Who here has 4 k resolution

I keep hearing about it. Is it 4x better than 1080 or does everything look stretched out or tiny because of it. Is 4 k a monitor thing or a graphics card thing? Now that some are talking about it is 8 k around the corner or jump to 16 k?

It's not necessarily 4x better... Prolly best to look at it as squared (better to the power of 2). That 4k one is basically like taking 4 1080s and sticking 2 side-by-side up top and 2 below them. Hope that helps :)

I have a Macbook Pro which has a 2560x1600 display. That's not quite 4K, but it definitely makes a noticeable improvement over traditional displays. I'm not sure whether going from 2.5K to 4K is noticeable, but I simply wouldn't buy a laptop or monitor with a "conventional" resolution nowadays.

It needs software support and that's the main reason it's been a long time coming. The key thing is that you should be using those extra pixels to add extra detail, not to make everything smaller (higher resolution has traditionally meant more desktop "space"). Modern versions of Windows and OS X will do upscaling for older applications but newer apps should look much nicer.

I like to be able to see my pixels.. I just don't trust the little critters.

Hasn't it been pretty much proved that you won't notice the difference between higher resolutions once it goes beyond 720p unless your monitor or TV is big enough? What is the point in buying a small ultra high res monitor or TV? It's waste of money.

hardcore_gamer said:

Hasn't it been pretty much proved that you won't notice the difference between higher resolutions once it goes beyond 720p unless your monitor or TV is big enough? What is the point in buying a small ultra high res monitor or TV? It's waste of money.

You are conflating TVs and monitors. TVs are viewed at a considerable distance and unless the screen is extremely large you won't notice much of difference with 4K. You can find tons of these calculators online where you can input for seating distance, screen size, resolution, etc.

You obviously sit a lot closer to a monitor than you do to a TV. The point of a giant resolution for a monitor is to get the pixels small enough that you can't make them out (unless you actually have a physically gigantic monitor). This entire concept was pushed to mainstream when Apple first made the iPhone "retina" screens, but it's a lot harder to pull off in a PC ecosystem than a tightly-controlled mobile system.

Theoretically once the resolution (really the pixel density) becomes high enough there won't be a point in using anti-aliasing, which is really a way to emulate a higher resolution.

And then people complain about their 4GHZ QUAD core being unable to handle a sofware renderer which ran on a pentium 1. tsk tsk.

In all seriousness, arent those screens demanding a lot of Processing power from the GPU to fill them up.This sounds a bit like a step back in terms of being aware of your machines power consumption and price card.

My gaming "screen" is a 4k LG S-IPS 56" flatscreen. 4096 x 2160.

Don't bother wasting your time.... my prior monitor was 2560x1600 30" HP S-IPS, and I notice little to no difference in pixel or aliasing, and it murders your framerates on anything less than dual-ultra high end GPU's.

Stick with 1600p, or less.

I find it doesn't make a perceptible difference to me when watching video or playing games. Anything with significant detail and/or motion stops me from noticing pixels for the most part even at reasonably low resolutions.

Where it does make a significant difference is when reading / writing text, or code, etc. I generally hate reading from a monitor (eye strain, amongst other things), but I find that I can read much more comfortably on a retina display, and for much longer, nearly as well as with an actual book printed on paper.

dio said:

I keep hearing about it. Is it 4x better than 1080 or does everything look stretched out or tiny because of it.

It's better. I set font size to 150% which seems to make everything nice.

Is 4 k a monitor thing or a graphics card thing?

Both. It's also a cable thing.

Now that some are talking about it is 8 k around the corner or jump to 16 k?

Maybe 8k in 10 years, 16k in 20 years.

I'd like to get a 4K display, but I'd also like a 120hz/144hz display, and I'd also like an IPS display. But to get all those things at once now is pretty much impossible.

Triple monitor.

Screw that this is 2015 just play on the tv

My friend got a 4K TV. I haven't seen any 4K content on it, but I'm too blind to see the difference from a distance of more than about a foot away anyway.

Here's what my screen setup looks like. I keep the primary monitor (the one with DW on it) above my keyboard on a laptop stand, so it's five hand-spans or less from my face. 4K will do nothing for me.

I haven't seen 4k but I find it pointless for gaming considering it's tough to get consistent 60/120Hz in many games even on 1080p. Personally I'm not looking at 4k for my next upgrade.

An HD LCD sized 1600x900, though idk what (x)k Res do i have . If it has something to do with graphics cards then i've got an "ATI Saphire HD7750 DDR5 1GB"
EDIT : Oh there's a sticker on my screen's back saying 4K , whatever it means .

Earlier this year my old 24" Dell died so I had to replace it. The choice was between 4k 16:9 displays and the ultra-wide 21:9 displays. I went with the latter and opted for a 34" 3440x1440 display. It's amazing. I love this aspect ratio, especially for movies, games and game development. It can get a little awkward for web browsing, but the screen is so big that you can have that *and* something else going on. Visual Studio can also get a little awkward as you often need more vertical space than horizontal, but you can easily fit two or three code windows next to eachother and have everything be perfectly readable and visible.

Support for this resolution and aspect ratio is still a little sketchy here and there, but there are workarounds.

I'd personally go for an ultra-wide screen over 4k any day of the week.