Overclockers Australia Forums

OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Specific Hardware Topics > Video Cards & Monitors

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 7th September 2017, 5:18 PM   #1
aussie-revhead Thread Starter
Member
 
aussie-revhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St Clair 2759
Posts: 18,793
Default 1080p vs 1440p vs 4k

Guys, I have been looking for an upgrade from my qnix and I was surprised to see some large screens still using 1080p (such as z35) then there is 1440 Ultra wide and 4k options. If 4k is so good (owners seem to rave about 4k) then wouldn't a z35 look super crap? If it doesn't then why not? Wouldn't the pixels be like 5c coins compares to the high density options?

Does anyone have a z35 to offer their opinion? Is 200hz worth it for the reduction in detail? Or it the difference exaggerated (sounds bigger in theory than it actually looks)?

Any help would be great.

__________________
Bench 1- Asus Rampage 5 Extreme - Intel 5960x - 32gb of 3200c16 DDR4- 1x Galax GTX1080 Ti HOF - Samsung 960 Evo + Intel 600P m.2 512GB - Enermax Revo1250 - water cooled tech bench - QNIX 2560x1440 screen @ 100Hz - Aten 120Hz KVM
Netbox - Dell 990 SFF - 2500 - 16GB ram - gtx750Ti - 240GB SSD - 2TB green
Current vehicles- Black 2007 ZX14 - VE V8 Calais (wifes car) - VN SS (for sale)
aussie-revhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2017, 5:25 PM   #2
shmity
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 888
Default

Im not sure how people can deal with 35" 1080P displays...

I think the sweet spot is either 27" 1440P or 32-35 4k. Im rolling with a 1440P 144hz and I'm very happy with that. I couldnt' do something the size of a 35" but at 4K the pixel density would be pretty good.
shmity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2017, 5:41 PM   #3
Sphinx2000
Member
 
Sphinx2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,951
Default

These are super-wide 21:9 monitors with very little vertical height.
Would still prefer 1440p@100 over 1080p@200 - anything non-gaming/video would be painful in the lack of vertical screen real-estate.

Last edited by Sphinx2000; 7th September 2017 at 5:48 PM.
Sphinx2000 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2017, 8:35 PM   #4
cbwolf
Member
 
cbwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead View Post
Guys, I have been looking for an upgrade from my qnix and I was surprised to see some large screens still using 1080p (such as z35) then there is 1440 Ultra wide and 4k options. If 4k is so good (owners seem to rave about 4k) then wouldn't a z35 look super crap? If it doesn't then why not? Wouldn't the pixels be like 5c coins compares to the high density options?

Does anyone have a z35 to offer their opinion? Is 200hz worth it for the reduction in detail? Or it the difference exaggerated (sounds bigger in theory than it actually looks)?

Any help would be great.

It all comes down to the PPI mate.

35" @ 2560x1080 = 79 PPI - That's just god awful honestly, and would look like utter trash.

A 27" at 1920x1080 looks pretty pixelated and not very nice, and that has 81.6 PPI, so the Z35 would be even worse.

The general consensus (which i agree with based on my experiences) is that around 110 PPI is the 'ideal' pixel density. At a normal viewing distance 60 - 80cm, things look nice and crisp and clear, but thing aren't so small that you need to use scaling.

That would be:

20" @ 1920x1080
27" @ 2560x1440
34" @ 3440x1440
40" @ 3840x2160

It's also a pretty bad time to buy a new monitor. There is a heap of new monitor tech right on the horizon, with announced models (implementing things like 4k @ 144Hz, quantum dot, gsync, OLED etc) coming out in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018.

If you can hang in there for another 5 months - you'll have your pick
__________________
i7 7700k @ 5.2 | Asus ROG Z270E Strix | MSI GTX1080 Ti Seahawk @ 2076/12000 | 32GB Trident Z 3200Mhz DDR4 | 256GB + 1TB Samsung 960 m.2 SSD | Philips 43" 4k IPS Monitor
Over $6,000 in forum trades and counting!
cbwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 12:05 PM   #5
Roscosity
Member
 
Roscosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 186
Default

Personally I don't see the difference between 1440p and 4k, but that's just me
I love my 1440p gaming monitor, and don't need ultrawide, but LOVE high refresh rates
__________________
Roscosity | ANZ Gigabyte Community Manager
Gigabyte VGA
Roscosity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 12:30 PM   #6
Luke212
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9,070
Default

Exactly why im tryng to find a 37-38" 4K monitor. its a sweet spot. Any bigger is too big as a monitor. Any smaller, and 4K is just too much for no gain.

fuck running a <30" 4K lol. just shooting your fps in the foot for no gains
__________________
Democracy's greatest trick was convincing man he was informed.
Luke212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 12:48 PM   #7
power
Member
 
power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 50,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke212 View Post
Exactly why im tryng to find a 37-38" 4K monitor. its a sweet spot. Any bigger is too big as a monitor. Any smaller, and 4K is just too much for no gain.

fuck running a <30" 4K lol. just shooting your fps in the foot for no gains
as a 40" 4K user I think you're on drugs - 40" is not too big, not for me anyway.
__________________
this is who we are.
power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:24 PM   #8
cvidler
Member
 
cvidler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Canberra
Posts: 10,656
Default

I run 2x 32" 4K monitors side by side, image quality is great, but even with good eye site, I use some scaling on some web pages as they choose a too small font by default. Thankfully firefox remembers the scaling value per site, most sites I leave to 100%, but when I need it a bit bigger 140% seems to be the most common value I go to.

Don't game much, but do a fair bit of graphics work (photoshop and illustrator). having so much real estate is awesome to work with.
__________________
We might eviscerate your arguments, but we won't hurt you. Honest! - Lucifers Mentor
⠠⠵
[#]
cvidler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:31 PM   #9
Luke212
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by power View Post
as a 40" 4K user I think you're on drugs - 40" is not too big, not for me anyway.
are you a 40" or a 43" user? where did you get a 40" monitor? link?
__________________
Democracy's greatest trick was convincing man he was informed.
Luke212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:34 PM   #10
power
Member
 
power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 50,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke212 View Post
are you a 40" or a 43" user? where did you get a 40" monitor? link?
40" Phillips.
__________________
this is who we are.
power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:38 PM   #11
MR CHILLED
D'oh!
 
MR CHILLED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canadia
Posts: 126,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke212 View Post
are you a 40" or a 43" user? where did you get a 40" monitor? link?
40" Philips....quite a few proud owners here: http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh....php?t=1150593
__________________
Malcolm Turnbull on the Libs.."we are not run by factions, nor are we run by big business or by deals in back rooms"
MR CHILLED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:43 PM   #12
hairy
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 430
Default

I'm a 43 inch phillips user and love it.
although it did take a few hours to get used to it, but now I couldn't go back !
__________________
ASUS STRIX, 7820X, 32 gig 3000 ram, gtx 1080ti sli, hb bridge, custom water, 500gig 950pro, 750gb crucial ssd, 43inch phillips and 24 inch aoc monitors. server dual xeon quads, 48gig ram, 5x3tb and 4x1tb, hx850, lianli case, freenas.
hairy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:49 PM   #13
sTeeLzor
Member
 
sTeeLzor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,528
Default

43" isn't a monitor. Its a fucking TV!

1440 is great for both frame rate and clarity. I think the previous guy who listed the sizes and resolutions had it right.
sTeeLzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:52 PM   #14
RyoSaeba
Member
 
RyoSaeba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 11,494
Default

My 43" Phillips is awesome. Love it. So much screen real estate. And only cost just a smidge over $700 too.
RyoSaeba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2017, 1:53 PM   #15
power
Member
 
power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 50,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sTeeLzor View Post
43" isn't a monitor. Its a fucking TV!

1440 is great for both frame rate and clarity. I think the previous guy who listed the sizes and resolutions had it right.
who would have such a small tv?
__________________
this is who we are.
power is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 7:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Micron21!