Question Is there any major difference going from 1440p to 4K?

[Unreal123]

Is there any major difference going from 1440p to 4K?

Currently i have a 1440p G Sync IPS monitor ,therefore, i need to know that is there difference like going from 1080p to 1440P?

 

[gdansk]

It really depends on the game. Top-down games where the same features slowly pan about are noticeably better with high DPI displays. Civilization, Crusader Kings, Diablo-likes etc. But shooters? You will hardly notice.
But since no one buys monitors based on DPI (except people with Apple money) I'm doomed to never get what I want (5K 27" 120Hz+ QDOLED).

 

[ZGR]

I have a 27” 4k60 panel and a 27” 1440p144 panel and the quality increase on 4k is so worth it. Problem is, I despise 60hz.

I think 27” for 4k is still a bit too pixelated overall. Aliasing is still clearly visible. Several games have severe shimmering at 1440p and below without AA, but at 2160p, it is mostly gone. We need higher pixel density and I would argue 8k for 27” should remove need for anti aliasing.

Some games like Metro Exodus has integrated TAA. Anything lower than 2160p makes the game look really blurry. I really dislike anti aliasing.

Doesn’t matter what game you play, once you go 2160p, you won’t wanna go back.

 

[Hotrod2go]

It really depends on the game. Top-down games where the same features slowly pan about are noticeably better with high DPI displays. Civilization, Crusader Kings, Diablo-likes etc. But shooters? You will hardly notice.
....

^ This is where it's at imo, if the panel is for gaming, highly depends on what type of gaming genre you like.
If it's for passive entertainment like movies, docos, etc, then a 4K panel is very nice indeed. But then the question of how far you view the panel from comes into play so the answer is not really straight forward.

 

[biostud]

I went from a 60hz 27" 1440p to a 240hz 49" 5120x1440 UW screen, and while they have the same ppi, the experience using them are quite different.

 

[Grabo]

I recently went from a 31.5" 1440p (144Hz, curved) that I'd had since 2019 to a 31.5" 4K IPS 144Hz that saw a recent severe discount here. With 150% ui scaling in Fedora everything looks really good at the desktop, no more visible pixels.

In the games I play I must say it's a bit of a wash except that they suddenly run noticably slower. Going to the 31.5" screensize in 2019 seems a bigger improvement.

Well, it is shaping up to be an interesting gpu-autumn.

 

[Stuka87]

I didn't note anywhere about discussing what video card you have. Games will run far worse at 4K than they do at 1440.

Really, I cannot think of any reason to go with 4K, outside of content creation. I have had 1080, 1440, and 4K displays. I no longer have any 4K displays. But sure like my dual 1440s.

 

[biostud]

I didn't note anywhere about discussing what video card you have. Games will run far worse at 4K than they do at 1440.

Really, I cannot think of any reason to go with 4K, outside of content creation. I have had 1080, 1440, and 4K displays. I no longer have any 4K displays. But sure like my dual 1440s.

I've never worked on a 4k screen, but I would think it is most important if you do lots of desktop work, either like lots of real estate or a very crisp image. 1440p @ 27" (or in my case the double on 49") is fine for me and have no interest in 4k, for the same reason as you state.

 

[aigomorla]

I have a 3840 x 1600 as my main gaming display
I have a 4K in portrait as my productivity display.

The only issues i have with a 4K is the font size being so small even on a 32inch.
I can feel my age, because im sure when i was younger this was not an issue.
Also 4K's have pretty horrible scaling. Meaning, you use your 4K @ 4K, and not downscale it.

My next monitor will be the 55" Samsung Arc which is also 4k. I will replace the 32inch i have in portrait, as i am pretty sure TV's do not like to be mounted sideways, hence why i can not throw in a LG C1 on portrait. Also TV's stands do not allow it, and i do not want bolt down a wall mount in my room, incase i decide to move my desk somewhere else.

But there is a lot of real estate difference from 2160p to 1440p.
However you also face a new can of worms called do you even have the GPU to support 4k, unless you intend to do no sort of 3d on that 4k monitor.

 

[Hans Gruber]

It's a night and day difference when you increase the monitor size to at least 40" on 4k. Anything smaller and you would need to increase the font size to 200%. 4K requires a decoder chip that to my knowledge does not exist yet. This means the GPU is cranked up like in the film Titanic when the captain says full power and the pistons start cranking up in the boiler room. 1440p is nothing for current GPU's. Most people run multiple monitors. If you use only one monitor, the Titanic full speed ahead analogy is not needed.

 

[aigomorla]

I have a dedicated GTX 1070 for my 4k incase i do need some 3d on it.
Hence why you hear me singing to the violin to both AMD and Intel about PCI-E Lanes.

My Gaming monitor has its own dedicated 3090, i intend on replacing that to a 4090 and putting the 3090 on mining duty.

The only reason i have a 1070 and not something smaller is because the 1070 is a horrible miner.
1660 Super outclasses it, and does it with less wattage on top.
But im sure even a 1050 could power a single 4k fine, as long as your limiting it to youtube @ 60 frames.

Why not use a single videocard?

Because Facebook errr Meta... decided to make my Occulus Rift S a DP port.
I have 3 monitors total, which means no free DP port would be available on a single card, and i do not want to use HDMI, as none of my monitors support HDMI 2.1 except possibly my Alienware AW38. But id rather just have a second videocard and drive my aux monitors on that, and leave the gaming stuff to the 3090, which includes my Rift S.

 

[ZGR]

Windows scaling still sucks, so you will find issues with 4k scaling in some scenarios.

My favorite is if you are on a 4k panel and set text to 150% and launch Fallout 4… The game becomes severely cropped. I honestly was stumped first time I encountered that. Thought my game was borked.

If you play games that are mostly CPU limited, 4k60 freesync monitors are a great choice for $250. ARMA 3 is a good example.

But I do think once DisplayPort 2.0 is mainstream, 4k144 will be the obvious choice; with various manufacturers competing much more.

 

[n0x1ous]

4k/144hz/27inch since 2018 - love it