Is 4K a Waste? - 1440p vs 4K Monitors

Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!

Is 4K a Waste? - 1440p vs 4K Monitors
Many gamers have to make the tough choice between 1440p and 4K, and the right decision isn't always obvious. Typically 1440p monitors have higher refresh rates and lower latency whereas 4K monitors have a much more detailed image.

All amazon links are affiliate links. I earn commission based on your purchases.

Music

[thedisplayguy]

Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!

[gravitationalslipstream]

4K isn't a waste but this video sure is. Watched it, learned nothing. And misleading title.

[mmphst]

I was hoping this would have included a cost comparison for a good 1440p and 4k monitors and the price difference in the video cards to drive them.

[Kizzster]

4K is exceptional I will never go back to anything lower ever.

[Kedislol]

So the conclusion is 4k is great, but because almost no system can consistently deliver 120 fps in 4k you should go for 1440p

[Kapono]

1440P 240hz is still the sweet spot for me. Been absolutely loving my LG 240hz monitor

[budthecyborg]

The term "PPI" "Pixels Per Inch" is actually not what we should be using to determine what resolution is best, what we should be using is "PPD" "Pixels Per Degree".
You have to calculate the user's viewing distance vs. screen resolution and size to find "PPD" but that is why PPD is comprehensively the correct metric.
When it comes to maximum perceivable PPD for the average person that number is "300 PPD" (look up "Visual Hyperacuity").
300PPD still isn't an absolute limit but it is where diminishing returns on improved clarity drops off a cliff, but with the way most people use 4K monitors today (viewing distance of two feet from a 32" 4K monitor) you've got a massive 60 degrees field of view and that results in only a pitiful 64 PPD.

In absolute terms, 4K monitors are still "low visual clarity".
8K resolution on a 32" monitor at a two foot viewing distance still only gets us 128 PPD, just barely into "medium visual clarity".

16K resolution on a 32" monitor at a two foot viewing distance is finally in the realm of "high visual clarity" at 256 PPD.

Do I advocate for the tech industry to standardize on 16K? No.
The signal bandwidth of 16K at 120hz would be 512Gbps and is impossible to transmit with copper cables. The only form of data transmitter capable of that is an industrial optical fiber hub for global internet traffic.
16K is just not achievable until we have a dramatic shift in data transmission tech, or with the GPU integrated directly into the display.

8K 120hz is within the capabilities of current hardware and is the ideal middle ground of both sharpness and fluidity.

[marvean]

An additional benefit of using smaller sized 4k monitor is that you can run gpu integer scaling to 1080p for games where you'd want higher refresh rate instead of higher resolution. Kind of gives you the best of both worlds.

[Sambo]

The main problem with 4k monitors is the increased GPU load. That's kind of a bigger question than visual clarity IMO.

[BravenTyler]

I disagree after experience with this on user experience. 240hz is the clarity in visuals and once you go 240hz it's hard to even go down to 144hz. Though in theory you are correct, most games won't even remotely come close to 144hz at 4k even with the best gpus and cpus still. It's worth noting the overall flexibility of 1440p and being able to really see the important factor of clarity in games, which is frames. 1440p is the way to go, for fps and smooth gaming. I went to a 280hz 1080p panel vs a 144hz 1440p panel and it was night and day difference, now I'm upgraded to 1440p 240hz OLED, and after seeing that, you do not need anything else. It's just beyond everything and then some, without the worry of losing that fluid fast motion in comp games. Always look for flexibility and settle, unless you are just going to main Cyberpunk as your only game ever period, I just don't see a reason to buy 4k until the next gen or 2 even, 1440p is plenty clear, push for those frames and thank me later, you'll see after you switch to higher

[hremiko]

Just don't buy cheap 4K. A good QHD is far better than a cheap 4K. Cheap ones have way less color accuracy which ruins the whole thing.

[rileyhance]

i like 27 inch screens and I dont want to upgrade my gpu every year to keep up. 1440p to me is still plenty sharp for games

[nadtz]

2 27" 1440p monitors is still my sweet spot. When you factor in everything I just find it the best bang for buck for how I work. A good 4k monitor even at 27" looks wonderful and I might upgrade to 27's or 32's in a few years but for now I'm fine with what I have.

[CallardAndBowser]

I have found that playing fps games in 4K helps me to see enemies further in distance because I can see so much more detail.
Especially in Hell Let Loose where you are looking sometimes for individual pixels moving in the distance.
I sit at a computer desk and my face is about 1.5 feet away from the monitor screen.
I use a LG Ultragear 27" 27GN950-B monitor running at 160hz, Nvidia 3090 FE video card.
Also, I find playing Battle Bit Remastered in 4K Ultra Native, ultra settings, no DLSS, no Ray Tracing at 160 fps to be
extremely satisfying and exceptionally smooth.
Playing BF 2042 with the same settings at 80 fps does not feel as smooth but is playable.
I won't buy an OLED monitor until they release a 27" flat screen in 4K 240hz with DP2.1. A 32" is too large for my computer desk.

[oktc]

Yeah get 4K and spend 1.5K on a GPU and get 60 fps no thanks. The current King of gaming monitors is a 1440p according to the majority of reviewers. Also do you even know what 20/20 vision means? Your brain makes up most of what you think you see anyway. Lastly high resolution was popularised by manufacturers so they can sell you a screen that is too big for your viewing room. In Europe we know the difference between size and quality, something Americans have always struggled with.

[phahq]

For the hundredth time:

PPI
DOESN'T
MATTER.
RESOLUTION DOES.

Why are we still talking about it in 2023?

[chosen]

A higher ppi does make an image sharper. But there is a limit. The Nintendo switch oled has a high ppi, but you can still tell you’re looking at 720p by the texture detail. Same with my 15.6” laptop at 1080p. Looks sharp. But you can still tell it’s 1080p

[Haydenh]

A few years ago i went from 260hz 1080p to a 32 inch 144hz 1440p, it felt so much better, ive been keeping my eye out for 4k monitors this year

[estacaotech]

I think 4K is great for casual gamers who play mostly triple A titles and can afford a decent gaming PC or console, even if consoles donesnt run at 4k actually.
1440p is becoming the standard for people building rigs recently which is a good thing because 1440p became more acessible and easier to run, its not very cheap but more accessible than a few years ago. Even here in Brazil which hardware is too expensive 1440p is becoming quite cheap, all I have to do is to keep saving for around 10 years to be able to buy one 😂

[Cowclops]

Thank you for elaborating on why PPI doesn't really matter. Visual quality depends on pixels-per-field of view (which would be an angular measurement but lets just set "field of view" equal to an assumed "1", and then subsequently ignore that detail for math's sake).

A 32" 4K monitor, a 65" 4K TV, and a 130" 4K projector setup have vastly different PPIs, but the same overall quality once you consider that you're going to sit a distance away from the screen that makes sense for its size - if you're 3 feet from a 32", 6 feet from a 65", or 12 feet from a 130", all of these screens have the same resolution per field of view because you've adjusted your seating distance to match. (Don't nitpick the fact that a projector won't be as sharp as a directview display for optical reasons, we're just talking pixel counts here and not real-world-sharpness).

Similarly, the dpi scaling setting in windows has more to do with "What percentage of the screen do you want your start menu, application buttons, fonts, etc to take up?" In my case, I actually like the balance of useful area afforded by a 1440p monitor at 100% dpi scaling, so when using a 4k monitor I pop my DPI scaling up to 150%. That means fonts, the start menu, and everything I can interact with at my windows desktop takes up the same percentage of the screen as it would on a 1440p monitor at 100% scaling. That I use a 48" oled tv as my monitor doesn't change the calculation. And that I intend to switch to one of the new 32" 4k qdoleds as soon as they are available doesn't change anything either. My desk is configured so I sit about 4.5 feet from the 48". If I go down to 32", i will sit 3 feet away, still use 150% dpi scaling, and still use 4k resolution for the same experience.

As far as why I'd downsize: its easier to layout my desk when the display (which is wallmounted currently) doesn't take up most of the width of it, and I want that sweet sweet 240hz. Because I can sit a reasonable 3 feet from a 32" display, mounting it to the desk rather than the wall makes more sense.