Running a 4K monitor at 2560x1440. Good or bad?

[ergophobe]

My old laptop is just fine. I have no desire to upgrade it just yet, but the video card only handles a max resolution of 2560x1550.

Meanwhile, I do want a big monitor to go with it at home. There are some nice and cheap 2560x1440 monitors, but I'm thinking that my next laptop will handle 4K or better when this laptop bites the dust (it's the longest I've ever kept a computer and it's showing signs that it is losing its will to live).

So my idea is just to get the 4K monitor now and keep it for 10 years or whatever. But that means I'll be running it at a non-standard resolution.

I'm just curious what thoughts people have on that subject.

[ukgimp]

Looking at 3440x1440

For 10 years  would get the best possible now.

I have always liked real estate

[ergophobe]

Agreed. If my video card supported that resolution, it would be simple - go big.

The question is whether running the monitor at a non-native resolution would make it uncomfortably blurry and cause eye strain until such time as chose to upgrade my laptop.

I can do the experiment on the laptop itself which has a native resolution of 1920x1080, but it's "correct" at that resolution, so it's getting fairly low res when I change it. Whereas 2560x1440 is a pretty standard resolution for a 27-inch monitor.

I guess my question boils down to this: if I run a 27-inch 4K monitor at 2560x1440, how much worse will it be than an 27-inch, 2560x1440 monitor running at native resolution?

[Travoli]

I use a 4k 55" TV as a monitor. Running at anything other than native resolution or perfectly down scaled will be noticeable. The larger the screen, the more noticeable. I recommend running your 4k screen at 1080 if the 1440 looks bad.

BTW, 55" is the equivalent of running 4 - 27" screens. The largest I'd recommend is 46", or the equivalent of 4 - 23" monitors. That's a good sweet spot.

[ergophobe]

perfectly down scaled

So by that do you mean proportionally so you're not splitting pixels? That is, choose a resolution that is 50% of 4K in both dimensions so each pixel sent by the video card will be a 2x2 four-pixel block?

[Travoli]

Exactly. 1080 with 4 pixel blocks.

[ergophobe]

Sorry for all the picky, precise questions. I just want to be sure I understand you right. But in essence, you would NOT call it stupid to buy a 4K monitor now, run it perfectly scaled down for a year or two until I need a new computer, then running at native resolution when I have a computer with a video card to drive it?

Mostly I just don't want to take up more space in the landfill than I have to over the long term.

[Chunkford]

Wouldn't having a 27" 4k monitor make everything tiny?
I know there's scaling that can be done, but from what I've read some programs are terrible (at the moment I'm sure), and also, isn't scaling defeating the object as you'll lose real estate in doing so?

Thought about a ultrawide ergo (just to make things a little more complicated, hehe)?

[ergophobe]

Wouldn't having a 27" 4k monitor make everything tiny?
I know there's scaling that can be done, but from what I've read some programs are terrible (at the moment I'm sure), and also, isn't scaling defeating the object as you'll lose real estate in doing so?

Thought about a ultrawide ergo (just to make things a little more complicated, hehe)?

>>tiny

I think this is less of an issue than it used to be. Macs of course handle this without problem and have for years. When I first applied scaling on my laptop (because 1920x1080 is way too small for me on that screen), many apps were problematic. I haven't seen a problem in a long time though. At first I regretted having the higher res, but now I don't.

>>isn't scaling defeating the object

Not necessarily.  12 inches is still 12 inches. So I can have almost two laptop-sized windows side-by-side. The only thing I lose is the clarity of the text.

The native resolution pixel density of a 28" 4K monitor is about 162 pixels per inch. If I had bought a 27-inch HD monitor some years ago, the pixel density would be 81 pixels per inch. I still have has many inches to deal with, but the curve around the "o" is going to be 4x less sharp on the old monitor.

So basically, I would be getting the same real estate, but I would be getting 2012 text clarity. The thing is, if I went for a plain HD monitor, when I upgrade my video card, I would be stuck at 2012 text clarity. My idea is that when I get a better video card, I change my settings and go immediately to 2016 clarity (or really I guess 2015 clarity when 4K got consumer cheap)

But I can still fit exactly as many spreadsheet columns on the screen and, because at 4K my physical pixels are being mapped to CSS pixels at 2:1, I still can have one window open with a web page and another with the inspector and the CSS behaves identically in both cases.

[Travoli]

One other thing to consider: In/Out of future laptops and monitors. Right now, HDMI is limited to 4k/60Hz. The next gen will likely be 120Hz. This really only makes a difference for gaming, but you may want the latest and greatest connection speed with your future laptop.

Also, 4k pricing hasn't bottomed yet.

Buying a cheap 1440 monitor now would give you more real estate than 4k scaled down to 1080. When the current PC dies, you could sell the 1440. Between the sale cash and the lower future 4k pricing, the temporary 1440 monitor might be virtually free.

[ergophobe]

Thanks Trav... that is the dilemma in a nutshell.

I don't think a  1440 will have any resale value a couple years from now, so I am afraid it will just go to the landfill.

I think you're right about the finances - it's probably cheaper to go 1440 then 4K, but I would actually spend a bit more money to avoid putting one more thing in the landfill. If it were purely financial, I would simply buy a new laptop and monitor, because neither one is *that* expensive for what I want (no gaming or video production). But it's worth it for me to spend a bit more overall and landfill a bit less.

But maybe it's too much thinking about a relatively small thing (compared to, say, flying across the country for Thanksgiving, which I just did).

[Chunkford]

I think I need to get myself down to a shop and have a play I think.

What's your feelings about USB-C, do you think this is a necessity for the future proofing yourself?

BTW, can you tell I'm in the same boat as you

[Travoli]

I think USB-C will be important. I believe USB-C to DisplayPort 1.4 will run 4k 120Hz, which is near-term future.
Asus and Apple are already making machines with USB-C only connections. Everything else should switch over within the year. Provides fast data and laptop charging capabilities in one cable.

[ergophobe]

>>USB-C

Wasn't even on my radar. There are some nice USB-C monitors out there for a bit over $600 that also have HDMI and DisplayPort to work with your current equipment

- LG with USB-C and HDMI 2 and, I think, DisplayPort - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CDYB0QS/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza
- HP Envy 4K - Connectivity: DisplayPort x 1, HDMI 2.0 x 1, HDMI 1.4 x 1, USB Type-C x 1 - Connectivity: DisplayPort x 1, HDMI 2.0 x 1, HDMI 1.4 x 1, USB Type-C x 1

Pricier
- Lenovo X1 - HDMI 2 for sure - https://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-60E2GAR1US-ThinkVistion-3840X2160-USB3-0/dp/B01M71YMC5

That's tough, though, when there are some nice 2560x1440s that will run native resolution on my current laptop and cost under $200.

I think in the end, I'm leaning toward Travoli's suggestion of buying the 2560x1440 now and when I buy my next machine, see where monitor technology is. For all I know, if I keep this machine to it's true dying day, my next monitor could be a headset.

[Drastic]

Just FYI my bang/buck sweetspot for 1440p is the Benq GW2765HT. These are great for desktop work b/c of the pixel pitch without worry about scaling, using a nice IPS panel. Usually runs for 350 or so, maybe 300 on sale...I picked another one up over the holidays for 250. Great monitor.

Currently 311 at amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-GW2765HT-27-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00KYCSRSG/