's would need to adopt server type architecture - which is not that inconceivable. The current architecture for PC's is becoming a limitation and with open source AI development, that kind of performance is becoming desirable.
No doubt tech companies would like to stretch that evolution out over many years though, so as to maximize their profits. In the meantime they are more interested in providing streamed gaming, which is another form of this infuriating subscription model. Sigh...
@@musicbro8225 The only real problem with pushing higher video bandwidth is user convenience.
Back in 2019 I bought some Zisworks kits that used dual Displayport to give native 4K120hz, technically those kits still have more bandwidth available than any single video connection on the market today.
I would have zero hesitation buying a monitor that requires four display cables, but hardware companies like Samsung are apparently horrified by that idea.
A few years ago i went from 260hz 1080p to a 32 inch 144hz 1440p, it felt so much better, ive been keeping my eye out for 4k monitors this year
what did you get for a 32 inch 144hz 1440p?
Look next year, 4k 240hz
4k 160hrtz Acer xcv on Best Buy. Solid buy but there’s some blooming in certain situations
The lg27gr93u just went on sale hop on it
@@Tonka-1-t8k LG has a 4k 240hz oled coming out with better text clarity (less 'fringing') in 2025. It would need a 4090+ to run well tho...
The main problem with 4k monitors is the increased GPU load. That's kind of a bigger question than visual clarity IMO.
I think the idea is that you lower the game settings so you can safely run higher fps at 4k and even with the worse settings you get a better gaming experience
@@Gee-bx3zh or max settings 1440 with higher fps lol
@@mudzy9820 no that's what I was saying max settings on 1440 p is still a worse overall display vs a mid setting on 4k. I mean it's a tradeoff to a degree because the textures you do get are going to be better on 4k but you'll be missing some textures entirely. On 1440p you'll get all textures but each individual ones will look worse than the 4k. Nowadays developers put too many textures anyway but knowing you can run a game at high fps is it's own reward. Obviously max 4k beats all if you can afford it .. damn the graphics cards are so expensive wth
still rather decent fps at 1440 lol 4k is overkill for a 27 inch monitor and ulltrawides
There's more to details than textures though. I'd personally rather have less fps and more details.
Gaming I wouldn’t mind 1440p but 4K is really nice when it comes to productivity. Just recently purchased the odyssey OLED g9 and although I technically downgraded from a 4K 60hz benq that wasn’t all that color accurate, I’m definitely loving the ultrawide look and it’s super accurate with colors even after using my colorometer. So no complaints here 🔥
lol I'm looking to "downgrade" from a tn 4k 60hz monitor too
I got the same monitor and running a 4090.. games like Hell Divers make me debate getting a 4K just to see how it looks.. I’m so torn cause the G9 is so damn glorious but now that I’ve seen how good this looks I can only imagine a 4k OLED
A 27” 4K monitor needs to be scaled to approximately 1440 resolution to be practical. I have great eyesight and can “use” a 27” 4K monitor without scaling however it’s much less strain still scaling up.
Just don't buy cheap 4K. A good QHD is far better than a cheap 4K. Cheap ones have way less color accuracy which ruins the whole thing.
Listen kid. There's no point in buying a 4k monitor, period. The difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4k is so minor that to the human eye it's hardly noticeable. You're not going to magically increase your gameplay skill by having more pixels on your screen. A gold QHD monitor might be nice but the improvement over a decent 1080p monitor is so small it's irrelevant. So stop wasting your money. You can go buy a nice lunch for yourself with what you save.
@@Supersammy22_290 You gotta have some serious eyesight problems if the difference between 720p and 4K is minor to you lmao.
There's no point of buying 4K.
I don't have icite problems I just don't like four k i'm staying with 1080P forever.
@@Supersammy22_290 I also don't own a 4K. I even mentioned a QHD is better than cheap 4K. What most people neglect is color accuracy. I have seen the difference between different resolutions and they are not minor. But it doesn't worth the price I agree with you on that. I think QHD is a good choice. Not that big price difference and a quite nice improvement in quality in a 27" monitor.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:52 🖥️ 4K resolution has 2.25 times more pixels than 1440p, resulting in a significantly more detailed image on paper.
01:49 📐 PPI (pixels per inch) isn't the sole indicator of image quality; the total visual information on screen matters, and 4K offers far more detail.
02:55 👁️ You should be able to see a substantial difference between 1440p and 4K at 27 inches or 32 inches if you have good eyesight.
03:38 💡 For most people, the visual difference between 1440p and 4K at 27 inches or larger is significant and worth choosing a 4K monitor for clarity.
05:13 🎮 If given the choice, prioritize higher resolution over higher refresh rate (120 FPS on OLED, 144 Hertz on LCD) for better image quality, as refresh rate gains diminish beyond 144 Hertz.
Made with HARPA AI
😝
"For most people, the visual difference between 1440p and 4K at 27 inches or larger is significant and worth choosing a 4K monitor for clarity." No, because that is not necessarily smart to do so, because you basically have to upgrade most of your system with an already good resolution.
@@worldhello12341440p is decent but 4k looks much better, and in my opinion it is worth spending money for
I think 4K is great for casual gamers who play mostly triple A titles and can afford a decent gaming PC or console, even if consoles donesnt run at 4k actually.
1440p is becoming the standard for people building rigs recently which is a good thing because 1440p became more acessible and easier to run, its not very cheap but more accessible than a few years ago. Even here in Brazil which hardware is too expensive 1440p is becoming quite cheap, all I have to do is to keep saving for around 10 years to be able to buy one 😂
Lol tell me about it, I want a 4K 120hz+ but the only ones here are considered entry level and here they cost waht would be something like 1600 USD for a 750 USD
@@chy.0190 I'm just kidding
@@chy.0190 Can you turn your monitor into a TV or a portable bluray player???
You can change the resolution of your games in the setting. 4k 144Hz is the way to go, yes you won't drive 4k 144Hz, then just change the resolution. After you game you'll thank yourself for getting the 4k instead of the small 1440p.
@@bassyeysure you can drop the res to get more frames but you are still stuck with 144 hz. I guess it depends on your use case. I use my monitors for both work and gaming and can use 1440p or 4k are their differences in visuals ? Sure. I feel most people exaggerate it though. Also going back to the original point why buy a V12 Ferrari and only be able to use it like a V6 ?
Thank you for elaborating on why PPI doesn't really matter. Visual quality depends on pixels-per-field of view (which would be an angular measurement but lets just set "field of view" equal to an assumed "1", and then subsequently ignore that detail for math's sake).
A 32" 4K monitor, a 65" 4K TV, and a 130" 4K projector setup have vastly different PPIs, but the same overall quality once you consider that you're going to sit a distance away from the screen that makes sense for its size - if you're 3 feet from a 32", 6 feet from a 65", or 12 feet from a 130", all of these screens have the same resolution per field of view because you've adjusted your seating distance to match. (Don't nitpick the fact that a projector won't be as sharp as a directview display for optical reasons, we're just talking pixel counts here and not real-world-sharpness).
Similarly, the dpi scaling setting in windows has more to do with "What percentage of the screen do you want your start menu, application buttons, fonts, etc to take up?" In my case, I actually like the balance of useful area afforded by a 1440p monitor at 100% dpi scaling, so when using a 4k monitor I pop my DPI scaling up to 150%. That means fonts, the start menu, and everything I can interact with at my windows desktop takes up the same percentage of the screen as it would on a 1440p monitor at 100% scaling. That I use a 48" oled tv as my monitor doesn't change the calculation. And that I intend to switch to one of the new 32" 4k qdoleds as soon as they are available doesn't change anything either. My desk is configured so I sit about 4.5 feet from the 48". If I go down to 32", i will sit 3 feet away, still use 150% dpi scaling, and still use 4k resolution for the same experience.
As far as why I'd downsize: its easier to layout my desk when the display (which is wallmounted currently) doesn't take up most of the width of it, and I want that sweet sweet 240hz. Because I can sit a reasonable 3 feet from a 32" display, mounting it to the desk rather than the wall makes more sense.
Yeah get 4K and spend 1.5K on a GPU and get 60 fps no thanks. The current King of gaming monitors is a 1440p according to the majority of reviewers. Also do you even know what 20/20 vision means? Your brain makes up most of what you think you see anyway. Lastly high resolution was popularised by manufacturers so they can sell you a screen that is too big for your viewing room. In Europe we know the difference between size and quality, something Americans have always struggled with.
PJust bought mine used for 160 2 days ago I never seen a big jump in pics or vids from 1440
Cause it's not its a medium jump
I did upscaling mutiple times on pc games and on emu its always the same a medium jump
Now going from 5k is a big jump from 1440p
Gaming on PC you would always be sitting the same close distance away so 4k would clearly be better. For TV in the living room it’s a completely different story as you sitting far away.
@@DDD-xx4mg I did upscaling mutiple times on pc games and on emu it was always the same a medium jump on my 1440p screen
Even on vids shows and showed it's not a big jump and pics show this to I watched vids on my 4k TV the jump isn't big like I said it's medium
Now going from 5k is a big jump from 1440p this is when i used emulators
using 4k to go to 6k is a medium jump just as 4k from 1440p is,i now can do 6k using dldsr which looks very sharp i love it
i just got my 4k screen 3 days ago and its still as i said not a big jump from my 1440p but i can still see when i upscaled to 4k on my 1440p,for me to see a big jump i would need to go 8k whenever those come out for pc screens, i wish i could get a 8k screen now but they only have overpriced tvs
With my *PC monitor* (32", 16:9) that "5.5 times the height" would mean 2.1 m (7.0 ft).
And "8 times the height" would mean 3.1 m (10.2 ft).
My actual viewing distance is about *0.75 m (2.5 ft).* Monitor has resolution of 1440p, i.e. "2.7K".
With my eyes, 1080p would be totally unusable, but 1440p is quite good. Of course, 4K would be even better.
I watch my 55" *TV* from about *2 m (6.6 ft)* or sligthly further than that. That's roughly 3 times the height. TV is relatively old (2K = 1080p). Traditional Blu-rays do have that same resolution. DVD's etc. (576i/480i) would look sharper from further away.
Today, the best resolution for homes is 4K for television + 4K for Blu-rays/TV/Streaming.
Show me a 55 inch 1440p screen, they can't tell the difference because they were probably looking at 27 inch little ass monitor
A higher ppi does make an image sharper. But there is a limit. The Nintendo switch oled has a high ppi, but you can still tell you’re looking at 720p by the texture detail. Same with my 15.6” laptop at 1080p. Looks sharp. But you can still tell it’s 1080p
I got a 15.6” 4k oled portable display and it’s a godsend for Nintendo switch games although imo a 4k screen should be minimum 32”
The limit is greater when you put 4K on a smaller screen though. Even going up to 6K would be fine on a 27 inches monitor, yet people have been mindfucked into believing 4k at 27 inches is a "waste".
@@chy.0190they re mindfucked and brainwashed every day, but they can only blame their stupidity
i like 27 inch screens and I dont want to upgrade my gpu every year to keep up. 1440p to me is still plenty sharp for games
You never had better
@@BDevil1O2 i tried a 32 inch 4k monitor and while it was nicer for productivity in games I didnt notice a large enough increase in clarity for it to be worth the drop in fps. if most of what the monitor is for is gaming youre probably better off spending the extra money on features like an oled panel.
What console were u using
@@BDevil1O2 ryzen 7800x3d, 32gb 6000mt/s cl30, rtx 3080 ti. Roughly double the gpu power of either the series x or ps5 and several times more cpu performance
I bought a 1440p 32" 165hz IPS for £325 on Amazon, and it works perfectly for me. Yes, I'd prefer 4k but for the specs I need, I'd be looking at spending at least £800, not to mention needing to buy a new graphics card.
Odyssey g7 is the best for quality, features n affordability
I disagree after experience with this on user experience. 240hz is the clarity in visuals and once you go 240hz it's hard to even go down to 144hz. Though in theory you are correct, most games won't even remotely come close to 144hz at 4k even with the best gpus and cpus still. It's worth noting the overall flexibility of 1440p and being able to really see the important factor of clarity in games, which is frames. 1440p is the way to go, for fps and smooth gaming. I went to a 280hz 1080p panel vs a 144hz 1440p panel and it was night and day difference, now I'm upgraded to 1440p 240hz OLED, and after seeing that, you do not need anything else. It's just beyond everything and then some, without the worry of losing that fluid fast motion in comp games. Always look for flexibility and settle, unless you are just going to main Cyberpunk as your only game ever period, I just don't see a reason to buy 4k until the next gen or 2 even, 1440p is plenty clear, push for those frames and thank me later, you'll see after you switch to higher
and how many games can you play at 240fps 1440p? except counterstrike and league ?
what people don't understand when they talk about ppi is ppi is relative to the distance you sit away from any given monitor. so in the end, resolution is more important than ppi if you have a lot of desk real estate
Yeah I definitely think 4K looks far sharper even at 27 inches. I will say that some displays have a matte coating that really washes out that sharpness, but you'll definitely see how the aliasing in games looks far better at 4K.
Can you really tell the difference at a glance
@raptorhacker599 I literally have a 1440p and 4K display right next to each other. I will say it's one of those things you need to experience for a bit to notice what you're losing without it similar to higher refresh rates. Though I will say the 4K display is incredibly obvious in games as depth is handled so much better and aliasing is far lessened.
Another issue is inconsistent 4K video quality. Gamers Nexus at 4K for example has the video quality of most things at like 720p while Hardware Unboxes is like mega sharp. Of youtube is a major use case I'd say the impact is lower, and while Nvidia did make that new upscaler, I've noticed it's really only good for animations like anime or old cartoons.
But in general, yes, I can tell fairly well just looking at the image. The main issue with 4K is just the hardware to drive it. If you plan on modern gaming with 4K you're gonna need something overkill. Ironically 4K has continued to be a top spec feature for like 10 years now with even the 1080 ti being a decent 4K GPU at the time.
4k never shown a big jump over 1440p its a med jump
@@cmoneytheman I think it's a very noticeable bump. Games show it a lot better due to aliasing.
@@Skylancer727
I did upscaling mutiple times on pc games and on emu its always the same a medium jump
Even on vids shows it's not a big jump and pics show this to I watched vids on my 4k TV the jump isn't big like I said it's med
Now going from 5k is a big jump from 1440p
If you're playing a first-person or third-person shooter the 240 hertz is definitely noticeable and way better then going 4K I have both and only use 4K for the slower story mode games.
Aha, good luck with 240fps in Tarkov or Arma 3.
@@victorvancouver9104EFT is in the dumpster and Arma ohgod terrible engine I hear for FPS that new game silica that's supposed to be using the engine is getting terrible performance I don't waste my time playing them
Brother not many games will get you 240 fps at 1440p except for shit ass looking games like CSGO and Siege
@@orangecat1596 that and fortnite valorant in call of duty vanguard pubg and Apex shit ass looking fur sure.
@@orangecat1596with a 4090 it’s easy
For the hundredth time:
PPI
DOESN'T
MATTER.
RESOLUTION DOES.
Why are we still talking about it in 2023?
Both matter.
Agreed.
@@Solus793
No, they don't. PPI never mattered. It's a useless metric to entertain some people.
If you place your displays at the distances they're meant to be at, in order to fill similar areas of your field of vision, PPI has absolutely no bearing on anything. Unless you mean to tell me a 4K 55" TV is less clear than a 1080p 24" monitor.
@@phahq "PPI has no bearing on anything" - simply what? Of course physical pixel density matters a lot.
Your line of thinking rests entirely on the notion that your display "should be / will be" at a certain magical arbitrary distance away from you according to its resolution and size.
@@Solus793
Little exercise for you:
if BOTH matter, that means PPI has weight on clarity if resolution stays the same.
27"" 1440p vs 24"" 1440p, which is better? 24"" 1440p, right? Better PPI.
Now, what happens when you put it on your desk right away? You place it CLOSER to you than you would the 27 incher.
Now, I want you to explain to me what happens to the smaller pixels when they're seen by you at a smaller distance.
Going from 1440p to 4k is a way bigger difference than going from 165hz to 240hz. Not only in the raw math, but just anyone that has tried them side by side in person would agree. The industry is hyping up higher and higher refresh rates with extremely diminishing returns but a 4k OLED is the best monitor experience out there.
He is constantly mixing up the terms, what a poor comparison.
So misleading that there's so little mention of the HUGE difference in performance.
It's astronomical, especially if you only update your video card every 5-6 yrs like me. Most people probably can't afford the latest xx80/90 gpu every year.
Could my new 4080 do all the recently games at 4k? Yeah, albeit at a big performance hit over qhd.
will it in a few years? fuck no.
That's why I went for a fast 1440p monitor. More features for the same money going 1440 too.
@@Danjmurphy Yeah, I have a 3090 and had a 4k screen... now I just got a 1440p 180Hz IPS screen because Id rather spend $500 on a nice monitor than $1500 every 2 years to keep up.
It's not a waste, I can clearly see the difference on my 27 inch monitor between 1440 and 4k
Well yea the in don't matter tho it's a higher resolution it automatically will look better
But I mean it's not much of a big difference compared to jumping from 1080p to 2K and when I was walking through Best buy years ago I didn't see the craze to jump to 4K not a 27in but I guess if you have them side-by-side you'll start to favor the 4K if given long enough but man that frame rate taxes going to hit you hard
@@Ziyoblader I did upscaling multiple times on PC games, and on Emu, it was always the same: a medium jump on my 1440p screen.
Even on videos, it's not a big jump, and pictures show this. I watched videos on my 4K TV, and the jump isn't big, like I said; it's medium.
Going from 5K to 1440p is a big jump from 1440p. This is when I used emulators.
Using 4K to go to 6K is a medium jump, just as 4K from 1440p is. I can now do 6K using DLDSR, which looks very sharp. I love it.
I just got my 4k screen last week, and it's still not a big jump from my 1440p, which is a 35in, and my 4k is a 27in, but I can still see when I upscaled to 4k on my 1440p. For me to see a big jump, I would need to go 8k.
People who say there's no difference are lying. People who said that odd quote that people need a 4K screen to see the difference are lying because, as I said, I explained how I saw the difference even on my 1440p screen,and people can see a resolution change going from 720 to 1080p even on a 480p screen.
My 4K is a 27-inch, and it's very easy to see the differences I mentioned from my 35-inch 1440 4K, which still looks a good amount sharper.
People lie to themselves to save cash or because they want to troll. And no, 4K is very easy to run. I've got a monster 3080, and I use high settings since there's been no need to use max for like 7 years. People who still say 4K is hard to run are either using the dead max settings, which, as I said, have been unnecessary for like 7 years, or they are using a weaker card.
@@Ziyoblader IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, STOP SPREADING LIES.
@@DroNNIOfficial who are you to say I'm lying it is my opinion and many others I have seen agree with this for a 27 inch now the monitor was bigger like a 38 then I would look for something higher than 1440p bigger the screen the bigger the resolution would be needed
4k 100% is a waste even 4090 can’t run 4k natively at decent fps. If u are fine playing 4k at 50-60 fps native then it’s all right, but if u want to play at a higher refresh rate 4k is a dogshit
I wish there was a single monitor with 4k at 60hz, 1440p at 144hz and 1080p at 240hz. May be I am just dreaming 😊
it is very simple: there is indeed a noticeable difference between 1440p and 4K, so if you game and can afford a system that can handle 4K then get 4K
I have two 32" 4K monitors as they are perfect when I do my work. I also prefer the higher resolution when gaming (rarely), as it allows me to see much more detail. That said, I don't mind using 1440p in 27" screen, but if you have 32" screen or larger, you really really want to have 4K and perhaps put your screen slightly farther away from you.
ya me to i played long time on 2k 240 hz but my second monitor is 4k and ya now i have two 4k monitors and with the 4090 you dont have any problems to play 4k it looks realy nice better view onn 32* Monitor and ya
I think for gaming, 1440p is plenty. I have a Samsung 32" Odyssey G7 monitor and am more than happy with the resolution. 4K to me is for very detailed graphic work or for 4K TV sets 65" and larger.
it's pretty goofy to say 1440 to 4k on 27 is a "massive massive difference" and to go see an eye doctor, you're clearly biased. I own 4k and 1080p and I could give a shit less as long as my frames are high enough
I used to game at 4k and went to 240hz 1440P. I couldn't tell the difference, but the refresh rate was another story. This was at 27". 4k makes more sense at 32" and up.
I agree, that is why people think DLSS is great but DLSS on a 4K 32inch monitor is BLURRRRY.
DLSS is always blurry because it uses TAA. Overrated garbage.@@Brodda-Syd
You need to get your eyes checked then if you cannot tell the difference. Reality is you could not consistently push high frames and thats the sole reason you left 4k at 27 inches.
@@Brodda-Syd thats because the PPI is much lower on a 32 inch screen, which actually disproves the myth that 4k must be at 32" in a desk setup.
@@chy.0190 my eyes are fine. At 27 inches 4k is a waste. Had and used it for gaming. Again, unless you go to 32” inches it doesn’t make sense. I had high end PCs and graphics card to drive the frame rates. Maybe you need to understand DPI
I tried going from 4k to 1440p and it looks so much worse that I couldn't keep it. If you are coming from 1080p then go 1440 for the FPS, but if you want quality and unable to go back then go 4k. I have a more office focused 4k 60hz monitor now which is 28.5" or 28" and I tried a 27" 1440p monitor and even going with a smaller monitor; it looked terrible.
4k monitor if you like blowing your money and want the best looking game if you can get the fps.
1440p OLED 27 inch if you want the best of both worlds for competitive, performance, and appearance.
yea it's just much more solid and flexible choice
I went from a full 1080P 60fps 15yr old 15.6" laptop to a 4K 120fps 55" LG C1 OLED + full custom build last year.. absolutely worth it, and good for a long while 💯
Same here, using my c2 42 as a monitor .. Nothing else comes close
4k is a waste of money you wont see the difference when moving, and in gaming you are moving all the time. 1440p oled is the best for gaming
4k is great it's just a shame developers have gotten incredibly lazy. Some of the worse most unoptimized messes have released in recent years. And along with DLSS/FSR FG technologies they dont need to do any sort optimization ship it and force you to use those technologies to get a somewhat playable experience.
the reality is very simple- HARDWARE
Can you run 100+ FPS on 4K? if YES then go 4K obviously
If NOT then do not go 4K, 4K 60 fps or less will give you a far inferior experience when compared to 1440p 100+ FPS
It’s UHD vs QHD not 4K and 2k.
4k gaming on pc is just too expensive atm. Especially if you do competitive fps games
4k is worth it, if you have a good enough GPU. Since my GPU is trash, I'm staying with my 1440p for another few years.
@RAM_845 1070 ti
Can still upscale on 4K hdtv. Not bad lol would be nice to have a 3070 and up.
I have a good vision, what I do not have is money to spend on a R$ 25k ($ 5k) pc here in brazil to run 4k smoothly
The only time I use my 4k monitor is to emulate 240p games with 4k crt filters. In all other cases I actually prefer my 27" 240Hz 1080p because performance will always satisfy me more than pixel count and fidelity, I really don't mind seeing the individual pixels. Most websites look better at lower resolutions and don't need to be zoomed in as much as well.
The deffrence between the price of 1440p and 4k is crazy
1440p and 4k moniters are trash if u want play good gaming go back to 1080p moniters
Honestly I have both 4K 27'' and 1440p 27'' didn't notice that much difference in games I was surprised so I think it's not worth it to buy a 4K monitor mainly for gaming unless you really need it for productivity work, but again there is no right or wrong in this if you have the money just make sure to pair it with a powerful GPU like the RX 7900 XTX or RTX 4090.
Yes, I think he is exaggerating the difference. Now I can only go off of what I have and used. And I will say, I was expecting 4k to look better than it is once I got it about a month ago. There is a meaningful difference between a 1440p 27inch monitor I have and the new 4k 32 inch, but I was using a 24 inch 1440p monitor for the longest time before either, and in terms of "clarity" or sharpness, the 32inch 4k isnt far off from the 24 inch 1440p. I even got a 15 inch 1080p oled, which while I can tell some detail is lost, still holds up to both of them.
So I do think ppi is much more meaningful, the only thing a higher resolution allows, is well being able to maintain that sharpness with a larger screen. And I think the main difference in why the 32 inch 4k I like more than my old 24inch 1440p, is not because of any "sharpness" but simply that it's a bigger screen while maintaining the sharpness. And I think a lot of the detail comes from the larger screen. So that's my experience.
At 27" the jump from 1440p to 4k is pretty minimal unless you sit super close to it.
My love of 4k is that I love giant screens, but I also enjoy a sharp image. So 4k it is
@terrymike7053 One more thing with 1440p monitors, I usually use 200% resolution scale if the game supports it which most modern games does, it gives me way sharper image and extra details literally same as 4K details asid from the physical differences in pixel density but don't get confused all my tests were done based on 100% resolution scale.
Yeah i had the 27GP950 and i recently switched to the PG27QQDM oled 240 hz 1440p and honestly think its much better.
I have the LG 27gr95qe-b and the 4K LG C1 and to be fair I can’t tell the different. 1440p and 4K are nearly identical to me when playing games on both screens.
If your buying a new monitor right now you need to consider future proofing. 4k is the way to go
4k isn't worth it on a 27" monitor; in fact it's extremely close to looking exactly the same as 1440p. To truly get the most from a 4k resolution, you need a 32" screen size or larger.
Who said so? I have 27 4k and I can see very clear difference, if you are blind it does not mean everyone is
I don't get people saying this. 4K looks significantly better on 27" compared to 1440p.
Bs, the difference is huge especially in productivity. Even in gaming, if you sit close while playing fps games 1440p looks garbage without a sharpening filter whereas 4k looks pristine. Even when you layback and play some casual games, by nature the 4k display will give you much better anti aliasing and the image will still noticeably better. I had a Philips 4k_144hz 27 inch monitor which I sold to buy the 27_240hz lg oled because I thought 144hz was actually holding me back in valorant playing in immortal and after using both I can confidently say that in terms of clarity in a static image 4k is leaps and bounds better than 1440p. If you prefer a sharp image quality over all else, 4k is king where as 1440p is the new king for competitive games imo.
@@himanshumagar But than there is the problem with motion clarity. I'm more than fine with 30 fps then it comes to smoothness and responsiveness, especially with 60. But the "sharpness" and clarity of the picture while motion is just on another level with 120 and especially 240 fps. But such frame rates at 4k isn't really possible. Not if you're not willing to spend a ton of money. So 1440p is probably the sweetspot for a sharp and clear picture for most scenarios
@@nico3064 if you can drive 1440p at 240hz, you can definitely drive 4k @144 or at least 120hz. Motion clarity is a non issue for non competitive gaming and at lower framerates it will largely be the same. Only time I noticed any ghosting on the 4k Philips was when I was aimtraining or playing any competitive fps games. Imo 4k is the best for leisure gaming, 1440p for esports titles and 1800p is more of a sweet spot but monitors don’t usually come in that resolution unfortunately.
even at 27" I think 4k is MUCH MUCH BETTER
On my RTX 4090 I pretty much get the same framerate between 1440p and 4K (maybe just 10% difference in most games I play) so I may as well stick with 4K.
just got a 4090 myself, but still have not decided on a monitor. DId you get a 4k Qled?
That is great just got a 4090 and was worried to go for a 4k monitor, for performance issues haha. What kind of games do you play?
you are cpu bound then
You need a new cpu thats why lol
The problem with high refresh rates and higher resolutions is once you've made the change it's very difficult to go back. So now your locked into an ever expensive spiral. 4k is very demanding and is not only much more expensive to buy a 4k monitor you also need sell both kidneys to upgrade your pc to run at that resolution at decent FPS. 1440 seems to be the agreed upon sweet spot. Personally my eyes balls are fine and dandy at 1080 but I do like a high refresh rate for that smooth movment. I've one friend who still uses 720 who would argue the same. Another who swears by 4k 60hz. It's all preference.
Here's a fun fact: during motion, the effective resolution on any monitor will will often drop below 1080p! Motion blur is inherent in all modern displays, but most people don't notice it. This is true for both my 3yr old Sony 4k Bravia OLED TV (it can do 120fps) and my 4k 32" Gigabyte M32U which can do 144fps. I can't read moving text on either of them, but I can on my ASUS 24" LCD monitor that's 10yrs old but has perfect Black Frame Insertion for crystal clear details during motion.
OLEDs don't have that issue
@@raptorhacker599 I sooo wish you were right, but I've seen it with my own eyes on my Sony OLED. I have to fiddle with the image interpolation and BFI settings for it to begin to get close to my old monitor. The root cause of motion blur is different for OLED than for LCD, but it still exists. I think it has to so with how the human eye perceives & expects motion to be, but I haven't dug into the OLED cause.
I suggest you not examine it closer or else you'll begin to see it too and then you'll also be stuck not being able to go back. It's like enjoying 120fps and then trying to go back to 60.
that's a trade-off for having flicker-free displays
1440p can look decent at 27 inch but looks mediocre at 32 inch. I have both 27" 1440p and 32" 4K/UHD and the 32 is much sharper and more clear. If you play fast paced shooters, like I also do, the small res is probably the best, at 240-360 Hz but for immersion and detail 4K res wins for sure.
I hate small monitors im on a 43 inch tv. never going back
4k is blurry trash tbh, but its all we have until tech gets better.
Far from blurry unless you're playing games made in 2006
Didnt even mention that the cost for 4k is also 4 times that of 1440p... Not including the cost of the gpu needed to even game smoothly at 4k.
For gaming, which I don’t do, 1440 is more compelling. Lower GPU load and It is basically a video so the resolution is not as advanced. Plus if you are gaming on a 43” TV, you are likely to be farther away from the display, making the difference less noticeable. However for productivity where you are viewing textbin spreadsheet like I do, 4k is a major advantage. For that I would like to use 4k at 24 inches but that is hard to find.
well, its not a question, that 4k is way better than 1440p, but you know its all about the hertz and when it comes to like 144-240 hertz, 4k monitors are going to cost from 800$ upwards to 1750$ and not everyone got this money. I recently bought my first high end gaming pc for quite a lot money and now i have to look for a monitor under 400$ because i just dont get that much money you know? its like you tell me, that i can't see the difference, and cause of that i buy a cheaper monitor, thats just rude/ wrong. I just didnt want to compromise with my pc built. I got a 4k monitor now, but its only 60 hertz (before the pc i was just playing on my ps4) and of course it was enough, but my upgrade is going to be a 1440p monitor with at least 165 hertz... thats all i want to afford now.
4k is not fun without a 4090. Well if you actually want high frame rates
I changed from a 1440p to a 4k 144hz both. I can see the difference. Not being huge is quite noticeable. True, they are expensive but if u can afford it go for it, is better. Conpetitive games i still play in 1080 because the integer scaling works good going from full hd in a 4k monitor. All other games i play in 4k at more than 60 fps with VRR works like a charm ;). I play in 28 inches btw.
I use a odyssey g9 , 5120x1440p, with pixel density equal to a 27 pol 1440p monitor.
Homewer, I use Nvidia DLDSR to upscale to 7680x2160p. And despite the pixel density its already high, I can still see a clear difference bettwen the dual 1440p (5120x1440) and dual 4k (7680x2160), and its not a small difference.
I am going 1440. I am building a triple monitor sim rig however. With my 4080 if I was going with a single monitor I would probably go 4K.
Sure 4k is sharper, my friend insisted I borrow his 4k monitor. I didn't like it because of the poor gaming performance. I ligit went from 90 fps at 1440p to 50fps on 4k. I'm not interested in that and that is with an rtx 3070. 1440p is sharp enough for me, I never wish it was sharper I get it sharp by not overusing dlss. I can barely get ideal frame rates without dlss and that is at 1440p!!!
4K for movies, 1440p for gaming.
1080p for movies, 1080p for gaming.
In a generic non professional environment 1440p until over 32in. There is a difference, but it is not "worth" it in terms of value. Driving a 4k monitor costs a premium & gaming graphics aren't to the level of 4k being a necessity. Cyberpunk, or any current release on a 32in 4k isn't jaw dropping compared to 1440p, but the fps drop you are going to experience on anything other than a top tier gpu is noticeable.
I can see pixels on 1440p and 4K is fricking awesome! I’m using the Alienware QDOLED right now and I can’t wait for a 4K OLED.
I love OLED and the response time on them and this combined with 4K and smaller screens would be a beautiful thing
I have a LG 24 inch 4k monitor and MY GOD....its 95% of what apple calls retina and you literally cant see a pixel no matter how close you get with you eye...games looks STUPID good on it...also 4k textures matter
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
@@thecowoz Can you just use your monitor as a tv
@@Supersammy22_290 yea, and i use my 55" tv as monitor
@@thecowoz lol your screens PPI is below a hundred and you use it at your desk.. you are the real clown here. Go visit an eye doctor.
the thing with 4k too is that it’s like you have all the resolutions unlocked, you can always go to 1440 if you needed too, if these screens were crt like meaning they can display an res at native then that would be so cool
No one , I repeat , no one who has actually owned and games on a decent 4k monitor , would tell you that there isn’t a big difference.
I was about to pick up a new monitor black friday, but with the new QD-OLED 240hz monitors coming out from several vendors early 2024 I have decided to hold off and wait another 3 to 6 months before i get my new monitor. Even if I cant run it fully with a 3090, I will at least be future-proofing myself for a few years.
Can definitely tell the difference, I got the Coolermaster GP27U and the ASUS PG27AQDM. I’ve had games running side by side and it is definitely noticeable. Even on the desktop looks much sharper on the 4K monitor, and this is at 27inches so not sure where that myth comes from.
What I had a harder time differentiating was the refresh rate, even though OLED hz is faster than regular hz on mini Led etc… I couldn’t tell the difference in real world use, the 165hz on the cooler master seemed the same in game and on the desktop to the ASUS 240hz, only time I could tell the difference is when running the UFO test specifically.
Still waiting for my endgame, 27inch 240hz glossy 4K Oled monitor.
dough have one 4k 32inch, but you better off staying away from that company. Wait for a few month and lg will also have the same thing.
@@LongNguyen-ii1zuyeah thinking we will start to see those displays later this year or some time early next year.
@@HolloVVpointJust bought mine used for 160 2 days ago I never seen a big jump in pics or vids from 1440
Cause it's not its a medium jump
I did upscaling mutiple times on pc games and on emu its always the same a medium jump
Now going from 5k is a big jump from 1440p
@@HolloVVpoint I have Cooler master GM32-FQ 2k monitor. I think the quality is better for movies and games vs 1080p. Before I had a VIOTEK GFT27CXB 27-Inch Gaming Monitor. Which seem little small for watching movies, but the quality was nice. I use handbrake for upscaling 1080p movies to 1440p. The quality comes out real nice.
1440p is as far as it'll go for competitive gaming for the near future. But yes...4K will definitely always be more cinematic...and technology will only keep on increasing. 16K video will be better than 4K...etc.
what about 1440p QD-OLED vs 4K LCD? Was considering the Alienware AW3423DWF
Please do this comparison! I have a 32" 4k 144hz monitor, and want to know if OLED is worth the downgrade in resolution to 1440p ultrawide.
This is what I was thinking. I picked the same monitor up a few days ago and for me at least (everyones different) its equal to my LG C1 but beats it out with 165hz and brightness level.
If you do work or general browsing a lot, stay away from the oleds. If all you do is gaming on your computer, definitely pull the trigger on aw3423dwf, it's an amazing monitor.
1440p IPS
I disagree, at 27" and smaller I absolutely think that 4k is a waste and having the highest refresh rate possible is better. However, larger than 27" screens is where 4K really shines.
I'd say it depends on the type of games you play. I mostly play multiplayer FPS like COD, Battlefield, Gears and the higher fps that can be achieved at 1440p (240Hz) do make these games feel more responsive and easier to track fast targets than 4k 144Hz. You also don't get time in these games to really stop and appreciate the higher resolution. For me until 4k 240Hz becomes a reality for gpu's I will pick 1440p 240Hz as my primary gaming display. However, I can see why others would prefer 4k, I do on other types of games.
just get a 4090/7900xtx and you'll do 240fps in 4k in all multiplayer games (4090/7900xtx is only needed for cod/warzone)
only problem is, there is only 1 4k 240hz panel (neo g8) but its actually even faster than the fastest VA panel (G7 240hz), which almost is identical in terms of motion side to side against my LG 27GR95QE OLED 240hz
@@kerim_og_9378 A 4090 won't do 4k 240fps. Here, even on low settings it just about cracks 200fps. It requires dropping to 1440p. ua-cam.com/video/iDLJ60_2m_E/v-deo.html
Not sure why you would opt for 4k with DLSS instead of just 1440p native with higher fps. that feels a bit weird.
If you really do have better than 20/20 vision then I can see why you would prioritize resolution a lot.
I have a 27" 1440p and a 28" 4k monitor. There is a huge difference between them, especially for work and text. 32" 4k is the sweet spot imo. I also had a 24" 1440p and that had a pretty high PPI as well.
What monitors?
There's a "difference" but at that screen size, the difference isn't "huge."
@@Skrenjaeh?
Other than upscaling and frame gen, I can probably scratch 4k 60Hz with my 3060. Who can actually push 4K 144 Hz or 2K 240 Hz???
4k is a massive difference for me. I went from 1080p 30
Fps to 4k 60fps. I know 120 fps would probably ve hard to go to and not go back so because of that I'm staying with 4k 60
If you dont play competetive games, just nice single player ones 4k 60 make perfect sense, but anything competetive under 120 is just feels pain. (30 is pain even in single tho :D)
1080p laptop screen is the peak viewing experience
Hmmm... in a battle of Benq EX2710Q vs Aorus FI32U, who would you pick for single player and not competitive gaming?
Get the FI32U, M32U or G3223Q from Dell, whichever is cheaper. Dell has better adaptive-sync tuning than the rest.
PPI is important at a fixed distance. If you sit at a desk at a fixed distance, PPI is everything. If you can move further back then things are different. But at a fixed distance, like at mot desks, PPI is detail per inch of screen, or per minute of view angle. Clearly, a 4K 32" will looks sharper and more detailed (image/textures depending) than a 32" 1440P at the same distance.
Thing is, most of us are limited in terms of desk depth, and sit in the same place for mouse/kbd ergonomics. So a 42" 4K will require more head movement to see everything than a 27/32" 4K screen will. But that 27" screen will be sharper within our FoV at the same distance, due to the higher PPI. Only when moving further back, until that 42" monitor provides the a similar FoV, will the 4K 42" look as sharp.
1440p 110ppi is ok in some games but some do look blurry and there’s massive difference in detail and clarity with 4k 160ppi
Get's worse as well when you use upscalers, look at Callisto Protocol with FSR2 enabled at 1440p base res.
4K = Story mode games, Productivity & Movies
1440= Best high end games
1080= Best for FPS games
As a long time gamer I've only started using 4k last year and you can tell a different especially when playing newer game's 1440p is not bad but it's great having 4k while playing story games but 4k gaming monitors are not cheap but you really can tell a different between the 2 after trying both
Hello, can I ask, for example, playing a game with 1440P monitor with the highest settings vs playing a game with 4K monitor with 1440P resolution settings, does it have a big difference? I am confused because there are only a few games to play at 4K, so, … Thank you
@@kaankucuk1612 you are right a lot of games don't Actually have 4k but games are upscaled and close to 4k but if you want to buy a 4k gaming monitor just to use it for 1440p it's probably a waste of money especially because of how expensive 4k monitors are so I'd just recommend keeping the monitor you have or if you're planning on buying one definitely just buy 1440p monitor with a high fps
@@tyicbranch2734thank you for answering
For non-gaming purposes; graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, 4K is superior… in my opinion
For non-gaming purposes; graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, hd is superior… in my opinion
Depends on what you’re using it for. Gaming or work or both? What kind of gaming? Do you generally have bad eyes and probably won’t notice the difference between 2k and 4k? I went with the new LG 2k 240hz monitor and it’s been great
If you do any sort of graphics work, especially raster things like painting, then very high ppi is actually detrimental to you, because it may look fine on your screen, but most people don't use 4k (go look at stats) so on their screen the flaws of your work are going to be more apparent. 4k is also bad for gaming, because the rig needs to be top tier expensive to drive that res, and if you play old 2d games you are also gonna have problems. Lot's of cool wallpapers are smaller than 4k. Some software that doesn't scale it's UI is going to look absolutely tiny too. 4k is very niche and I don't recommend it, unless you are going for 40+ inch size where the ppi is similar to 1440 at 27", but then you are left with gigantic screen that is terrible for anything but watching stuff passively like movies from afar. Cheers.
16K or bust.
I game at 1440p! I have a 27 inch monitor and for right now that is my sweet spot! I hate to upgrade parts every time a new game comes out and it gets only more expensive! I may upgrade to a curved monitor but I’m researching the pros and cons.
I have a 4k 60hz 43" monitor and I always set the game to 2k and it looks perfect.
So I strongly do not suggest 4k at 43" and below.
In fact I would much more prefer a 2k 120hz over a 4k 60hz any time of the day.
And I have played hundreds of games.
Its that simple!! 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥
Are you blind?
@@frostybe3r I am not blind. I in fact switched to 165hz monitor 34" inch and it is the best decision I ever made.
I had a 1440P oled switched to 4K mini LED 4K definitely better and mini LED is pretty close to OLED blacks and no burn in risk.
Bought a 4090 and a 4k 28 Inch recently and i was considering the 1440p OLEDs. Im glad that i went with the 4k i personaly definitly feel and see a diffrence in the ppi upgrade after comparing it to a 27 inch 1440p of a friend.
Which 4k 28 in did you get? I’m in the market and looking at options
the LG one@@shawnhitt5312
You should have gone with the OLED instead. You have the benefit of a much higher framerate, which gives you much smoother motion and, in my opinion, does way more for image quality than the resolution jump from 1440 to 4k. The added benefit of infinite contrast ratio (true blacks) and increased pixel response time create a better overall experience.
upgrading from a 34" VA panel to a 42inch OLED has been such a big difference, it's fantastic!
I'm still running a 10 year old BenQ TN panel. I just wish the oleds weren't so expensive (27in)
yeah pricey, but I paid for this 34" Ultrawide back in 2016 for over $1000, so the price of OLEDs is actually inexpensive by comparison.
@@kevo212 how much over because the current 27in ones are 1000
@@datscreaminonion Depending on your region you "just have to wait" for a good sale.
2 weeks ago I was able to get a Corsair Xeneon 27qhd240 with an extra monitor stand as a bundle for 900€, which is 977 USD with all tax included. The stand alone is worth 150USD. But yeah OLED monitors are quite expansive but once you used one for gaming ..... You won't go back to something else
The VA will probably still work in 3 years unlike the Oled which just starts degrading from when you start using it
After most of my life in front of monitors i will say 2 things .
1) A 24 inch screen with 1440p has super crisp clarity without needed the firepower for 4k. However at 27 inch.. 4k is indeed better than 2k..not by long, but a small difference yes
2) A glossy vs matte monitor is way way more important than resolution. For example i had a 27 inch 1080p dell glossy and it was phenomenal. So good that it looked better than my current 27 inch 1440p matte samsung even if the resolution is bigger.
So my take on this..the perfect monitors will be a glossy oled 4k . And guess what , it comes next year from dell, 4k 32 inch oled 240 hz, i rly cant wait
I’ve been playing games at 4k for about a year. I got the Samsung odyssey g9 recently and playing in 1440p I was like “WOH THIS IS SO FUZZY!” I’m starting to adjust to it. It bothered the crap out of me at first. There is a pro of getting more fps but honestly I miss 4k. Still pretty cool playing on that thing
Not sure you can say 1440p is fuzzy haha. Yeah 4k is better but 1440p being fuzzy ? I have both and 4k is sharper but the loss in performance is annoying.
PPI is resolution divided by dimension, so how can less PPI density equal higher quality?
*Summary of Video on 4K vs 1440p Monitors*
*PPI and Resolution:*
- A 4K screen at typical sizes has a PPI (pixels per inch) of around 105.16, while most 1440p monitors have a PPI of 110.84.
- Higher PPI is often thought to provide clearer images due to less visible aliasing or pixelation.
*Disagreement on PPI Importance:*
- The speaker argues that despite the higher PPI of 1440p monitors, a 4K monitor provides significantly more visual detail (2.25 times more information).
- At common monitor sizes (27 inches, 32 inches), the difference in clarity between 1440p and 4K is noticeable and significant, particularly for those with good eyesight.
*Visual Difference:*
- For those with 20/20 vision, the difference between 1440p and 4K at 32 inches is clear. If you can't see the difference, it might be time to check your eyesight.
- Even at 27 inches, the increase in clarity and detail with a 4K monitor over a 1440p monitor is substantial.
*Game Development:*
- Many game developers create assets for 4K displays, making games look better on 4K screens, even if the consoles can’t always run native 4K.
*Recommendation:*
- If your system can handle it, using a 4K monitor is recommended, even if you need to use upscaling techniques like DLSS or FSR.
- 1440p is a viable option if you can't run 4K, often offering higher refresh rates.
*Refresh Rates:*
- Beyond 120Hz, especially 240Hz, the benefits of higher refresh rates diminish.
- For most gamers, 144Hz is sufficient, especially on an OLED display.
*Conclusion:*
- When choosing between higher refresh rates and higher resolution, prioritize higher resolution if you can maintain at least 120 FPS on OLED or 144Hz on LCD. The return on higher resolution is greater than on higher refresh rates.
*Additional Info:*
- Mention of a high-quality HDMI 2.1 cable that supports up to 48 Gbps, which can handle 8K 60Hz or 4K 144Hz, indicating the importance of using good cables for high-performance displays.
I’ve always been able to tell the difference. I think it’s crazy when people say you won’t notice any difference especially at smaller sizes. My 48” lg oled has much better clarity than a 27” 1440p monitor. I’ve tried many monitors because I like the idea of higher frame rates and higher refresh rates but I just can’t get over how blurry 1440p looks compared to 4k at any size. I am excited to see what the 240hz oled 4k monitors end up bringing. Hopefully they will be able to have the brightness of larger panels.
blurry in movement or static content?
You better be comparing a 1440p OLED screen to your 4k OLED when making claims that it’s blurry.
@@brunogm In over all picture quality no matter if static or moving. 1440p just looks like a picture out of focus compared to the 4k image of the same picture.
@@CK-hp2tv I better be? LOL. Real tough guy here. I did compare the aw3423dwf to a LG C1 oled and the 1440p looked like trash next to it. You don’t get the same picture quality with 1440p as you do with 4k. If I had never used a 4k oled then maybe I wouldn’t care but I will never be able to go backwards in resolution.
that doesn't make sense, the 48" 4k has lower ppi than 27" 2560x1440. I had a 42" lg c2 that was 4k and it was more blurry than my 27" 1440p.