Is 28" 4K monitor usable without scaling?

Is 28" 4K monitor usable without scaling?
Or it's true that minimal diagonal for 4k is 32"?

Attached: download.jpg (1500x1500, 107K)

For unscaled I'm really liking 1440p at 27-28 inch. I'd be squinting to see 4K at that size.

I run my 28" at 2k, if i was doing it again I would go bigger

27" is the minimum to use 1440p without scaling.
I would never ever try 4k on barely 28".

wtf, I'm using 1080p on 14" laptop without scaling, which means I could be using 2k on 22"-24".
Do you have bad sight?

I too use a 14" 1080p laptop and it's nice. However I site further from the screen when using a desktop with a 27" screen.

See Make the experiment: try 4k with a big screen. Plug your computer to your 4k TV and see for yourself. You couldn't use 4k from your couch without scaling and your TV is bigger than 32".

>28" 4K monitor usable without scaling
yikes. im using 1440p@27inch with 125% scaling.

what's like having poor eyesight

27" 1440p no scaling.
Fight me, faggot

-5.00 (20/400) without glasses :(

What do you mean exactly by scaling (yes, O'm tech illiterate)? I've got a 28" 4k monitor that I've had to put down to 1080 because things are too small on 4k and my other display is 1080, so it plays nicer

>Using a 4k monitor in 1080p
You can't be serious

Attached: 1544294281840.jpg (798x770, 195K)

I find 27" 4K without scaling to be readable but too small for perfect comfort, 125% is great for me and I use 150% in browsers since most websites don't really do anything useful with extra space even if you have it. I don't think 28" would be big enough for no scaling for me, 100% won't be small enough to be unreadable but probably too small for comfort just like 27". I wouldn't really go for something too big though, high DPI looks amazing and is the main advantage of 4K, if you want more space you can always get that with extra monitors.

specifically when I'm using it with another screen. I turn it back up for games and shit, but its easier for me to use certain programs across both screens so that they're the "same size"

That's what you get for falling for the 4k meme

My main monitor is a 28" 4k and I keep it at 100% scaling. I am pretty close to it (40-50cm max?) so it's not really difficult to read anything, plus you can't see any pixel.
On the left I have a 21,5" 1080 monitor (put vertical) that looks horrible in comparison.
If you want to try buy one from Amazon and just give it back before the 30 days...

i dont know why people don't seem to give a shit about higher dpi and only go up in resolution for a bigger display. do you really need an 80 inch tv? wouldn't it be better if things looked nicer instead of the screen getting bigger?

when the fuck is everything going to be made for 4k so i don't have to fuck around with scaling

For 4K you'll need around 42" to have unscaled UI elements have at almost the same size as 1080p on 24".

Yeah, nobody seems to give a shit about DPI. 4K at 27" is pretty much perfect for me, I'm not sure if even higher DPI would still be distinguishable, but 1440p at 27" is significantly worse in any case. Viewing distance matters too, of course. Same goes for TVs, size and resolution depend on viewing distance.

Used to have dual 1080p monitors. Decided a while ago I wanted to upgrade one of them. Definitely wanted a 27 inch, but took me a while to pick between 4k and 1440p.

God damn I'm so glad I went with 1440p. It's literally the perfect resolution. You don't need any scaling, and it works pretty much perfectly if you have a second monitor with smaller resolution.

>faggots actually wanting visible pixelation
>faggots not wanting higher resolution in a smaller size so they can have crisper text and images

Fuck no. 1440p is the upper limit of 100% scale.

I've got a 27" one. It took me like 6 months to a year of wrestling with DPI scaling bugs to come to accept it like it is.
I began trying to use it at 100% but it was uncomfortable so I set it at 170%, then I progressively decreased to DPI settings because I wanted to fit more things on the screen and now I actually like the tiny text and UI and I can always get a little closer to the screen if I'm struggling to read any given text.
So go for it if you don't mind the adaption period, but if you can spare $200 extra bucks go for a 40". 32" isn't much different from 28".
4k generally sucks ass for gaming if you don't have a good graphics card so keep that in mind, unless the games you play are light on graphics and you can benefit from the extra detail.
For programming the meme is false, you don't benefit that much from a 1080. Main benefit is being able to keep multiple windows open at once (say a youtube video, a command line and an IDE). But just seeing more code on the screen (or more 4channel shitposts) by itself doesn't give you any advantage so don't get it for that.
Also if you're building a new PC try to get an AMD card for freesync which most 4k monitors have.

Another annoying thin about 4k is that you have to physically move the mouse much longer distances than you would on 1080p, because at a higher pointer speed you don't have enough precision to hit the tiny UI elements on 4k.

Use a modern mouse then.

if you want a high dpi monitor without scaling use a high dpi mouse. dipshit

I use a 10000 DPI mouse. That's not the issue.
>dipshit
>reddit spacing
s󠀀oyboy detected

It must not be set to actually use the 10000 DPI then. If it was higher pointer speed wouldnt be making you skip pixels.

>People are talking about 4K computer monitors while I'm still using 1080p and won't be able to afford an upgrade for many years to come

Feels fucking bad man

It's not that it skips pixels, it's just that if you use both a 1080p and a 4k monitor at the limits of what is a comfortable amount of effort to aim accurately, the 4k is going to have longer mouse travel every time.

Minimal diag is 32, 4k at 27 is aids and 28 isn't any better.

If you had read the thread, you would've realized you aren't missing much, especially if you aren't using your computer for work (say programming or spreadsheets).
A mechanical gaming keyboard and a decent mouse is probably a bigger upgrade than a monitor, ssd or >4gb ram. Blues if you'll use it mostly for typing, reds or speeds if you use it for gaming.

You didn't mention using a 1080p monitor with it before.

That will obviously cause problems.

With a 4K monitor alone there would be no issue.

4K resolution monitors have become more affordable than you might think. They start at about $200, if you don't care about the other specifications.

I have a FHD 14" laptop and it isn't really usable without scaling, it can be done but your eyes hurt like after 20 minutes.

>especially if you aren't using your computer for work (say programming or spreadsheets).
I do use my computer for programming

>A mechanical gaming keyboard
I do have a mechanical keyboard.

>a decent mouse
Got that too

>ssd or >4gb ram
Got those too, as of... I don't even know how many years ago it was I got my first SSD or 8gb of RAM.

>4K resolution monitors have become more affordable than you might think. They start at about $200, if you don't care about the other specifications.
Yeah that's the thing. Just a 4K monitor alone is not that expensive, but I promised myself I will never buy a TN panel or a sub-144Hz monitor again. That probably wasn't clear in my original post.

You need some killer hardware to play video games at 144+ Hz on 4K. I'm not even sure it's realistic for average consumers. Forget about 4K and save up for a 1440p 144 Hz screen. I think you'll find it's the perfect compromise.

>Forget about 4K and save up for a 1440p 144 Hz screen. I think you'll find it's the perfect compromise.
This is what I'm aiming for, I'm just not sure when I'll be able to afford it. I'd like to buy two but maybe I can find one I like for around $500 on black friday next year or something.

No, I mean you should get a mechanical keyboard before having 8gb of ram or an ssd.

oh, gotcha. But the point still stands. I have all the things you listed already, and have had for... 6-7 years? When did SSDs even come out.

Is it retarded to buy a 27" 1080p screen in $current_year? Will my shit look blurry?

My original post said 4k required longer mouse travel length than 1080p, high DPI mouse or not. That was the whole point of the post you replied to.
>That will obviously cause problems.
No it won't, high DPI mice can be perfectly used with 1080p displays. Holy shit you're retarded.

Only your best corrected vision is relevant though. It doesn't matter what you are without glasses if you're 20/20 with them.

I have a 32" 4K and, although it's possible to use it unscaled, I wouldn't recommend it. 125% scaling works perfectly though.

28" is right out- completely useless unscaled.

Yeah, if you want an IPS 144hz 4k monitor it's gonna be expensive, and from what I've seen you only have small 27" monitors, right?
I'd buy a 40" TN monitor before buying a 27" IPS. And you won't be able to drive a 4k monitor at decent graphical settings for more than 80ish fps anyway unless all you play is CSGO.
>inb4 I don't play vidya
Then 144hz is useless for you.

>4k required longer mouse travel length than 1080p
Not if you turn up mouse speed. This only becomes inaccurate if your mouse dpi isn't set properly. check your mouse driver. max out the dpi setting before messing with windows cursor speed setting.

No, this is false. I use a dell rubberdome still and have no issue. an ssd is completely lifechanging for a computer.

Ram is whatever, but if you only have 4gb an upgrade will have noticeable effect. 8 to 16 not so much.

WHEN THE FUCK IS EVERYTHING GONNA SUPPORT 4K SO I DON'T HAVE TO SCALE
THIS IZ BULLSHIT 4K HAS BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS FUUUUCK

See The limiting factor isn't hardware accuracy, it's human accuracy.
You can only set the sensitivity so high before it takes too much effort to aim accurately.

Somebody in 1995 with top of the line hardware would've said they had no issues with their CPU either. Doesn't mean there haven't been upgrades from 95 till now.

Okay, but an SSD is way better of an improvement. It's the single biggest performance boost you can do for a pc.

I'll take eliminating the computer being slow for 10 minutes after logging in or programs taking forever to launch over missing a keystroke every now and then.

That has everything to do with shit being small than it does with resolution.

If you're using 4K without scaling you're a dumbass. If you are using scaling it's not any harder than an equivalent 1080p or 1440p monitor.

I've a 27" 2560x1440 that I can barely use because my eyes, even with glasses, just don't cut it anymore. I keep it only for watching anime, which looks fantastic on it and very occasionally games that are supported at that resolution. I upgraded to 32" 2K and it's fantastic for me. I can barely imagine 4k on a 32". I do have a 40" 4K TV that I usually use for movies & such. It's passable for test & browsing and most general, basic tasks. It's "enough" better than 2K on the 27" that I can use it with less pain for general work, although it wouldn't cut it for pro-level phot/vid/graphics.

tl;dr - it depends on your eyes. Even with glasses (which I avoid when possible), 2K on 32" is just about optimal. So, find the equivalent for you.

Only relevant post in the thread.

28" 4k monitor will require almost double scaling
32" 4k monitor is comfortable to use with 125-150% scaling

Just count the DPI.
a regular 22" 1080p monitor has 98DPI which is considered the most common denominator.

a 32" 4k has 140DPI so would be identical with 150% scaling.
But is also OK usable with 125.
Well it is USABLE without any scaling, but the experience is sub optimal, shit is a little bit too small.

I stuck with an HDD until recently and I haven't noticed much difference honestly. Sure, booting up Windows and starting games might've gone from 1 minute to 30 seconds, an IDE from 20 to 10 seconds and launching a web browser from a 800 to 400 miliseconds, but those add up to less than 5 minutes per day, and once everything is open it's just the same as always.

The main point of 4k on a programming workstation is being able to display more shit on the screen, the higher quality picture is just a side effect. Using DPI scaling to make it similar to 1080p negates the whole point.

I run 4K on 21.5". Any less PPI would be unacceptable.

Well, 4k with no scaling makes anything programming related too goddamn small to even read.

Should have bought a 1440p monitor, then.

You must have gotten a shit ssd then.

> booting up Windows and starting games might've gone from 1 minute to 30 seconds,
Booting windows goes from several minutes to not even 10 seconds.

>and starting games
I dont even care about games, but most of those also get huge benefits from fast loading.

> and launching a web browser from a 800 to 400 miliseconds,
Let's be real, they take like 5-10 seconds without ssd.


I can tell you must not have an ssd and are just assuming based on knowing that it's faster than an ssd.
But what you don't know since you've never used one is that it makes literally everything on your computer open instantly, and makes rebooting 100% painless.

>You must have gotten a shit ssd then.
Maybe, but how many times do you reboot your PC? I don't even do that, just put it to sleep.
>Let's be real, they take like 5-10 seconds without ssd.
It definitely didn't take that long.

Attached: Capture.png (1245x931, 105K)

-12 kill me lads

I own a 27" 4K monitor and would say no. I use 2x scaling and everything is extremely sharp though. Before anyone yaps about screen real estate - I only use this monitor for movies

But 1080p at 24inches is horrific. For actual work I'm really liking 27inch 4k unscaled. Before that 24inch 1440p. 1080 is subhuman or laptops these days.

If only Windows scaling was not so shit.

>If you had read the thread, you would've realized you aren't missing much
Nice cope.

Yes, it will look like trash. Even 24" 1080p is dogshit.

I'm using a 32inch 1440p monitor and everything is as big as 1080p on 24inch.
My viewing distance is 55-70cm and everything looks good.

But I have one...

Attached: Capture.png (3840x2160, 239K)

Then I don't understand how you could think using subhuman ~100 PPI screen is not missing much.

yeah, sure

It just isn't that much more useful. On 1080p you can do almost anything you could do on 4k in about the same amount of time.

>24" 1080p is dogshit
shut the fuck up idioten, you don't know what you're talking about.

>92 ppi
Do you enjoy eating shit or something?

hurr ppi
kys

Ok, kid.

pipi pipi ppiippi
>23/24" for 1080p
>27" for 1440p
>32" and above for 4K
that's how it's done

The workflow with 32" 4k and a tiling WM is so much better it's not even funny.

32" 4k is ~137ppi, far cry from 24" 1080p.

I use a 32" 4K monitor with 125% scaling, so 28" with none would be pretty fucking small.

I'm using a 55" 4k tv as a monitor, it's going back btw it's a lovely tv 120hz panel etc, but has some dead pixels and couple of back light problems.
I have the scaling at 150%
Some programs get a bit confused when the scaling is at 150.
Exchanging if for a 43 inch 4k tv sand saving some money.

>all the eyelets in this thread
I can use a 13" 1080p laptop screen perfectly fine without any scaling, so 4K at anything above 26" should be fine.

>actual work
> horrific
> I'm really liking
>1080 is subhuman
>these days
>27inch 4k unscaled

kek you sound like a bit of a bitch.

Yeah but if you had that bigger screen you could use it in 1080p and use it that way. Two tv's in one.
This tv I got recently, if I put it on 1080p I can then choose 120hz and it has free sync. Which is cool but I have an nvidia card.

>I can use a 13" 1080p laptop screen perfectly fine without any scaling
And every normie can use 1080p just fine on a 5" phone.
What's your point?

Phone are scaled you retard

Your pleb phone is scaled

comfy bread

is 32" 1440p a good decision?

>using over 27" monitors

32" is too big. You will be streching your neck all around to look at the screen instead of just your eyes.