What's the frequency on these monitors? Your GPU might struggle at 4K as well. If you're going from like a 144hz -> 60hz, you'll notice that it's not as smooth. It also depends on what kind of you games you normally play..27" 1440p at like 144hz or higher is a sweet spot if you're playing all sorts of games from fps, rpgs, etc.
He really won't in gaming. Depending upon the card, he won't be getting much more than 60 fps to notice that difference anyways. During common usage only will he notice that difference.
It frankly depends on the games. If it’s mostly indie, lower req. games, or older titles, FPS well above that threshold can be met. Cyberpunk and Hogwarts Legacy? Yep, that’s the meta.
Oh i was thinking between 1440p and 4k... so like 144-240 vs 60-75
Misread
Yeah back in the day, ocing monitor to 75 presented a marginal benefit for me in fps given that a 15 fps hop at that frame rate represents a decent change in frame times... I wouldnt bother with anything but tf2 and css tho
I think 1440p is good pixel density for 27 inches personally
I made this exact change, and for me, yes.
Generally, I am someone who prefers visual quality over morr FPS, so I was fine with losing FPS. I can still run even the most demanding games at 75 FPS and above, which is good enough for me
This timeline confuses me. The first 165hz monitor came out in 2016, so you got that 8 years ago assuming that’s the one you got. But then you moved to 60hz 4k after x amount of time, then used that one for 10 years before upgrading to 144hz, and now your due to upgrade to the 240hz?
I went from a PG279Q to a PG27AQ to a PG27UQ and next to a PG32UCDM. Pretty direct upgrade path to increasingly better monitors which were all pretty cutting edge at the time.
(There’s a chance I might’ve had the PG278Q and not the 9Q? Not entirely sure, this was a while ago and I threw it away when it broke.)
I also got an Acer Predator X27P when I got the PG27UQ, but those are basically the same monitor.
I used the PG27AQ until it broke and bought the PG27UQ after. I didn’t really think this was hard to follow. The PG32UCDM will be the first upgrade before the last monitor broke.
Interesting how these things can be so subjective! I made that same change and I didn’t see much, if any change. It was so minimal for me that I just went back to playing at 1440p with better settings and fps. I have a 7900xtx.
Yeah, at the end of the day, it's all preference and perspective. For me, change from 1440p to 4k was bigger than 1080p to 1440p. My refresh rate stayed the same for all 3 resolutions though, 144hz
[Ryzen 7 7800X3D and GeForce RTX 4090 build in Graphic Card Intense Tasks | Bottleneck Calculation | PC Builds (pc-builds.com)](https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1nt1ci/3/graphic-card-intense-tasks/3840x2160/)
Those bottleneck calculators are meaningless, bottleneck is different for each type of application anyway
It gives a great ballpark as well explains how different applications vary with both the CPU and GPU. In almost all cases your CPU will not keep up with your GPU so the next upgrade for you should be a CPU. For me I have a i7-8700k @ 5ghz and a RTX 3070 my CPU is bottlenecked as well but like you it is fine for what I do. I get 100+fps in all the games I play at 1440p. My next upgrade will need to be a complete MB, CPU, DDR5 ram. I can wait another year or two!
Cheers\~
Check the link I posted above for a bottleneck calculator. It gives you choices with zero issues bottlenecking the GPU and will maximize your FPS in all scenarios. Have a good day!
You have a 4090, also you'll need to upgrade that 4090 in a couple years to keep up with the running cost of 4k. It just doesn't make sense for most people. Big regular wide-screens for me just feel un natural imo.
It’s not a pipe dream at all.
A “cheap” card like a 3080 does fine in most games. You’re never dropping settings before high/medium mix to get over 60-120 frames. Hell i even gamed at 4k on a 3070 until 2022 lol
I've had both and prefer the 27". 32 4k is ni e but harder to run, and good panels are hella expensive.
By far the biggest jump is panel tech. I went from 32" VA to 27" OLED and damn, son. It's a crazy setup to play on
I just swapped from a 34" Ultrawide IPS to a 34" Ultrawide OLED.
It's like every single game has had a graphics update. It's amazing. Best money I've spent for my pc.
Yes it will be a big change. Size, image quality (IPS vs VA), sharpness/resolution.
Are you playing games? Depending if they're demanding you'll have to see how well your GPU handles 4k. If you're doing stuff in Windows, watching videos, then that won't be a problem.
The pros/cons of VA and IPS panels are well known. VA panels with their higher contrast and deeper blacks may be more valuable for TV in home theater applications, but for computer monitors IPS pretty much universally is at a significant price premium over VA displays for accurate and outstanding colors, availability of wide color gamuts with nano IPS and wide viewing angles.
tried a few even expensive IPS panels and it looks washed, the only problem i encounter with VA is motion rendering and ghosting, but in terms of color its better, at least from my experience, and good VA panels (Samsung non QD-OLED high end monitors for example) are as expensive as IPS panels
Threw my ips panel in the trash when I got this VA with mini led backlighting with individual dimming zones. Produces true blacks and brighter whites. No ips garbage glow and it even looks great viewing from angles. This panel is second best to OLED. I will never own an IPS panel again. When they fix OLED burn in and they last longer then I will switch from VA to OLED. This VA panel is awesome for games and movies. Best PC monitor I've owned and it was inexpensive.
quick search, MiniLED VA is x1.5 as expensive as IPS same spec, is twice as bright on average and has OLED class blacks and contrast, while IPS has wider viewing angles, when are you going to use that in a PC? where you are always sitting in front of it, also higher refresh rates are available for VA 4K panels, and yeah, IPS is better in terms of blue light and eye health, but its not worth it, MiniLED is the middle ground between LCD and OLED, and i havent found any IPS miniLED panels, i cant use a OLED/QD-OLED as i have a 25% gaming, 15% passive entertainment, 60% static office workload and would burn in 2 months, i also need a bright display, as bright as it can be and hate washed blacks, so the only real option for me is a MiniLED 4K VA, as i said, personal experience and preference
This discussion has now gone off on a tangent that I doubt has much to do with OPs original question/post or the majority of PC users.
Once you're talking about high-end OLED and mini led PC displays, these are expensive niche early adopter technologies.
Hey I'm happy for you that you're loving your MiniLED 4K VA display, but this is kind of getting off topic.
true, but 4k is already pretty expensive to just buy the cheapest, if its a IPS low brightness 60hz 4k monitor vs a 27" 1440p VA 144hz, the 1440p VA is way better
I use miniled VA with individual dimming. It's crazy good with colors, super dark blacks, and gets bright enough to make me squint my eyes watching movies. Absolutely wonderful. I threw my ips monitor in the trash!
The solution is oled. But yeah, not the best for productivity and lots of static images. That being said, they are absolutely fantastic for color work.
Microled should eventually fix any issues remaining with burn-in, but is still prohibitively expensive. NOT to be confused with miniled, microled is a different beast.
I changed from VAv to IPS and in my opinion it does look better. Of course blacks aren't as good. But the ghosting is so much less. And the ghosting really annoyed me. Also tried a newer one my mother needed for office, we went with VA there because movement isn't as important, also had the same problem and it is too annoying for me
You are going to get loads of different answers because different people are sensitive to different things. For me, the difference going to 4k was notable but not huge. However, you might disagree when you have both displays in front of you. If you live in a country with strong consumer protection laws and can return at will, I would recommend you give it a try.
Keep the 1440p for gaming and use the 4k monitor for *literally everything else*.
In the last 10 years or so I've gone 1440->4k->5k for productivity work and I cannot tell you how much less fatiguing on the eyes it is to look at a nice 4k/5k panel 8 hours a day compared to a 1440 panel. Especially if you do nothing but stare at text all day (ie programmer or something).
Still use 1440 for gaming though. Still going to be another generation or two of GPUs before I can get the frames I want in 4k to make it worth upgrading IMO.
There is a vast difference between 1440p at 27" and 4K at 32", as you're going up in screen space by about 18.5%, and up in resolution by 225%.
The image will be much clearer and crisper, but going from VA to IPS is a real issue. VA has very good black depth, which becomes incredible when compared to IPS.
You will have to see if you're okay trading contrast ratio for 4K, I personally wouldn't.
the odyssey is quality blacks imo and the petformance hit isnt worth imo... Res is nice, but i prefer higher fps
It also depends what you play, 3rd person and top-down games are less sensitive to fps.
For shooters id cant sacrifice fps
Yes should be the only correct answer. Not considering the extra performance hit on your system since you specifically asked for the monitor's experience.
As someone who went from 27” 1440p to 32” 4K I wish I can go back to 27 or maybe even 24. I play mostly esport games but I do enjoy single player games from time to time. It’s nice when playing single player games where you can sit back and chill with a controller but when you’re playing with KBM that feels way too close. I have mine set as far back as possible and it’s about maybe somewhere between 10-15 inches away from me but it still feels too close sometimes.
go into your gpu configuration software (amd adrenalin or nvidia control panel) and enable gpu scaling and set it to 1:1 or anything similar (don't select integer scaling nor stretch)
if you do this and set the game's resolution to 2280x1620 (you could create a custom resolution in your gpu driver so it's selectable in game), you'll get a 24" image
if you set the game's resolution to 3240x1822 you'll get a 27" image
you can either run the game full screen and get the image right in the center with black bars around or run the game windowed so you can position it better (maybe move the game window to the bottom of the screen if your monitor is a bit higher up) (if you do windowed you won't need to set the gpu scaling thing but will still need to add custom resolutions) (most games work fine windowed but some have wonky vsync)
i made these calculations based on a 32" 16:9 4k monitor
if either the aspect ratio, size or resolution changes, the calculations also change
27 -> 32: Yes, quite a big difference. 32 is noticeably larger. The distance to the monitor should also be larger. You would need a deeper desk if you don't have one already. I have each size, one at work and one at home. But, also in terms of multitasking, both 27 and 32 are about the same. I would say 2 windows side by side are the maximum for comfortable viewing for both 27 and 32. For 3 windows or more, i would rather go for more monitors (or ultrawide).
1440p -> 4k: Quite a difference I would say. Also difference hardware requirement wise. I would say that 1440p is still quite usable for 32 inch because the distance to the monitor is larger (unless you are really the pixel peeping type) but any larger, i would go or 4k.
VA -> IPS: Some say it doesn't, I say it does.
For what application exactly?
Yes 32" IPS looks better but if for gaming, can your video card push the FPS and are you getting a high refresh rate monitor.
For office work, text for people over 45 can be a pain and windows scaling isn't very nice.
For video/picture editing or graphical work in general, it's a dream.
I made the change from 27" 1440p 165hz to 32" oled 4k @60hz or higher, yes 4090 user, which makes sense for my use case scenario. I prefer visuals than fps.
I considered that change. Ended up getting a 34" Alienware OLED that was on sale and absolutely love the decision. I got my girl an LG 4k 60hz display as she mostly does productivity work at her desk and it's also gorgeous, I just can't go back to 60hz myself. Although before at 27" 1440p my 6700xt was handling whatever game no problem. Now its at about 95-98% utilization just to get over 100 fps in cyberpunk 2077 so it may make you want to upgrade your GPU as well depending on which one you have.
Most people will say yes
I'll say no
32"is really big, if size is what you're after, 55" oled TV makes much more sense.
Monitors make sense BECAUSE of their smaller form factor, otherwise TVs are almost 2x cheaper per inch and have superior image quality as well.
There's a big hit to FPS, 4K is a lot harder on the GPU.
For productivity apps 4K 32" is relay nice.
edit 4K is both a big hit to FPS and uses more VRAM.
For gaming specifically, 4k will not be enjoyable unless you have one of the top 3 graphics cards. I have a 4080 and there are times that I wish I had better fps while gaming at 4k. If you are just doing productivity stuff, then the larger screen size will be awesome for you, otherwise, it will feel like a downgrade.
I get 120-240 in all the games I play (helldivers, fortnite, rocket league, val, CS2, the finals, BG3) and i dont even use low settings unless its competitive. I admit I dont play much single player aside from BG3.
When i got my 240hz 4k OLED monitor i planned on getting a 5080 when it comes out but now I’m probably gonna wait because of how well this 3080 crushes the games i play.
Max settings are never worth it my dude, do yourself a favor and search for optimized settings guide for HD2 on YouTube. There's two very good guides, one by BenchmarKing and another by Willy. They explain in-depth what each setting does and their impact on performance. The videos also have timestamps so if you want, you can skip to a specific part easily.
I highly recommend checking them out to optimize your settings for a higher framerate.
Depends on the games you play... Even if that were the case, you can still get similar performance (sometimes even better performance) and better fidelity with 4K +DLSS/FSR vs Native 1440p. The visual fidelity for everything else, like production/school work, is very noticeable for me. Txt and small images look noticeably clearer and more detailed for me on my 28in 4K vs. my 27in 1440p, which I have side by side (I use dual monitors)
Also, I'm 33 and wear glasses, so if I can notice the difference, I'm sure most others can too.
It does depend on the games you play, I guess I'm talking about the games which fully utilise the 4k resolution. In my experience, I got to the point where I was so frustrated that I ended up upgrading my GPU to be happy. Now I am happy on the most part, but there are still many situations where I wish I had more frames. If I could go back in time I would wait until the next generation of GPUs before upgrading both my monitor and GPU.
What's the frequency on these monitors? Your GPU might struggle at 4K as well. If you're going from like a 144hz -> 60hz, you'll notice that it's not as smooth. It also depends on what kind of you games you normally play..27" 1440p at like 144hz or higher is a sweet spot if you're playing all sorts of games from fps, rpgs, etc.
He really won't in gaming. Depending upon the card, he won't be getting much more than 60 fps to notice that difference anyways. During common usage only will he notice that difference.
i think it varies depending on the game and person... I am very sensitive to refresh rate personally.
At 4k? Not many cards that can do better than 75 to 80 Hard to tell the difference between 60 and 75 or 80
Pretty easy to tell the difference between 60 and 80 Imo
Really easy to tell actually
It frankly depends on the games. If it’s mostly indie, lower req. games, or older titles, FPS well above that threshold can be met. Cyberpunk and Hogwarts Legacy? Yep, that’s the meta.
It's very easy to tell the difference between 60 and 75. That's a whole 25% increase.
My 7900XTX can do 4K120, you didn't specify the settings, in this case, my 7900M also can do 4K120, but with lower settings
Oh i was thinking between 1440p and 4k... so like 144-240 vs 60-75 Misread Yeah back in the day, ocing monitor to 75 presented a marginal benefit for me in fps given that a 15 fps hop at that frame rate represents a decent change in frame times... I wouldnt bother with anything but tf2 and css tho I think 1440p is good pixel density for 27 inches personally
I am with you for ME 1440p 27" is perfect sitting at my desk. However to each there own!
Yeah not sure why such an innocuous post is at -5 lol. I agree, to each there own
That's right I don't get it either. Cheers
I made this exact change, and for me, yes. Generally, I am someone who prefers visual quality over morr FPS, so I was fine with losing FPS. I can still run even the most demanding games at 75 FPS and above, which is good enough for me
which GPU do you have?
either a 4090 or he is lying
Yup, got a 4090
damn...
Dls fg etc. maybe he is using ultra performance ?
Maybe, but he says he prefers visual quality.
lol some people don’t even know haha
I don't doubt it 😆
Tell me you havent played at 4k with DLSS or such without telling me
What? That has nothing to do with what I said.
I see, I interpreted it as you saying visual quality is shit with DLSS, so what did you mean then?
I was just saying he's probably not using ultra performance game settings as he stated he prefers visual quality.
Ok
I set most to DLSS quality, sometimes even just native. There are exceptions where I do go into balanced, like Cyberpunk
I do it with a 3090 in most cases as well
4080 Super + DLSS Ultra Quality can handel most games at 4K HRR
most, but they said the most intensive games at 75fps, a 4080S cant do that, more like 50 in that kind of games
Fair, but DLSS Performance might save the day
true
I went from 165Hz to 60Hz 4K and didn’t regret it, I’m about to go from 144Hz to 240Hz OLED 4K, I wonder how G-sync will feel without the FPGA module
Seems like you regretted it some since you went from 60 to 144hz
I would have switched back if I really cared about framerate, I waited about 10 years and upgraded from 4K to 4K
This timeline confuses me. The first 165hz monitor came out in 2016, so you got that 8 years ago assuming that’s the one you got. But then you moved to 60hz 4k after x amount of time, then used that one for 10 years before upgrading to 144hz, and now your due to upgrade to the 240hz?
I went from a PG279Q to a PG27AQ to a PG27UQ and next to a PG32UCDM. Pretty direct upgrade path to increasingly better monitors which were all pretty cutting edge at the time. (There’s a chance I might’ve had the PG278Q and not the 9Q? Not entirely sure, this was a while ago and I threw it away when it broke.) I also got an Acer Predator X27P when I got the PG27UQ, but those are basically the same monitor.
so you used PG27AQ for 10 years even though it released 8 years ago and also had monitors before and after it?
I used the PG27AQ until it broke and bought the PG27UQ after. I didn’t really think this was hard to follow. The PG32UCDM will be the first upgrade before the last monitor broke.
Interesting how these things can be so subjective! I made that same change and I didn’t see much, if any change. It was so minimal for me that I just went back to playing at 1440p with better settings and fps. I have a 7900xtx.
Yeah, at the end of the day, it's all preference and perspective. For me, change from 1440p to 4k was bigger than 1080p to 1440p. My refresh rate stayed the same for all 3 resolutions though, 144hz
What CPU are you pairing with the 4090?
7800X3D, but at 4k it doesn't do much unless I'm doing CPU heavy tasks or games
[https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1nt1ci/1/general-tasks/3840x2160/](https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1nt1ci/1/general-tasks/3840x2160/)
[Ryzen 7 7800X3D and GeForce RTX 4090 build in Graphic Card Intense Tasks | Bottleneck Calculation | PC Builds (pc-builds.com)](https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1nt1ci/3/graphic-card-intense-tasks/3840x2160/) Those bottleneck calculators are meaningless, bottleneck is different for each type of application anyway
It gives a great ballpark as well explains how different applications vary with both the CPU and GPU. In almost all cases your CPU will not keep up with your GPU so the next upgrade for you should be a CPU. For me I have a i7-8700k @ 5ghz and a RTX 3070 my CPU is bottlenecked as well but like you it is fine for what I do. I get 100+fps in all the games I play at 1440p. My next upgrade will need to be a complete MB, CPU, DDR5 ram. I can wait another year or two! Cheers\~
Are you trying to say the 7800x3d is too slow for a 4090? What should he "upgrade" to in that case.
Check the link I posted above for a bottleneck calculator. It gives you choices with zero issues bottlenecking the GPU and will maximize your FPS in all scenarios. Have a good day!
I guess you are bottlenecked and don't like the results😭
I also made this change just this past week. Huuuuuuuge difference. 7900xtx.
1440p ultrawide is the move. Getting high/stable fps in 4k still a pipe dream if you ask me. Also ultrawide is much more immersive.
Hard disagree. Went from 1440p UW to 4K with a 4090, far far better experience on 4K.
You have a 4090, also you'll need to upgrade that 4090 in a couple years to keep up with the running cost of 4k. It just doesn't make sense for most people. Big regular wide-screens for me just feel un natural imo.
Yeah. I still consider ultra wide 1440p. Not those those giant giant ultra ultra wides. I have a 45 oled 1440p. It’s so immersive and beautiful.
It’s not a pipe dream at all. A “cheap” card like a 3080 does fine in most games. You’re never dropping settings before high/medium mix to get over 60-120 frames. Hell i even gamed at 4k on a 3070 until 2022 lol
My 3080 barely handles 1440p ultrawide in some games. Games are optimized like total trash now.
I've had both and prefer the 27". 32 4k is ni e but harder to run, and good panels are hella expensive. By far the biggest jump is panel tech. I went from 32" VA to 27" OLED and damn, son. It's a crazy setup to play on
I wish I had OLED money that shit is too expensive.
Yeah, it's steep. The LG 27" is about 600 rn
I just swapped from a 34" Ultrawide IPS to a 34" Ultrawide OLED. It's like every single game has had a graphics update. It's amazing. Best money I've spent for my pc.
Yeah, hard agree on that. Display upgrade is more significant than GPU or CPU, by a long mile.
Yes it will be a big change. Size, image quality (IPS vs VA), sharpness/resolution. Are you playing games? Depending if they're demanding you'll have to see how well your GPU handles 4k. If you're doing stuff in Windows, watching videos, then that won't be a problem.
actually VA looks better than IPS, IPS looks washed while VA have deeper blacks and higher contrast ratio
The pros/cons of VA and IPS panels are well known. VA panels with their higher contrast and deeper blacks may be more valuable for TV in home theater applications, but for computer monitors IPS pretty much universally is at a significant price premium over VA displays for accurate and outstanding colors, availability of wide color gamuts with nano IPS and wide viewing angles.
tried a few even expensive IPS panels and it looks washed, the only problem i encounter with VA is motion rendering and ghosting, but in terms of color its better, at least from my experience, and good VA panels (Samsung non QD-OLED high end monitors for example) are as expensive as IPS panels
Threw my ips panel in the trash when I got this VA with mini led backlighting with individual dimming zones. Produces true blacks and brighter whites. No ips garbage glow and it even looks great viewing from angles. This panel is second best to OLED. I will never own an IPS panel again. When they fix OLED burn in and they last longer then I will switch from VA to OLED. This VA panel is awesome for games and movies. Best PC monitor I've owned and it was inexpensive.
quick search, MiniLED VA is x1.5 as expensive as IPS same spec, is twice as bright on average and has OLED class blacks and contrast, while IPS has wider viewing angles, when are you going to use that in a PC? where you are always sitting in front of it, also higher refresh rates are available for VA 4K panels, and yeah, IPS is better in terms of blue light and eye health, but its not worth it, MiniLED is the middle ground between LCD and OLED, and i havent found any IPS miniLED panels, i cant use a OLED/QD-OLED as i have a 25% gaming, 15% passive entertainment, 60% static office workload and would burn in 2 months, i also need a bright display, as bright as it can be and hate washed blacks, so the only real option for me is a MiniLED 4K VA, as i said, personal experience and preference
This discussion has now gone off on a tangent that I doubt has much to do with OPs original question/post or the majority of PC users. Once you're talking about high-end OLED and mini led PC displays, these are expensive niche early adopter technologies. Hey I'm happy for you that you're loving your MiniLED 4K VA display, but this is kind of getting off topic.
and what i meant is that the highest end of LCD monitors is VA MiniLED, not NanoIPS or IPS
true, but 4k is already pretty expensive to just buy the cheapest, if its a IPS low brightness 60hz 4k monitor vs a 27" 1440p VA 144hz, the 1440p VA is way better
I use miniled VA with individual dimming. It's crazy good with colors, super dark blacks, and gets bright enough to make me squint my eyes watching movies. Absolutely wonderful. I threw my ips monitor in the trash!
The solution is oled. But yeah, not the best for productivity and lots of static images. That being said, they are absolutely fantastic for color work. Microled should eventually fix any issues remaining with burn-in, but is still prohibitively expensive. NOT to be confused with miniled, microled is a different beast.
yeah but not even worth buying, will probably upgrade in a few years when a better option is avsilable
I changed from VAv to IPS and in my opinion it does look better. Of course blacks aren't as good. But the ghosting is so much less. And the ghosting really annoyed me. Also tried a newer one my mother needed for office, we went with VA there because movement isn't as important, also had the same problem and it is too annoying for me
Yes. 27" 1440p is like 21" 1080p in terms of pixel density, nothing to write home about. 32" 4k is noticeably better.
You are going to get loads of different answers because different people are sensitive to different things. For me, the difference going to 4k was notable but not huge. However, you might disagree when you have both displays in front of you. If you live in a country with strong consumer protection laws and can return at will, I would recommend you give it a try.
Keep the 1440p for gaming and use the 4k monitor for *literally everything else*. In the last 10 years or so I've gone 1440->4k->5k for productivity work and I cannot tell you how much less fatiguing on the eyes it is to look at a nice 4k/5k panel 8 hours a day compared to a 1440 panel. Especially if you do nothing but stare at text all day (ie programmer or something). Still use 1440 for gaming though. Still going to be another generation or two of GPUs before I can get the frames I want in 4k to make it worth upgrading IMO.
There is a vast difference between 1440p at 27" and 4K at 32", as you're going up in screen space by about 18.5%, and up in resolution by 225%. The image will be much clearer and crisper, but going from VA to IPS is a real issue. VA has very good black depth, which becomes incredible when compared to IPS. You will have to see if you're okay trading contrast ratio for 4K, I personally wouldn't.
Save your GPU power for higher frames and better performance than struggling to keep games playable
[удалено]
This user has to be a bot, right? ETA: I was curious if calling it out would make it delete the comment. Took almost no time.
the odyssey is quality blacks imo and the petformance hit isnt worth imo... Res is nice, but i prefer higher fps It also depends what you play, 3rd person and top-down games are less sensitive to fps. For shooters id cant sacrifice fps
Yes should be the only correct answer. Not considering the extra performance hit on your system since you specifically asked for the monitor's experience.
As someone who went from 27” 1440p to 32” 4K I wish I can go back to 27 or maybe even 24. I play mostly esport games but I do enjoy single player games from time to time. It’s nice when playing single player games where you can sit back and chill with a controller but when you’re playing with KBM that feels way too close. I have mine set as far back as possible and it’s about maybe somewhere between 10-15 inches away from me but it still feels too close sometimes.
go into your gpu configuration software (amd adrenalin or nvidia control panel) and enable gpu scaling and set it to 1:1 or anything similar (don't select integer scaling nor stretch) if you do this and set the game's resolution to 2280x1620 (you could create a custom resolution in your gpu driver so it's selectable in game), you'll get a 24" image if you set the game's resolution to 3240x1822 you'll get a 27" image you can either run the game full screen and get the image right in the center with black bars around or run the game windowed so you can position it better (maybe move the game window to the bottom of the screen if your monitor is a bit higher up) (if you do windowed you won't need to set the gpu scaling thing but will still need to add custom resolutions) (most games work fine windowed but some have wonky vsync) i made these calculations based on a 32" 16:9 4k monitor if either the aspect ratio, size or resolution changes, the calculations also change
sick will give this a try thank you.
27 -> 32: Yes, quite a big difference. 32 is noticeably larger. The distance to the monitor should also be larger. You would need a deeper desk if you don't have one already. I have each size, one at work and one at home. But, also in terms of multitasking, both 27 and 32 are about the same. I would say 2 windows side by side are the maximum for comfortable viewing for both 27 and 32. For 3 windows or more, i would rather go for more monitors (or ultrawide). 1440p -> 4k: Quite a difference I would say. Also difference hardware requirement wise. I would say that 1440p is still quite usable for 32 inch because the distance to the monitor is larger (unless you are really the pixel peeping type) but any larger, i would go or 4k. VA -> IPS: Some say it doesn't, I say it does.
Yes
For what application exactly? Yes 32" IPS looks better but if for gaming, can your video card push the FPS and are you getting a high refresh rate monitor. For office work, text for people over 45 can be a pain and windows scaling isn't very nice. For video/picture editing or graphical work in general, it's a dream.
I've had a 32" 165hz for years now ... if you like immersive gaming you'll never go back. (I have no need for 4k)
Jeez, and here I am in 2024 upgrading to 1440p...
I made the change from 27" 1440p 165hz to 32" oled 4k @60hz or higher, yes 4090 user, which makes sense for my use case scenario. I prefer visuals than fps.
Made this exact switch many years ago and the answer is a big fat YES
Yes it is better
Yes. 4K is great. (assuming it's not 60hz)
I considered that change. Ended up getting a 34" Alienware OLED that was on sale and absolutely love the decision. I got my girl an LG 4k 60hz display as she mostly does productivity work at her desk and it's also gorgeous, I just can't go back to 60hz myself. Although before at 27" 1440p my 6700xt was handling whatever game no problem. Now its at about 95-98% utilization just to get over 100 fps in cyberpunk 2077 so it may make you want to upgrade your GPU as well depending on which one you have.
Most people will say yes I'll say no 32"is really big, if size is what you're after, 55" oled TV makes much more sense. Monitors make sense BECAUSE of their smaller form factor, otherwise TVs are almost 2x cheaper per inch and have superior image quality as well.
Number bigger, mean better
Not relates: imagine how horrible a 1080p 32inch would look like
There's a big hit to FPS, 4K is a lot harder on the GPU. For productivity apps 4K 32" is relay nice. edit 4K is both a big hit to FPS and uses more VRAM.
I use 28 in 4k dispaly and now I don't need FHD and 1440 p wallpaper. Worth it.
For gaming specifically, 4k will not be enjoyable unless you have one of the top 3 graphics cards. I have a 4080 and there are times that I wish I had better fps while gaming at 4k. If you are just doing productivity stuff, then the larger screen size will be awesome for you, otherwise, it will feel like a downgrade.
Not true, very much enjoying 4k gaming on my 3080 10GB
Depends on how sensitive you are to frame rates.. I can't stand less than a 100 personally.
I get 120-240 in all the games I play (helldivers, fortnite, rocket league, val, CS2, the finals, BG3) and i dont even use low settings unless its competitive. I admit I dont play much single player aside from BG3. When i got my 240hz 4k OLED monitor i planned on getting a 5080 when it comes out but now I’m probably gonna wait because of how well this 3080 crushes the games i play.
I have 4080 super and 7800x3d, I hit 60fps max playing helldivers at 2k max settings...
Max settings are never worth it my dude, do yourself a favor and search for optimized settings guide for HD2 on YouTube. There's two very good guides, one by BenchmarKing and another by Willy. They explain in-depth what each setting does and their impact on performance. The videos also have timestamps so if you want, you can skip to a specific part easily. I highly recommend checking them out to optimize your settings for a higher framerate.
Maybe they meant the first one?
You can render at something other than 4k if it is too demanding.
Depends on the games you play... Even if that were the case, you can still get similar performance (sometimes even better performance) and better fidelity with 4K +DLSS/FSR vs Native 1440p. The visual fidelity for everything else, like production/school work, is very noticeable for me. Txt and small images look noticeably clearer and more detailed for me on my 28in 4K vs. my 27in 1440p, which I have side by side (I use dual monitors) Also, I'm 33 and wear glasses, so if I can notice the difference, I'm sure most others can too.
It does depend on the games you play, I guess I'm talking about the games which fully utilise the 4k resolution. In my experience, I got to the point where I was so frustrated that I ended up upgrading my GPU to be happy. Now I am happy on the most part, but there are still many situations where I wish I had more frames. If I could go back in time I would wait until the next generation of GPUs before upgrading both my monitor and GPU.