Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!
Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.
Is there a functional benefit to 4k screens?
Is there a functional benefit to using a 4k computer monitor over a 2k one, or is it just a luxury (ie. looks nicer etc).
1 answer
Yes, but the screen has to be physically larger, and 4k is probably overkill.
96 dpi is considered adequate for digital media, outside of artistic or graphics design work.
With a 24" monitor running at 1920p, you already get about 92 dpi. Switching to 24" 3840p monitor with 2x DPI scaling will result in everything being the same size, but crisper. However, the difference is likely to be slight as modern UIs have many tricks like subpixel hinting, optimized fonts, antialiasing and others that perform well even at lower DPIs. If you reduce DPI scaling, you can take advantage of the higher resolution, but now everything will be too tiny to easily see. A good example of this experience is a MacBook with a "retina" screen, which by default has high scaling, crisp graphics, but about the same amount of screen space as lower resolution displays.
You could make UI elements smaller, for instance by running at 0.5 DPI scaling, and compensate for the size by using a larger display, say 32". Now that things are "stretched" by the larger screen, you can tile more windows and see more content without scrolling. This I consider the "functional benefit" as you can see more content at once, without having to switch windows or scroll. But if you do this at 1920p, you will end up with 70 dpi, which will result in a pixellated and/or blurry look at arm's length. This is where higher resolution helps -- at the same size, 3840p gets you 140 dpi, and you can run with 1x or even 1.5x DPI scaling, so the image is still quite crisp.
You likely don't need a full 4k screen. If you are a "typical user" (meaning not graphic designer, not artist, not someone with exceptionally good vision) 96 dpi is sufficient at arm's length. At 4k, this would be a 46" monitor, which is probably not practical. If you go for a more modest size like 32", even 2560x1440 will give you 92 dpi, which is enough to gain the functional benefits -- you can fit more on your screen without having to deal with blurriness. If you want to fit more and also make it sharper, then a 4k monitor makes sense.
Two more considerations:
- To get good use out of your larger screen, you will probably end up tiling windows a lot. You need to be already familiar with doing this (how it works in general, and specifically the hotkeys) in your operating system. Otherwise, there will be a learning curve, and you won't get much benefit until you're past it.
- If you do get a 4k display smaller than 46", you will likely need to do DPI scaling so that things don't look too small. Some software handles this better than others. Macs tend to be pretty good about it. On Linux, if you use Wayland, you can set a scaling multiplier for your monitor (even non-integer scaling) and it usually tends to work well. If you are on Linux and using Xorg, it will probably look awful, and you will have to switch to Wayland, which might be laborious or simple depending on your particular setup. This scaling issue is avoided if you use a lower resolution, like 2560p on 32".
0 comment threads
0 comment threads