What display resolution are you using?

[A Computer Guy]

27" 4k with 150% scaling and layout for daily, 1440p for gaming, 1440p for work scaling 100%.

 

[bohrz]

If someone here has a 4K 32" display, do you use it with scaling other than 100% or 100% is sufficient?

 

[Blaeza]

1920 x 1080 until I get a monitor instead of a 14 year old Panasonic TV. Which shall be December. 3rd is my birthday so if anyone is feeling generous, I'll take a 6800XT. Ta!

 

[ARF]

1920 x 1080 until I get a monitor instead of a 14 year old Panasonic TV. Which shall be December. 3rd is my birthday so if anyone is feeling generous, I'll take a 6800XT. Ta!

Nah, by then, there will be or should be a brand new Radeon RX 7800 XT, much faster, maybe 80%, or 90% faster than the 2-year-old crappy Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB

 

[Ruru]

I'm surprised that there's only two of us 3840x1080 users, I guess that having a multi-monitor setup isn't as common in TPU?

 

[Blaeza]

Nah, by then, there will be or should be a brand new Radeon RX 7800 XT, much faster, maybe 80%, or 90% faster than the 2-year-old crappy Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB

That's so nice of you! I'll send you my address closer to my birthday.

 

[Gungar]

I'm surprised that there's only two of us 3840x1080 users, I guess that having a multi-monitor setup isn't as common in TPU?

Except if you use both monitors to play a game, you just have 2x 1920x1080, like me.

 

[Ruru]

Except if you use both monitors to play a game, you just have 2x 1920x1080, like me.

I count dual setup as a desktop resolution

 

[Vayra86]

1080p means less detail, no matter the distance. The distance only helps you for one thing - to not see the awful large physical pixels which build the panel matrix.

No, 1080p means 1080p and its the resolution of the content you view that makes out what detail you're going to see.

Let's not forget that even in a 4K rendered game you're not getting different info for every pixel, in fact, the counter opposite: a lot of pixels are 'approximate' colors to fill the void left behind by the source. That's the whole idea of DLSS/FSR for example And guess how most games 'do 4K' now? Yep... also within engines there are quite a few tweaks that all cost detail/fidelity to benefit performance. Because of 4K.

So yeah, theory vs practice. 1080p is fine at the correct view distance, I would say at 24 inch 1080p is just below the 'nice to view' level because you can truly notice pixels, but sit 20 cm further back from your typical desk and its suddenly just fine, while 4K at that diagonal would be completely pointless and a gross waste of performance. That's probably the reason x1440 resolutions are quite popular. The step above 1080p, and enough detail to work for larger screens while not wasting performance on pixel density you barely notice.

This trend seems to extend into ultrawide, too. 1440 is enough height while 1080 is just under comfortable for most things that aren't gaming (and even for gaming, I would say). The industry pushes heavily on 4K but the benefit for PC/productivity/gaming just really isn't there all that much, and the horsepower required to push it is still a big issue.

 

[AusWolf]

No, 1080p means 1080p and its the resolution of the content you view that makes out what detail you're going to see.

Let's not forget that even in a 4K rendered game you're not getting different info for every pixel, in fact, the counter opposite: a lot of pixels are 'approximate' colors to fill the void left behind by the source. That's the whole idea of DLSS/FSR for example And guess how most games 'do 4K' now? Yep... also within engines there are quite a few tweaks that all cost detail/fidelity to benefit performance. Because of 4K.

So yeah, theory vs practice. 1080p is fine at the correct view distance, I would say at 24 inch 1080p is just below the 'nice to view' level because you can truly notice pixels, but sit 20 cm further back from your typical desk and its suddenly just fine, while 4K at that diagonal would be completely pointless and a gross waste of performance. That's probably the reason x1440 resolutions are quite popular. The step above 1080p, and enough detail to work for larger screens while not wasting performance on pixel density you barely notice.

This trend seems to extend into ultrawide, too. 1440 is enough height while 1080 is just under comfortable for most things that aren't gaming (and even for gaming, I would say). The industry pushes heavily on 4K but the benefit for PC/productivity/gaming just really isn't there all that much, and the horsepower required to push it is still a big issue.

Not to mention that playing old (DirectX 7-8) games at ultra high resolutions isn't so great. At least I wouldn't do that unless counting polygons and getting dizzy from washed out textures is one of your hobbies. But really... Half-Life looked and felt a lot better at VGA (640x480) back in the days than it does today at 1080p. I'm glad Black Mesa exists, though.

 

[Sithaer]

No, 1080p means 1080p and its the resolution of the content you view that makes out what detail you're going to see.

Let's not forget that even in a 4K rendered game you're not getting different info for every pixel, in fact, the counter opposite: a lot of pixels are 'approximate' colors to fill the void left behind by the source. That's the whole idea of DLSS/FSR for example And guess how most games 'do 4K' now? Yep... also within engines there are quite a few tweaks that all cost detail/fidelity to benefit performance. Because of 4K.

So yeah, theory vs practice. 1080p is fine at the correct view distance, I would say at 24 inch 1080p is just below the 'nice to view' level because you can truly notice pixels, but sit 20 cm further back from your typical desk and its suddenly just fine, while 4K at that diagonal would be completely pointless and a gross waste of performance. That's probably the reason x1440 resolutions are quite popular. The step above 1080p, and enough detail to work for larger screens while not wasting performance on pixel density you barely notice.

This trend seems to extend into ultrawide, too. 1440 is enough height while 1080 is just under comfortable for most things that aren't gaming (and even for gaming, I would say). The industry pushes heavily on 4K but the benefit for PC/productivity/gaming just really isn't there all that much, and the horsepower required to push it is still a big issue.

Personally I'm totally comfortable with my 2560x1080 Ultrawide, I game on it/read sites and forums/watch movies and series+YT with no real issues.
Took me some time to get used to it but I have this monitor since 2019 and by now it feels like normal and I have no plans to upgrade resolution either. 'Better panel wouldn't hurt tho with the same res'
I did eyeball some of those 1440p Ultrawide monitors but nah, don't feel like having to buy a stronger GPU more often just to drive it in new games.

I sit around an arm lenght from it, if I stretch my arm and point my index finger I can just about reach it with my fingertip.
Anything further is not comfortable for me since I already have to wear glasses to see anything.

 

[AusWolf]

I did eyeball some of those 1440p Ultrawide monitors but nah, don't feel like having to buy a stronger GPU more often just to drive it in new games.

That's exactly my reasoning. Not to mention that I would either miss the curve, or would have to spend extra on a curved monitor, which I also don't want to do.

 

[ARF]

No, 1080p means 1080p and its the resolution of the content you view that makes out what detail you're going to see.

Let's not forget that even in a 4K rendered game you're not getting different info for every pixel, in fact, the counter opposite: a lot of pixels are 'approximate' colors to fill the void left behind by the source. That's the whole idea of DLSS/FSR for example And guess how most games 'do 4K' now? Yep... also within engines there are quite a few tweaks that all cost detail/fidelity to benefit performance. Because of 4K.

So yeah, theory vs practice. 1080p is fine at the correct view distance, I would say at 24 inch 1080p is just below the 'nice to view' level because you can truly notice pixels, but sit 20 cm further back from your typical desk and its suddenly just fine, while 4K at that diagonal would be completely pointless and a gross waste of performance. That's probably the reason x1440 resolutions are quite popular. The step above 1080p, and enough detail to work for larger screens while not wasting performance on pixel density you barely notice.

This trend seems to extend into ultrawide, too. 1440 is enough height while 1080 is just under comfortable for most things that aren't gaming (and even for gaming, I would say). The industry pushes heavily on 4K but the benefit for PC/productivity/gaming just really isn't there all that much, and the horsepower required to push it is still a big issue.

Why do you always turn the discussion into the gaming direction?

And no, no, 1080p is never nice. Except on a 10-inch or smaller screen.
You simply see less when the resolution is lower - missing details - can be the true colour of the objects, can be a wave in the water, can be a hair in the head, all kinds of stuff.

See the images:

 

[Arco]

32 inch 1080p 60fps gang.

 

[Vayra86]

Why do you always turn the discussion into the gaming direction?

And no, no, 1080p is never nice. Except on a 10-inch or smaller screen.
You simply see less when the resolution is lower - missing details - can be the true colour of the objects, can be a wave in the water, can be a hair in the head, all kinds of stuff.

See the images:

View attachment 260831

View attachment 260830

Youre right, for productivity every pixel helps!

 

[BSim500]

And no, no, 1080p is never nice. Except on a 10-inch or smaller screen. You simply see less when the resolution is lower - missing details - can be the true colour of the objects, can be a wave in the water, can be a hair in the head, all kinds of stuff.
See the images:

This comment isn't aimed at you ARF, but by far the worst thing for non 4K owners about "you must have 4k" marketing drive isn't 4k itself but the 'overly enthusiastic enthusiast' crowd it attracts who just bought themselves a new 4k monitor then start get a little too carried away when over-compensating vs 1080p / 1440p than is healthy, sometimes into ridiculous extremes. Eg, "1080p is never nice. Except on a 10-inch or smaller screen" = you're saying "anything less than 220ppi is junk", which basically means you also believe the "proper" screen size for 1440p is 13.4" and for 4k is 20" (both the same 220ppi)? This stuff doesn't sound very convincing at all considering you can't even buy monitors that small (most common 4k monitor sizes are typically 28" (157ppi) to 32" (138ppi)) whlist 1440p is 27" (109ppi) to 32" (92ppi), and 99% of the market has zero problem using them. PC monitors viewed from 2-3ft away don't need to have the same ppi as flagship mobiles phones (held barely 1ft away) for the same reason we don't need 16-32k TV's for 8-12ft living room distances. And half of that "flagship" stuff is more number chasing marketing BS than physics anyway.

Bad marketing comparison screenshots also do more harm than good. Eg, both the owl & hummingbird "4k vs 1080p" pics are so tiny (not even 400p) and overcompressed / filled with JPEG blocking & ringing artefacts there's no point to even start a sane comparison. The 4k hummingbird also looks ugly due to over-compression anyway, whilst "1080p" hummingbird on the right has been obviously altered to be massively artificially blurrier and had its contrast reduced (reminiscent of those cheesy HDR vs SDR "comparison" shots where they massively downgrade the contrast / change the colours on the SDR one, or as people correctly comment "if you can see a massive HDR vs SDR difference on an SDR monitor, then most of what you're seeing isn't HDR"). Same is true here of "391p vs desaturated 195p upscaled to 391p ("4k vs 1080p comparison" pics). Test it yourself by taking the 1055x391 resolution owl pic, downscaling to 527x195 then upscale it again to 1055x391 in a photo editor and the colour of the "4k" owl's eyes hasn't been changed anywhere near as much as the fake "1080p" has been artificially desaturated to.

I get why people want / need / benefit from a 4k monitor, and also why someone who bought one wants to "talk it up" from a 1080p/1440p upgrade, but the best way of doing that is to just to keep things honest and tell people to take the same non manipulated high quality 4k sized picture and put it on both a 4k and 1080p monitor side by side, then sit at their normal viewing distance and work out what resolution / screen size they need from there. "Marketing Bullshots" where a fake "1080p" has been artificially blurred down to almost 240p vs 4k, through to fake artificially desaturated "SDR" vs HDR are literally the things people actively mock with their own "marketing comparisons" like this.

 

[ARF]

I can tell you that 1080p doesn't look right on a 15.6 screen - Acer laptop.
Ok, I can somehow lower my requirements and say that 1080p on a 13-inch screen can somewhat look acceptable.

But, on the smartphones you really get 400 ppi, 500 ppi and higher. Sony produces 6.5-inch 4K screens. Sony Xperia XZ Premium - Full phone specifications (gsmarena.com)

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Why

No, 1080p means 1080p and its the resolution of the content you view that makes out what detail you're going to see.

Let's not forget that even in a 4K rendered game you're not getting different info for every pixel, in fact, the counter opposite: a lot of pixels are 'approximate' colors to fill the void left behind by the source. That's the whole idea of DLSS/FSR for example And guess how most games 'do 4K' now? Yep... also within engines there are quite a few tweaks that all cost detail/fidelity to benefit performance. Because of 4K.

So yeah, theory vs practice. 1080p is fine at the correct view distance, I would say at 24 inch 1080p is just below the 'nice to view' level because you can truly notice pixels, but sit 20 cm further back from your typical desk and its suddenly just fine, while 4K at that diagonal would be completely pointless and a gross waste of performance. That's probably the reason x1440 resolutions are quite popular. The step above 1080p, and enough detail to work for larger screens while not wasting performance on pixel density you barely notice.

This trend seems to extend into ultrawide, too. 1440 is enough height while 1080 is just under comfortable for most things that aren't gaming (and even for gaming, I would say). The industry pushes heavily on 4K but the benefit for PC/productivity/gaming just really isn't there all that much, and the horsepower required to push it is still a big issue.

The power to run 4k is limited now only by the user.
I've been on 4k with a Vega 64 for three years gaming at 4k.

Lower the settings if needed, but not often.

OP should have allowed multiple options.

Who uses just one screen these days.

I use 4k 1080p and 720p Still.

 

[defaultluser]

your poll needs multiple selections 4k tv, then a couple of 1080p monitors

 

[Andrea87]

2560x1440 on a 32" philips 75hz VA (325E1C) as main. Secondary 24" 1920x1080 vertical.

 

[BSim500]

I can tell you that 1080p doesn't look right on a 15.6 screen - Acer laptop.
Ok, I can somehow lower my requirements and say that 1080p on a 13-inch screen can somewhat look acceptable.

But, on the smartphones you really get 400 ppi, 500 ppi and higher. Sony produces 6.5-inch 4K screens. Sony Xperia XZ Premium - Full phone specifications (gsmarena.com)

It might simply be your screen in particular as 1080p @ 15.6" (141ppi) does not in any way, shape or form "look ugly & pixellated" due to lack of resolution when it's still actually higher than the most commonly owned 4k screen size 32" (138ppi) that people praise for its "crispness and razor sharp text". Likewise, I don't think I've heard anyone complain about 1080p @ 17.3" (127ppi) look "too low res" when it's obviously higher than 1440p @ 27" (109ppi). For laptops vs desktop monitors, you've got other factors involved, eg, difference in backlight / screen quality, and the general need to start using 125%, 150%, etc, Windows scaling on sub 20" size screens to keep tiny text & UI elements readable which itself can end up making things look far blurrier than running 100% unscaled on a lower res display. Or you may simply have a duff screen. Laptops are not immune to it. If your text is blurry on your 141ppi laptop, then I were you I'd check the Windows scaling settings. Make sure it's at native resolution, set Windows scaling to 100% (no scaling) and see what it looks like then. We are still not at that point where 100% of applications and games will scale perfectly without blurring (and for older games, never will be).

As for quoting 800ppi flagship phones held 3" away from peoples noses then trying to "extrapolate" that onto PC 2-3ft away still doesn't make any sense. A relative of mine has an 800ppi flagship and neither he nor I can see any difference at all vs a cheap 400ppi (2400x1800 @ 6.5") phone which already has an ideal Visual Acuity View Distance of about 9 inches, ie, a typical reading distance). A 4k 5.6" phone has an ideal Visual Acuity View Distance of just 4-5 inches. Aside from being increasingly unpleasant to hold anything that close (you certainly don't read books that close), there comes a point where it's significantly less healthy for your eyes to have to sit closer & closer to see smaller & smaller pixels, especially for all day work. Beyond a certain baseline (which we passed ages ago), the Flagship Phone Resolution Rat Race (400ppi -> 800pip -> 16,777,216 "must have" ppi, etc) becomes an exercise in mindless number chasing marketing convincing you of the "need" to throw away a perfectly good phone each year. That's what it's really all about today - manufactured FOMO.

 

[ARF]

As for quoting 800ppi flagship phones held 3" away from peoples noses then trying to "extrapolate" that onto PC 2-3ft away still doesn't make any sense.

It is the same, distance doesn't help and doesn't add resolution.

I hold my smartphone at half the distance I hold my laptop - or roughly 9" to 17"..

 

[AM4isGOD]

This comment isn't aimed at you ARF, but by far the worst thing for non 4K owners about "you must have 4k" marketing drive isn't 4k itself but the 'overly enthusiastic enthusiast' crowd it attracts who just bought themselves a new 4k monitor then start get a little too carried away when over-compensating vs 1080p / 1440p than is healthy, sometimes into ridiculous extremes. Eg, "1080p is never nice. Except on a 10-inch or smaller screen" = you're saying "anything less than 220ppi is junk", which basically means you also believe the "proper" screen size for 1440p is 13.4" and for 4k is 20" (both the same 220ppi)? This stuff doesn't sound very convincing at all considering you can't even buy monitors that small (most common 4k monitor sizes are typically 28" (157ppi) to 32" (138ppi)) whlist 1440p is 27" (109ppi) to 32" (92ppi), and 99% of the market has zero problem using them. PC monitors viewed from 2-3ft away don't need to have the same ppi as flagship mobiles phones (held barely 1ft away) for the same reason we don't need 16-32k TV's for 8-12ft living room distances. And half of that "flagship" stuff is more number chasing marketing BS than physics anyway.

Bad marketing comparison screenshots also do more harm than good. Eg, both the owl & hummingbird "4k vs 1080p" pics are so tiny (not even 400p) and overcompressed / filled with JPEG blocking & ringing artefacts there's no point to even start a sane comparison. The 4k hummingbird also looks ugly due to over-compression anyway, whilst "1080p" hummingbird on the right has been obviously altered to be massively artificially blurrier and had its contrast reduced (reminiscent of those cheesy HDR vs SDR "comparison" shots where they massively downgrade the contrast / change the colours on the SDR one, or as people correctly comment "if you can see a massive HDR vs SDR difference on an SDR monitor, then most of what you're seeing isn't HDR"). Same is true here of "391p vs desaturated 195p upscaled to 391p ("4k vs 1080p comparison" pics). Test it yourself by taking the 1055x391 resolution owl pic, downscaling to 527x195 then upscale it again to 1055x391 in a photo editor and the colour of the "4k" owl's eyes hasn't been changed anywhere near as much as the fake "1080p" has been artificially desaturated to.

I get why people want / need / benefit from a 4k monitor, and also why someone who bought one wants to "talk it up" from a 1080p/1440p upgrade, but the best way of doing that is to just to keep things honest and tell people to take the same non manipulated high quality 4k sized picture and put it on both a 4k and 1080p monitor side by side, then sit at their normal viewing distance and work out what resolution / screen size they need from there. "Marketing Bullshots" where a fake "1080p" has been artificially blurred down to almost 240p vs 4k, through to fake artificially desaturated "SDR" vs HDR are literally the things people actively mock with their own "marketing comparisons" like this.

The problem with 4k monitors is, you need a massively more powerful GPU to game on it, or a second lower res monitor.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I can tell you that 1080p doesn't look right on a 15.6 screen - Acer laptop.
Ok, I can somehow lower my requirements and say that 1080p on a 13-inch screen can somewhat look acceptable.

But, on the smartphones you really get 400 ppi, 500 ppi and higher. Sony produces 6.5-inch 4K screens. Sony Xperia XZ Premium - Full phone specifications (gsmarena.com)

View attachment 260840

The LG G3 had a 2560x1440 5.5 inch IPS back in 2014. It's got all of these beaten

I hope you know that like the G3, these 4K Xperias also have severe overheating issues, weak performance and poor battery life; and you'd be hard pressed to tell it apart from the 1080p Triluminos display you'd find on an Xperia Z2. I managed to pick one up unused last week, surprised at how Android 5 is still more or less viable for a basic smartphone.

But your take on "1080p is invariably awful" is a bit extreme, and i'm a resolution freak myself - I would be honestly torn between a 4K OLED and a 8K TV if 8K TVs weren't still limited to 60 Hz.

 

[JackOO7]

I'm missing