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

Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video! Buy the Ruipro HDMI 2.1 Certified Fiber Optic Cable: amzn.to/432NDGS Get access to all my ICC profiles & Discord: patreon.com/TheDisplayGuy

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Thanks for this. A question please: Why does my monitor freeze in 4k but not in 1440? Is it the refresh rate at 60 mhz? Is it the Intel core I 3, Am I being throttled by the service provider or by RU-vid? 27" Innocn mini LCD using DP cable. The image freezes but the sound continues then after a couple of mnutes it unfreezes but it's not long before it freezes again. I've had to give up and just use 1440k. I use a Chromebook. I'm not a gamer and only a media consumer. When it works the 4k image is spectacular.

Does 4k on a 27" monitor work well with a Mac? I heard there were scaling issues with the on screen lettering.

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

The only time I use my 4k monitor is to emulate 240p games with 4k crt filters. In all other cases I actually prefer my 27" 240Hz 1080p because performance will always satisfy me more than pixel count and fidelity, I really don't mind seeing the individual pixels. Most websites look better at lower resolutions and don't need to be zoomed in as much as well.

what do i need to buy in order to plug this in to my lap top?

Hey, which videos do you use for your monitors demo?

It’s UHD vs QHD not 4K and 2k.

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

what people don't understand when they talk about ppi is ppi is relative to the distance you sit away from any given monitor. so in the end, resolution is more important than ppi if you have a lot of desk real estate

would you guys recommend a 2K 240hz Oled Monitor or a 4K 144hz ? I have an Rtx 4080 & I9 13900KF

Gaming I wouldn’t mind 1440p but 4K is really nice when it comes to productivity. Just recently purchased the odyssey OLED g9 and although I technically downgraded from a 4K 60hz benq that wasn’t all that color accurate, I’m definitely loving the ultrawide look and it’s super accurate with colors even after using my colorometer. So no complaints here 🔥

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

2k oled 165 hz vs 4k lcd 144hz ? Which one i should choose?

I've been searching for a good _quality_ monitor with the following stats: 32", UHD [4K], IPS, 144hz^......but I'm still uncertain which way to go. I've looked at LG, ASUS, DELL, and Samsung. Does anyone have any advice? I'm currently running an LG 4K, IPS, but only 60hz. Will the hz upgrade make enough difference?

He is constantly mixing up the terms, what a poor comparison.

Hmmm... in a battle of Benq EX2710Q vs Aorus FI32U, who would you pick for single player and not competitive gaming?

The deffrence between the price of 1440p and 4k is crazy

What monitor were u using when u we’re playing Fortnite in the beginning

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.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:52 🖥️ 4K resolution has 2.25 times more pixels than 1440p, resulting in a significantly more detailed image on paper. 01:49 📐 PPI (pixels per inch) isn't the sole indicator of image quality; the total visual information on screen matters, and 4K offers far more detail. 02:55 👁️ You should be able to see a substantial difference between 1440p and 4K at 27 inches or 32 inches if you have good eyesight. 03:38 💡 For most people, the visual difference between 1440p and 4K at 27 inches or larger is significant and worth choosing a 4K monitor for clarity. 05:13 🎮 If given the choice, prioritize higher resolution over higher refresh rate (120 FPS on OLED, 144 Hertz on LCD) for better image quality, as refresh rate gains diminish beyond 144 Hertz. Made with HARPA AI

Is 4k good for 32 inch monitors then? Or should i stick with 27 inch or does it not matter?

What do you recommend for OLED (gaming and productivity?

I bought a 1440p 32" 165hz IPS for £325 on Amazon, and it works perfectly for me. Yes, I'd prefer 4k but for the specs I need, I'd be looking at spending at least £800, not to mention needing to buy a new graphics card.

I changed from a 1440p to a 4k 144hz both. I can see the difference. Not being huge is quite noticeable. True, they are expensive but if u can afford it go for it, is better. Conpetitive games i still play in 1080 because the integer scaling works good going from full hd in a 4k monitor. All other games i play in 4k at more than 60 fps with VRR works like a charm ;). I play in 28 inches btw.

quick question for the 3070Ti. i have one by gigabyte and was looking at upgrading my monitor soon since i’ve been running the same shitty 1080p, 75hz monitor for years now 💀. but my main question was whether you think it would be better staying with 1080p but higher refresh rate or if i should switch to 1440p. i have been streaming and recording a LOT as of recently otherwise i would give in and go with 1440. i’ve just seen videos where the 3070TI sometimes struggles especially with vram usage.

it is very simple: there is indeed a noticeable difference between 1440p and 4K, so if you game and can afford a system that can handle 4K then get 4K

I tried going from 4k to 1440p and it looks so much worse that I couldn't keep it. If you are coming from 1080p then go 1440 for the FPS, but if you want quality and unable to go back then go 4k. I have a more office focused 4k 60hz monitor now which is 28.5" or 28" and I tried a 27" 1440p monitor and even going with a smaller monitor; it looked terrible.

Depends on what you’re using it for. Gaming or work or both? What kind of gaming? Do you generally have bad eyes and probably won’t notice the difference between 2k and 4k? I went with the new LG 2k 240hz monitor and it’s been great

I'm in the last phase of my upgrade cycle and am looking at replacing my 1080p 170hz monitor. I now have an rtx4080 paired with a ryzen7 7700x cpu. Trying to decide if I should go with 1440p 240hz or 4k 160hz monitor in the 27-23" range. Considering: MSI G274QPX, Asus ROG Strix XG27AQMR, or Gigabyte M27U. I primarily play COD, so the 240 refresh rate is very appealing to me. But I do also enjoy playing AAA single player titles (CP2077, Alan Wake2, etc.) So that's the primary argument for 4k. I probably spend 2/3 of my time playing COD and the remaining time playing single player games. Is 4k worth sacrificing the higher refresh rate? I know there are 4k 240hz displays out now, but out of my price range.

Didnt even mention that the cost for 4k is also 4 times that of 1440p... Not including the cost of the gpu needed to even game smoothly at 4k.

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.

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

Need your help/advice i need monitor for gaming and editing high work with 2k ips

This means if 16 inch laptop screen 240 hz is better cuz we cant tell the difference if its 2k or 4k correct?

Can definitely tell the difference, I got the Coolermaster GP27U and the ASUS PG27AQDM. I’ve had games running side by side and it is definitely noticeable. Even on the desktop looks much sharper on the 4K monitor, and this is at 27inches so not sure where that myth comes from. What I had a harder time differentiating was the refresh rate, even though OLED hz is faster than regular hz on mini Led etc… I couldn’t tell the difference in real world use, the 165hz on the cooler master seemed the same in game and on the desktop to the ASUS 240hz, only time I could tell the difference is when running the UFO test specifically. Still waiting for my endgame, 27inch 240hz glossy 4K Oled monitor.

what about 1440p QD-OLED vs 4K LCD? Was considering the Alienware AW3423DWF

for a 27 inch monitor would it be better to play native on a 1440p monitor with higher refresh and fps or a 4k monitor with upscaling and 60hz and 60fps? i don't think i can afford a 4k with higher refresh nor would i be able to hit those fps probably even if i could get one since i would need a better gpu i presume, what do the experts in here think?

I have a good vision, what I do not have is money to spend on a R$ 25k ($ 5k) pc here in brazil to run 4k smoothly

For gaming, which I don’t do, 1440 is more compelling. Lower GPU load and It is basically a video so the resolution is not as advanced. Plus if you are gaming on a 43” TV, you are likely to be farther away from the display, making the difference less noticeable. However for productivity where you are viewing textbin spreadsheet like I do, 4k is a major advantage. For that I would like to use 4k at 24 inches but that is hard to find.

96-106ppi is good for gaming but not for productive workflow and general use. Perfect resolution will be 5k 27" or 6k 32". That's what Apple is doing and we will see more displays with those specs coming soon. Like viewfinity S9 5k. Because we can scale to 200% to get close to the standard font size in those resolutions and sizes. And also fractional scaling is not good on Linux yet. I'm really waiting for a good 6k 32" and before you say about Dell 6k, I should say that weird design isn't the style I'm looking for.

I use the same monitor for work gaming, and movies (no TV), so for me it's 4K all the way. I like the extra pixel density for text, and I like that 1080p movies scale exactly 2:1 on the 4K.

So misleading that there's so little mention of the HUGE difference in performance.

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 😂

I use a odyssey g9 , 5120x1440p, with pixel density equal to a 27 pol 1440p monitor. Homewer, I use Nvidia DLDSR to upscale to 7680x2160p. And despite the pixel density its already high, I can still see a clear difference bettwen the dual 1440p (5120x1440) and dual 4k (7680x2160), and its not a small difference.

I was about to pick up a new monitor black friday, but with the new QD-OLED 240hz monitors coming out from several vendors early 2024 I have decided to hold off and wait another 3 to 6 months before i get my new monitor. Even if I cant run it fully with a 3090, I will at least be future-proofing myself for a few years.

can you please do a comparison of the top of the line 1440p panel using DLDSR 2.25x to 4k vs a native 4k high refresh panel ?

If you're playing a first-person or third-person shooter the 240 hertz is definitely noticeable and way better then going 4K I have both and only use 4K for the slower story mode games.

I have two 32" 4K monitors as they are perfect when I do my work. I also prefer the higher resolution when gaming (rarely), as it allows me to see much more detail. That said, I don't mind using 1440p in 27" screen, but if you have 32" screen or larger, you really really want to have 4K and perhaps put your screen slightly farther away from you.

i basiclly surf the web/watch yt, based on my usage, do you recommend a 1440p or 4k monitor and will a 2k monitor show more vertical space (in RU-vid/web)?

4k gaming on pc is just too expensive atm. Especially if you do competitive fps games

Yeah I definitely think 4K looks far sharper even at 27 inches. I will say that some displays have a matte coating that really washes out that sharpness, but you'll definitely see how the aliasing in games looks far better at 4K.

I'd say it depends on the type of games you play. I mostly play multiplayer FPS like COD, Battlefield, Gears and the higher fps that can be achieved at 1440p (240Hz) do make these games feel more responsive and easier to track fast targets than 4k 144Hz. You also don't get time in these games to really stop and appreciate the higher resolution. For me until 4k 240Hz becomes a reality for gpu's I will pick 1440p 240Hz as my primary gaming display. However, I can see why others would prefer 4k, I do on other types of games.

I just built a new computer with a 7800X3D and RTX 4090...looking to upgrade my 16 year old monitors now. Seeing how long I keep my components and that I have a powerful GPU, would it be a waste to get 1440p monitors?

Quick question here. As the INNOCN is unavailable in Europe, what would the next best pick be for a 4K HDR gaming display? Am I wrong for leaning towards the Neo G7?

Honestly I have both 4K 27'' and 1440p 27'' didn't notice that much difference in games I was surprised so I think it's not worth it to buy a 4K monitor mainly for gaming unless you really need it for productivity work, but again there is no right or wrong in this if you have the money just make sure to pair it with a powerful GPU like the RX 7900 XTX or RTX 4090.

I am going 1440. I am building a triple monitor sim rig however. With my 4080 if I was going with a single monitor I would probably go 4K.

but how about if you compare 4k vs 1440p oled

PPI is resolution divided by dimension, so how can less PPI density equal higher quality?

Here's a fun fact: during motion, the effective resolution on any monitor will will often drop below 1080p! Motion blur is inherent in all modern displays, but most people don't notice it. This is true for both my 3yr old Sony 4k Bravia OLED TV (it can do 120fps) and my 4k 32" Gigabyte M32U which can do 144fps. I can't read moving text on either of them, but I can on my ASUS 24" LCD monitor that's 10yrs old but has perfect Black Frame Insertion for crystal clear details during motion.

It's not a waste, I can clearly see the difference on my 27 inch monitor between 1440 and 4k

Are the monitors in the video that are side by side comparing 4k vs 1440p? Maybe it's because i'm on a 3440x1440 monitor that I can't tell the difference?

Other than upscaling and frame gen, I can probably scratch 4k 60Hz with my 3060. Who can actually push 4K 144 Hz or 2K 240 Hz???

I went from a full 1080P 60fps 15yr old 15.6" laptop to a 4K 120fps 55" LG C1 OLED + full custom build last year.. absolutely worth it, and good for a long while 💯

On my RTX 4090 I pretty much get the same framerate between 1440p and 4K (maybe just 10% difference in most games I play) so I may as well stick with 4K.

I NEED HELP DOEs it matter if I have a good pc it not? I’m tryna get a 1440p monitor

In a video I've seen that 1080p is better than 1440p (for esports player). Is it true?

For the hundredth time: PPI DOESN'T MATTER. RESOLUTION DOES. Why are we still talking about it in 2023?

I used to game at 4k and went to 240hz 1440P. I couldn't tell the difference, but the refresh rate was another story. This was at 27". 4k makes more sense at 32" and up.

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.

Well...I also chose to go on two monitors for work and gaming, one in 4k that I keep for ps5/videoediting in 4k/and play games supported in 4k(I am undecided between the lg gq950 and the samsung Odissey neo g8). the other thought to play in competitive in 1440p....I would like to try an oled for the 1440p ..... there is also the oled lg 27" that does not look bad . some advice?

*I've been on 1440p 144hz for a year now and I honestly CANNOT wait to be able to afford a 4k display PLUS the hardware to drive it. 1440p looks good but trust 4k is where I'd recommend anyone to go going forward.*

4k is great it's just a shame developers have gotten incredibly lazy. Some of the worse most unoptimized messes have released in recent years. And along with DLSS/FSR FG technologies they dont need to do any sort optimization ship it and force you to use those technologies to get a somewhat playable experience.

Hi, I have a query, can I use a 4k tv as monitor, I don't play games or do many graphics related work, I will only use this for content consumption, so please help me decide.

Is a 4k 27" worth it?

I can see pixels on 1440p and 4K is fricking awesome! I’m using the Alienware QDOLED right now and I can’t wait for a 4K OLED. I love OLED and the response time on them and this combined with 4K and smaller screens would be a beautiful thing

4k is worth it, if you have a good enough GPU. Since my GPU is trash, I'm staying with my 1440p for another few years.

I’m 50 years old and have had to start wearing glasses for the last 5 years. I have to adjust the screen on pretty much everything up to 125% otherwise it’s too small for me to see. In my case do you think I’ll be able to tell the difference?

So...I just upgraded my old buddy the 1060 6gb to a RX 6800. Would be the perfect card for 1440p. BUT it can run 4k as well, but is mostly limited to 50-60 fps depending on the game and the settings of course. My question is: for what type of Monitor I should save my money now? A good 1440p one and call it a day, or save some more for a decent 4k one? Cant afford Oled yet. Hmpf...hard stuff. Smooth 2k or lower fps 4k...

I have a 27" 1440p and a 28" 4k monitor. There is a huge difference between them, especially for work and text. 32" 4k is the sweet spot imo. I also had a 24" 1440p and that had a pretty high PPI as well.

As a long time gamer I've only started using 4k last year and you can tell a different especially when playing newer game's 1440p is not bad but it's great having 4k while playing story games but 4k gaming monitors are not cheap but you really can tell a different between the 2 after trying both

Any news when the Displayport 2.1 monitors will be available in the markets?

How do you feel about people using like the LG c2 42" as a monitor VS getting a computer 4k monitor? what are some good 4k monitors?

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.

I have a LG 24 inch 4k monitor and MY GOD....its 95% of what apple calls retina and you literally cant see a pixel no matter how close you get with you eye...games looks STUPID good on it...also 4k textures matter

26.5in 1440 144hz lcd is pretty crisp tho. especially with dldsr 2.25x 4k downscaling running and can be pushed more easily to high frame rates. i am still waiting for OLED to be good for desktop use without static image burn . sucks cause i do alot of financial work /desktop use and alot of gaming.and don't want a 2 monitor setup....

What about the Burn-in Warranty? Does it cover ? It might be different for each country/continent

4k is blurry trash tbh, but its all we have until tech gets better.

Bought a 4090 and a 4k 28 Inch recently and i was considering the 1440p OLEDs. Im glad that i went with the 4k i personaly definitly feel and see a diffrence in the ppi upgrade after comparing it to a 27 inch 1440p of a friend.

can someone tell me a good monitor that start with 30hz freesync range? there are lot of AAA games that wont run at max settings more than 40-50 fps and lot of monitors have a freesync range that start only at 48hz... but im very sensitive to tearlines! input lag doesent bother me if a game have smoth visual gameplay... keep in mind that i have a freesync monitor 48-75hz but i keep it a 60hz only becouse i can half vsync with rtss or specialK so i play at 30 fps most of the time and i can run all games existed at this range at full max out visual Quality... my monitor wont suport LFC ...i ask this becouse i try to find a good monitor that start a sync metodology with 30hz range ... Vsync does not help just becouse of that... i dont play competitive games ...all i care is tear free sync monitor that work with my FPS! i dont care if it's 4k, 2k or 1080p... also i dont care about the price... i also dont use upscale in games just to get more fps, i only use raw max visual settings for a game! thank you and happy new year!

Bro, im searching for a cheap 4k gaming monitor around 27inch and im not sure if i should get 60hz or up to 120/144hz. Can you suggest me the best option for the least money?