Anyone go back from 4k?

[repoman0]

I'm thinking about going somewhat backward from a nice Dell UP3216Q (32", 4k, 60Hz) to give high refresh rate a try since I've been playing more online FPS with friends. I'm looking at the LG 32GK850G -- 32"/1440p/144Hz with Gsync and I'd also add a smaller/cheap 27" IPS panel specifically for photo editing and color accuracy.

Has anyone tried both or gone back and forth? I'm a little worried about 1440p feeling cramped after getting used to the extra real estate at 4k. I'm wondering if the higher refresh rate and nice contrast ratio of the LG panel would make it worth the tradeoff. I could potentially swing keeping both but would prefer to keep this more of a near zero cost swap. Interested in any thoughts -- thanks!

 

[Tweak155]

Yep. Went from 40" 4K to 32" 4K (better) to 27" 1440p 144hz freesync to 27" 1440p 165hz GSync... stuck with the last one

 

[repoman0]

Yep. Went from 40" 4K to 32" 4K (better) to 27" 1440p 144hz freesync to 27" 1440p 165hz GSync... stuck with the last one

Just what I was looking for! Do you miss the resolution for productivity / normal use? What games do you play and what else do you use your PC for? And which 32/4k display did you have? I'm using my display right now at 1440p and as expected, everything feels huge and a bit cramped, though to be honest I could probably get used to it.

I just spent a few minutes killing some bots in Overwatch and messing around with graphics settings and I can absolutely see why a nice high refresh rate with adaptive sync would be really nice. There's no way to make it both feel right and eliminate tearing without turning vsync on, and no matter what nothing is particularly smooth.

 

[Tweak155]

Just what I was looking for! Do you miss the resolution for productivity / normal use? What games do you play and what else do you use your PC for? And which 32/4k display did you have? I'm using my display right now at 1440p and as expected, everything feels huge and a bit cramped, though to be honest I could probably get used to it.

I just spent a few minutes killing some bots in Overwatch and messing around with graphics settings and I can absolutely see why a nice high refresh rate with adaptive sync would be really nice. There's no way to make it both feel right and eliminate tearing without turning vsync on, and no matter what nothing is particularly smooth.

I mainly play Rocket League so the high refresh is a big boost... as far as lost productivity, I mainly use my desktop as a gaming machine and I use my laptop for productivity.

I had a 32" LG 32UD59B I think it was... a VA panel. I will never go back to VA after having used this IPS.

I think the best gaming experience and solid productivity are ultrawide monitors but I had the Alienware U3418DW which hits 120hz and it just didn't pop like my previous IPS display so I took it back. The 100hz panels look better but too slow for me. So I'm waiting for a better ultrawide to release.

 

[rchunter]

I have both but I don't game all that much anyway. Most of the games I do play i'm fine running at 60hz. Mostly racing games, skyrim, farm sim 17.
I have Acer Predator XB321HK & Asus Rog Swift PG279Q.
I love the big 32" screen for photoshop and adobe premiere editing. Forza horizon 3 looks incredible at 4k 60hz.

 

[repoman0]

I had a 32" LG 32UD59B I think it was... a VA panel. I will never go back to VA after having used this IPS.

Hmm, I'd be moving from IPS to VA. What was so bad about it -- color shift? Crushed blacks? I haven't used a VA panel in quite a while.

I'm starting to think I want to stick with my 3216Q for now since this is a multi-purpose machine and I really don't like 1440p stretched to 32" (and don't like displays smaller than 30-32" ). There's also not a whole lot of room on my desk for a secondary photo editing monitor. There are too many tradeoffs in the monitor space these days -- I would pay a lot of money for a 32" IPS/OLED 4k/144Hz panel with good color accuracy.

I have both but I don't game all that much anyway. Most of the games I do play i'm fine running at 60hz. Mostly racing games, skyrim, farm sim 17.
I have Acer Predator XB321HK & Asus Rog Swift PG279Q.
I love the big 32" screen for photoshop and adobe premiere editing. Forza horizon 3 looks incredible at 4k 60hz.

Interesting to hear this -- most of the posts you read on the internet comparing a standard 60Hz monitor to high/variable refresh panels you'd think the standard panel is fit for only the least skilled peasant scrubs.

 

[mnewsham]

Interesting to hear this -- most of the posts you read on the internet comparing a standard 60Hz monitor to high/variable refresh panels you'd think the standard panel is fit for only the least skilled peasant scrubs.

You mean the people who spent $$ on a brand new high refresh rate monitor have a vested interest in justifying that purchase? Shocking.

120 or 144hz IS better for gaming, but 60hz isn't suddenly bad.

 

[Tweak155]

Hmm, I'd be moving from IPS to VA. What was so bad about it -- color shift? Crushed blacks? I haven't used a VA panel in quite a while.

I don't know how to describe it other than it looks worse. I remember when I went from IPS to VA I didn't like it as much, but I lived with it and got used to it.

But then I went back to IPS and was blown away again. I just know there is a reason it costs more at this point

 

[Headfoot]

I'm thinking about going somewhat backward from a nice Dell UP3216Q (32", 4k, 60Hz) to give high refresh rate a try since I've been playing more online FPS with friends. I'm looking at the LG 32GK850G -- 32"/1440p/144Hz with Gsync and I'd also add a smaller/cheap 27" IPS panel specifically for photo editing and color accuracy.

Has anyone tried both or gone back and forth? I'm a little worried about 1440p feeling cramped after getting used to the extra real estate at 4k. I'm wondering if the higher refresh rate and nice contrast ratio of the LG panel would make it worth the tradeoff. I could potentially swing keeping both but would prefer to keep this more of a near zero cost swap. Interested in any thoughts -- thanks!

Yes. High refresh rate is way, way nicer than 4k for a FPS player. I played on my 4k TV for a while and smooth 100+ fps in shooters is infinitely better than 60 fps at any resolution. I went 1440p/144hz + Gsync but on TN. I'd even take 1080p 144hz if I had to for FPS over 4k.

Honestly 4k is just really hard to push, you have to turn down settings and you lose image quality by losing settings, or you are running sub-60 fps some of the time which feels like garbage to anyone used to a smooth frametime locked 60. And one you go high refresh rate you'll never be able to go back to 60 hz for FPS at least.

 

[Headfoot]

Hmm, I'd be moving from IPS to VA. What was so bad about it -- color shift? Crushed blacks? I haven't used a VA panel in quite a while.

I'm starting to think I want to stick with my 3216Q for now since this is a multi-purpose machine and I really don't like 1440p stretched to 32" (and don't like displays smaller than 30-32" ). There's also not a whole lot of room on my desk for a secondary photo editing monitor. There are too many tradeoffs in the monitor space these days -- I would pay a lot of money for a 32" IPS/OLED 4k/144Hz panel with good color accuracy.



Interesting to hear this -- most of the posts you read on the internet comparing a standard 60Hz monitor to high/variable refresh panels you'd think the standard panel is fit for only the least skilled peasant scrubs.

Good VA panels look great, better than similarly priced high end IPS IMO. The problem with VA is the switching time of the panel itself - VA is just slower so it has more ghosting and higher overall latency from keypress to final image. Also cheap VAs don't look much better than IPS or worse, and have terrible ghosting. Cheap VAs also have black crush too.

For photoediting, I'd probably still look at IPS closely. For photoediting though I think you need to be really careful about the exact monitor, and not just the panel type. There is a ton of variability between monitors even using the same exact panel model, much less panel types altogether. It's easy for IPS to have decent color levels excluding washed out blacks and IPS glow, that's where you pay if you haven't gotten a good specific monitor model.

 

[mnewsham]

Honestly 4k is just really hard to push

For gaming sure, for everything else though? Resolution is king in productivity.

 

[Headfoot]

For gaming sure, for everything else though? Resolution is king in productivity.

Easier and better to add monitors. I have 2 1080ps with my 1440p. And so I dont have to compromise on real estate or refresh rate. You can also choose different panel types that way, like I've got IPS for my side monitors.

Outside of photo editing or video editing where you need 1 single large space, multi monitor is king for productivity.

 

[mnewsham]

Easier and better to add monitors. I have 2 1080ps with my 1440p. And so I dont have to compromise on real estate or refresh rate. You can also choose different panel types that way, like I've got IPS for my side monitors.

Outside of photo editing or video editing where you need 1 single large space, multi monitor is king for productivity.

Not that difficult to add another monitor when you've got 4k either.

I'm using a 25" 1440p and a 42.5" 4k, both are similar pixel density, the 1440p is about 10 inches closer off to the side on it's own gas-spring arm and can be moved wherever I need, portrait or landscape. 42.5" is wall mounted and is able to be angled depending on where I am seated.


If you do any sort of editing, 4k is going to be useful to you. Hell, programming on 4k is great too, tons of screen real estate for your IDE, and any potential resources you might want to have open on the same screen. A few years back there was a rush of programmers buying up the 4k 30hz monitors because for text editing you have no need for 60hz+ refresh rate. And they were dirt cheap compared to other large resolution displays at the time.

 

[Headfoot]

Id take programming on multiple monitors over a single monitor with a bunch of little windows on it any day of the week. Same with any other document based task. You can buy a bunch of 1080p units for the same cash as a decent 4k unit. I'd rather have a monitor that is really good at gaming for my gaming, and a bunch of extra monitors for my other productivity needs. Which is exactly what I've done and it works great, better than buying a 4k unit that is good at all of those things for lots of $$$. As soon as you are not gaming on a monitor you can downgrade the requirements pretty far, then economy of scale does the rest.

 

[mnewsham]

with a bunch of little windows on it

Then you don't understand what a 42.5" 4k monitor looks like.

You can fit 4 full resolution ~21" 1080p windows on the screen at the same time.

How are 21" 1080p windows "a bunch of small little windows"?


Also, while we're at it, 21-24" 1080p IPS panel at 60hz will run you $100-200 depending on the quality, and more expensive for niche editing monitors.

Lets call it $120. four times $120 is about $480. I paid around $570. So for roughly $100 more I got the same resolution, on a single panel that can display 4k video, UHD bluray, youtube, netflix, etc. AND I can plug in 4x1080p sources and it can display them all independently if I don't feel like using a 4k source.


All without bezels.


four 1080p panels would be a joke comparison to this 4k.

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah except your 4k monitor runs like crap for gaming and only has a mediocre panel for that price. Good 4k panels are only in specialist monitors and high end TVs. I've got 1440p 144hz for gaming at the same time as having 2x solid midrange IPS for a total of $650~. A little more, but I never am using a monitor outside of its optimal use case. And I watch TV and media on my 4k UHD HDR unit. Each one optimized for its purpose.

 

[mnewsham]

like crap for gaming

Which has exactly zero relevance for my use case, and why I didn't even bring it up once.

i'm running both of these monitors on a single GTX 960. I can barely get 60 fps on my 1440p monitor, let alone the 4k. Gaming simply isn't a concern.

 

[Headfoot]

I dont care about your use case. I care about the discussion at large, and the large discussion is bigger than just how you use monitors buddy

 

[Headfoot]

Not to mention the OP is gaming. This thread is not about you.

 

[mnewsham]

Not to mention the OP is gaming. This thread is not about you.

My replies are about me, my replies are not replies to the world, they're about my use case, and my experiences. I can't speak about something I've never experienced.


I've used 29"? (somewhere around 30" anyway) 144hz 1080p ultra wide and I was not impressed, I could have gotten an ultrawide 1440p at 100hz, but that doesn't have any interest for me.

As I said earlier, for productivity for the most part resolution is still king, and will remain king.

 

[repoman0]

Interesting debate, thanks. Either way it looks like my decision was made for me for the time being -- the monitor I was looking at was sold and there's no way I'm paying the full $800 for a new one in addition to a few hundred extra for a decent secondary IPS panel.

I agree with the points raised here that 4k is overrated and unnecessary for gaming, but I still love it for everything else and in the end would rather stick with my one monitor. I'm pretty happy using the "fast sync" option for gaming in the meantime and the pixel density is so high that just running 1440p looks perfectly acceptable. Also the only game I'm playing right now is Overwatch and it runs great at 4k with high settings on my 1070.

I'm going to force myself to hold out for a no compromises display. Who knows how long that will be ...

 

[FeuerFrei]

...
I'm going to force myself to hold out for a no compromises display. Who knows how long that will be ...

4 weeks from now. I can feel it.

 

[Highmodulus]

isn't "two months from now" always what we have been saying for the last 2 years. . . .

 

[Chaotic42]

Yes, I did for gaming. I prefer the high refresh rate for gaming. I'll probably be buying the first proper 4K@120Hz display on launch. I'm tempted to get an 8K Dell, but I think my video card would melt.

 

[Elfear]

Depends on the game genre. I have both a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor and a 40" 4k. For slower paced games like RPGs, 4k can look gorgeous, noticeably better than 1440p. Modded Skyrim with high-res textures is a sight to behold. More immersive to me on the 4k monitor. I've found that the game needs to have higher resolution textures and 4k in mind to get the full effect.

Faster FPS games however are smoother and more immersive on the 144hz monitor, especially combined with ULMB. The Borderlands franchise was much funner with a high refresh monitor for example.