4K Resolution, why should you care about it?

I've grown a little tired of reading posts with statements like "you can't resolve 4K anyway, so grab the FHD laptop", "battery cost of 4K outweigh the benefit in resolution and picture quality", and "scaling is terrible on 4K". Statements like these are perfectly reasonable for moving images AT THIS TIME because screen technology as it stands for laptops tops at either: 4K 60Hz refresh rate, or FHD 144Hz refresh rate. Gaming with faster response times certainly improves the experience more than slightly more resolved polygons.

THAT BEING SAID, people have taken this fact too far claiming "144Hz 1080p screen with 100% Adobe RGB is superior to 4K 60Hz for most nonprofessional applications". I'm sorry but this is simply not true. The benefit of a 4K panel has somehow been misconstrued: the benefit is more on-screen pixel real estate. Notice I said nothing about your eye resolving anything. Anytime you look at your home screen, this forum, or a jpeg; you are looking a 1 still image which can be manipulated graphically. Having 2,073,000 pixels (1080p) at your disposal to manipulate is certainly very nice, but having 8,294,400 pixels (4K) is still four times "nicer".

Gaming: for a game like civilization 5, most objects on screen are not moving at any given time (for the sake of argument scrolling across the map doesn't count). Small landscapes can be made more realistic and gorgeous with 4k, and in my opinion appreciated and additive to the overall playing experience.

Menuing: 4k allows a word document, web page, and two games be equally as resolved on screen as one FHD screen. This is not gimmicky. Anybody who multitasks, or needs to examine two separate applications on screen simultaneously absolutely benefit from this.

If you read this whole rant you have my appreciation. I value what graphical real-estate can bring, and I'm sure there are other values you can also conjure up if you tried.

 

If i was buying today i'd go for 1440p, but if you like 4k there is nothing wrong with that - everyone has preferences. The extra real estate and pixel density are probably quite nice to have, but personally i'd prefer a higher refresh rate. In a few years though when GPU power has increased and we get 120/144hz 4K displays I might be tempted to switch. I wouldn't buy another 1080p panel unless I had a GPU which was incapable of running higher resolutions, or if my display was under 15 inches.

On the topic of real estate though, one thing that I miss is having a 16:10 display rather than 16:9. Sure you end up with more bulk, but the extra vertical space is very nice to have. Its a shame they are hard to come by in laptops nowadays unless you go for one of Apple's latest bowel movements.

 

Load of crap.
144hz is significantly better than 60hz. The difference between 4k and 1440p is not that big in picture quality either. Since all my media is running at least at 105hz I can clearly see the difference and I'm not only talking about Gaming, even doing simple tasks. Scrolling on a webpage 60hz monitor gives me cancer because it's so insanely choppy, there is absolutely no real argument for 4k.

Also your argument with upscaling is absolutely stupid. Upscaling on any media, such as pictures and video look horrific.

Not only does 4k gimp my games to low FPS when trying to play at native resolution, cause problems with multiple programs that don't scale well with resolution and running extremely slow but it's also stupidly expensive for no reason.

Nobody should purchase a 4K screen. If you like good picture quality then 1440p is the way to go.

 

Computers are used for other things than gaming.
4K is fantastic for sharper text. I'm a developer and stare at text 8h/day and I just cannot stand low dpi monitors anymore.
All my 4K monitors, a 27", a 24" and a laptop 17" are 4K and configured for 1080p HiDpi as I do not want to see more text with smaller fonts that would be eye tiring (for me), but I want to see sharper text.
Speaking of which, macOS font rendering is just plain **** with low dpi monitors since at least a few years when they introduced the "Retina" buzzword. Windows has been historically better at it, but this is getting worse.
Also, you often hear: "4K is useless without a 32" or higher monitor". Well, If you want to run your desktop at 4K, sure. But not at all if you just want 1080p or 1440p @ HiDpi. Pixel density is awesome and the smaller the monitor is, the higher pixel density is.

 

Then you absolutely failed in your quest for sharper text. Scaled text is washed up and extremely blurry. You would have sharper text on a 1440p native monitor than upscaled on 4k monitor.

I figured that you have slow 4k monitors.
In comparison I have access to all kinds of monitors all ranging from 1080p 60hz to 4k 60hz, hence I can tell you that 1440p 120/144hz is the absolute sweetspot. I am so used to the fluidity that when I tried to work on an upscaled 4k screen (much like you do now), did not only the blurryness bother me but everytime I would scroll, the lag would annoy the hell out of me.

Instead of telling people who had a comparison between 4k and 1440p to stop bashing on 4k monitors, try 1440p 120+hz yourself. Then you'll know why people trashtalk the 4k monitors. Once you got used to the fluidity that the high refreshrates give you and the sharpness on native 1440p resolution, then you'll understand why nobody should ever purchase a 4k monitor unless you go 40"+.

 

Yeah I have dual 27" monitors. 1440p 165Hz IPS and 4k 60 IPS. I do strongly prefer the 4k monitor for watching videos... But that's pretty much it. Anything that doesn't need color accuracy (which isn't related to resolution directly but many of the most color accurate monitors do tend to be 4k these days) I'd pretty much always take the higher refresh rate.

1080p is a bit low for my spoiled eyes now, but 1440p from a normal sitting distance on a 27" monitor is quite a good experience. Hopefully we'll get some real 4k 144 monitors eventually once Nvidia makes some better gpus that can actually run anything at that refresh.

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you but both my Dell P2415Q and Acer Predator XB271HK have super sharp text rendering at 1080p @ HiDPI (200% scaling). The Dell is even better due to the higher dpi. Enjoy your lower dpi screens.

 

I personally would prefer WQHD up to 14", and 4K on 15.6" and larger. FHD is not sharp enough, and more importantly does not provide enough workspace even at my current 12.5" - let alone larger displays. As for gaming at higher refresh rates - in Overwatch, Kephrii r***d the s**t out of everybody with his widow @ 60Hz, that's reason enough for me personally not to bother with higher refresh rates. But then again, for me productivity outweighs gaming considerably, and I had laser eye surgery to restore eyesight to almost perfect.

 

Right, so at the native 4K resolution, you can't see anything unless your father was a hawk. So you'd have to revert to DPI Scaling which only brings blurriness and misaligned buttons/text in apps that are not fully compliant with DPI Scaling. So if you need to DPI Scale, then why the heck buy a 4K screen in the first place??! Freakin' get a 1080P that you can see at the crisp native resolution and be done with it!

Oh and to the OP, if you like 4K and enjoy it, then no one is stopping you. Let the people with brains buy what they want.

I'd take a buttery smooth 120hz screen any day of the week then this 4K Marketing fluff screen.

Oh wow! more pixels d00d, but you can't see nothin' at the native resolution which is the ONLY way to look at an LCD screen otherwise the image is not as crisp and blurry in apps that don't support system wide DPI Scaling!

 

@Ultra Male I can do 213 PPI @ 100% scaling easily (maybe even more - don't have a Windows device with higher PPI around to check), while FHD means less than 200 PPI on any reasonably sized laptop. And if you change display orientation - FHD just sucks, it's simply unusable for productivity tasks, WQHD/QXGA being the minimum usable resoltuions.

p.s. I am not referring to crappy blurry pentile displays of course.

 

I strongly suggest visiting an eye doctor.

Or at least compaaring native 1440p with your upscaled garbage.

 

I hope we see 144hz 1440p screens in laptops in 2019. Not a fan of 4k, even on my desktop. 1440p is the sweet spot for gaming imo.

 

There is no upscaling: 1080p HiDPI @ 4K means that the UI (that includes text) is rendered at 4K at a size that looks like 1080p. It does not mean rendering the UI at 1080p and upscaling it to 4K which would look like crap.

 

I agree. The minimum screen size for 4K is 32", IMO, I have a Dell in that size and it works very nice.
I've had 27" 4K and did not look as nice as a QHD 27"(2560x1440).

I think QHD would look good in large laptop screens like 18.3".

4K looks better at all distances, the extra pixels contribute to the picture even if you cannot see the individual picture. The viewing distance got nothing to do with it.

Now with 5K out, and 8K, I wish I could get a 40" 8K monitor. 5K might be OK on a 32", is def too tiny on a 27" and its sweet spot might be a 34".

 

P.S. I don't upscale anything, it's a waste. If I wanted my 4K to look like QHD, I would have gotten a QHD.

 

My eyes are maxed out using FHD native res on a 14” panel. I would like 1440p for 17”

Using native 4K no scaling on 15” and lower is nuts, I’m not even convinced at 17” it would be enjoyable.

Even then, 4K is irrelevant for gaming laptops because we don’t have the horsepower yet to drive them FHD is great for gaming because we have adequate power, so we can focus on other IMPORTANT elements like color gamut, refresh rate, brightness, viewing angles, response times.

My personal order of importance from greatest to least:
Color gamut, response time, refresh rate, brightness, viewing angle, resolutions above FHD.

 

I can’t argue with the fluidity of the movements at different refresh rates; that’s a gamers vs creators argument.

It depends on the applications you spend most of your time on. This in all honesty is a very first world problem. I’ll just be grateful for my msi p65 8RF FHD display and call it a day.

I will add this though: the gamer wants a high refresh rate, but the developer that produced that same game wants the 4K. It’s when job necessity dictates your choices is where you really lie on this argument: a competitive gamer NEEDS the 144 to remain competitive, the graphics designer NEEDS the 4K to produce top of the line graphic artwork that markets and sells. Both of these people exist in their own world and lacks the expertise in the other, hence the strong opinions.

 

BFGD is trying to offer the best of both worlds, but then it’s a matter of execution (hasn’t been BFGD’s strong suit so far) and GPU grunt catching up.

 

I saw a 4K laptop yesterday for the first time, what a sharp screen. My 18.3" 1080/HD looked really bad in comparison. Of course it was tiny, but oh-so-sharp. I am not sure if the user had it scaled to something. Probably not at the native 100%.

4K laptops show just that much more detail on the screen, the price you pay for that is everything is so tiny. But you can fit an incredible amount of stuff on the screen, that I like it. I didn't think 4K could work so well on a 17" but it does.

 

If someone made a 4K 17 or 18" laptop with 4K and a mechanical keyboard -- I would buy it.

The only mechanical keyboard laptops are made by MSI and those specific models are 1080 only.

 

This is complete BS. Windows text scaling is awful. Any text at any scaling other than 100% looks really blurry to me.

 

There is no reason to scale the text via Windows, ever. If you want QHD, just get a QHD monitor.

 

I don't care about having a 4k monitor on a laptop. I mean it's only a 17.3 inch screen why do I need 4k? I hardly ever use my laptop monitor as it is really a desktop replacement. Playing on my 17.3 inch 1080p screen is fine when I have no choice. Also why do I need 144hz? I only need 60hz for a smooth experience. I'm not gaming competitively however and enjoy single player games. My external screen is a 50 inch ips sony tv 4k monitor however. I use it as a pc monitor wall mounted, best tech decision I made last year and it was only $400. PC monitors are overrated, and honestly think gsync and freesync is one big scam. A properly optimized game will run smoothly as long as you got the hardware at 60fps with vsync on. I know many games that run smoothly at 60fps without gsync or freesync.

 

I don't game competitively either, but I can sure as heck tell a difference between 60 and 120 fps. Even 75 feels notably smoother than 60.

 

Damn, where can I get those money-saving blinders?

 

Shoutout to science studio for adding to the conversation.

 

Looking at a screen is an inherently subjective experience

Just like food, whether the population thinks something is yum or yuck has no effect on the objective experience of the individual only how peer pressure affects their choice to try and/or buy.

The advice has to be to just try it and see how you like it. Hard to do these days with online purchases for everything, but for a subjective experience that's the only way.

I tried 4K, love the desktop real estate, always hated the jaggies, had to spend a bit extra to afford the hardware to game on it, there were more tradeoffs back on my older P870 with the SLI 980Ms than there are with the 1080s now but I tend towards the types of games that have good visuals, not so much potato mode counterstrike (I went through my CS phase back when it was still on the original half life engine)

I'm still going to probably swap in a 1440p 120hz panel sometime soon since I have a 4K external that I can use for productivity. If I don't like it I can swap the 4K back. How's that for real upgradeability *cough*alienware*cough*

 

Everyone’s using the term I coined. Thumbs up for pixel/graphical real-estate! (Might be a tad too generic to claim I uniquely coined it) but I haven’t heard anyone use it before me!

 

The Sony ips tv was rated highly for pc monitor use actually. I thought the same as you until I did the research. Using this 4K monitor has been amazing will never go back to a pc monitor. It’s not a cheap monitor it was just on sale when I got it for 399.

Ya I thought this too. My Sony 4K display is about 3 feet away. If I’m using the full screen I have to sit a bit more away but...I like to sit close and just use windowed mode. Usually 1080p or 2k windowed mode is the perfect size and my gtx1070 handles that well. Newer tv displays are so thin and light these days and if you choose a good Sony ips with low input lag it’s quite amazing. But you have to do your research I forgot the web site but they rate and review 4K TVs for monitor use.

 

Well I’m happy for you. Not everyone can tolerate laggy unsmooth 60Hz, ghosting, tearing, and VSync input lag, and end up spending a nice chunk of change to fix those problems.

 

Well this was always going to be a nice friendly thread.

My personal vote is 1080p but that has to be in the context of windows and a liking for affordable 17 inch laptop touch screens. I have enough trouble pressing the right button at 1080p. Hate to try for even smaller buttons. Also simple budget considerations make it a choice between a so-so 4k and a really decent 1080p.

The day somebody sells a budget 24 inch laptop I might change my mind (and yes, I have at least visualise balancing a 24 inch touch screen on my lap. Kind of heavy I suspect). Suppose a version of windows that scales a 4K screen perfectly plus a goodly supply of movies or games that demand 4k might do it. Still photography certainly makes 4k tempting. But right now I suspect that most laptop users can find better uses for the extra cash.

 

Im unaware that there was a 4k aversion. options options are all the better not worse, if you dont want it then thats fine. My 2 cents is that games that dont have good AA look better on 4k then 1080. ESO for instance, and I would do 4k anyday if I didnt play games like warframe or SOW. Video and picture editing works better on 4k, and 4k panels have far far better Contrast ratio hitting as high as 1500:1. What I would like is a 4k panel that can do 240hz or at least 144hz on 1080p, and something like 120hz on 1440p. I dont care if native looks worse some, and if anything, manufacturers should be over that.

Why are there no 1440p 15inch panels? Why arent there 240hz panels? Who knows.

 

In theory, Razer Blade 15 and HP Omen 15 will be available with 240 Hz screens.

 

Well yes, but do they have this amazing contrast levels because they are 4k......... or because you are comparing a top priced product with the sort of budget screens most of us have to suffer? The logic is only there if you can assert that 4k is the only way to get such contrast, or as an unlikely possibility, an economical way.

Been a year or so but I did check out the comparative options for a mid to high end laptop and the contrasts for the 4k offerings were poor at that price range.

Don't say that one day you won't be right. Development is bound to eventually shift fully to 4k but already?