
Ask HN: Are 4K monitors worth it? - dennybritz
Has anyone made the switch from a 1080p monitor to a 4K monitor? Is it worth it for developers?
======
aappleby
Totally worth it, but with many caveats.

I'm on my 4th (!) 4k monitor, and think I have found the sweet spot - it's a
48 inch curved 4K Samsung JS9000 TV that supports 4k @ 60hz with 4:4:4 chroma
over HDMI 2.0.

At that size the pixel density is identical to a 24" 1080p monitor and the
slight curve means it fills your field of vision with significantly less
distortion at the edges.

Unfortunately the stand isn't adjustable, so I replaced it with a set of
adjustable 'feet' off Amazon that bolt to the wall-mounting holes. The screen
sits about a centimeter off my desk - just enough to run keyboard & mouse
cables under, while keeping both the top and bottom of the screen at
comfortable viewing distances.

The overall result is _glorious_. I have so much room I can just drag windows
over to whichever part of the screen I feel like staring at, while having tons
of room at the top for widgets and music players and such. I can run games in
windowed mode alongside web browsers and everything's readable and playable. I
can have pages and pages of code spread out everywhere and it's all
marvelously usable.

In comparison, my other 4k experiments -

1\. Seiki SE39UY04 39" \- Terrrrible lag, bad color, 30 hz only. The 30 hz is
not itself the killer (30 hz on the JS9000 is only mildly irritating), it's
the 100+ millisecond delay that makes it infuritating. Sold it for $100 after
trying and failing to adapt.

2\. Samsung 55" UN55HU8550 - Great except for the lack of 4:4:4 chroma, and 55
inches is just -too- big to use as a monitor - especially without the curve. I
still use this one as my main living room monitor & TV.

3\. LG 40UB8000 - Almost good enough. No 4:4:4 chroma, slightly buggy
firmware, too much color distortion at the edges when used at monitor
distances. Pixel density is about the same as a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, but in
practice you'll be squinting as it needs to be placed farther back on your
desk in order for the sides of the screen to be usable.

Samsung does make a cheaper 48" 4k screen (the JU6700) which I believe
supports 4k@60, 4:4:4 chroma - it would probably be just as good as the JS9000
for most purposes, with only slightly reduced color quality and a few less
bells and whistles.

~~~
j2bax
What kind of heat does that 48" throw off? For some reason I imagine a warm
glow emitting from a large screen wrapped around your face like that. Are
there any studies into the health side effects from spending 8+ hours a day
this close to such a large electronic device?

~~~
paulcole
Virtually all users will be dead within 70 years of using one.

This is a glib answer, but honestly, if a report came out tomorrow that there
were significant negative health effects of spending time near a large
computer monitor, smartphone, etc., it would be decades before the majority of
people changed their habits (see smoking).

~~~
j2bax
I'm not sure why the downvotes, it was an honest question and I thought maybe
someone would know more than I about the subject. I have concerns of spending
so much time in front of a screen as it is with my 27" monitor & iPhone...
Concerns of its effects on my eyes, my sleep, my brain and I can imagine if
there are negative side effects they would potentially be more pronounced with
the screen filling a much greater portion of your field of view. Why wouldn't
this be of concern to people on this site? A TV is designed to be mounted on a
wall many feet from the viewer.

------
rebootthesystem
At the most basic level pixel pitch (the center-to-center distance between
pixels) is perhaps the most important parameter. The other parameter is
observer distance (eyeball to pixel).

Those two interplay and setup a situation where resolution is utterly wasted
if the observer is farther than the perceptual limit. Think of a standard
Snellen chart placed at 12 meters rather than 6.

And so, the decision to go to 4K displays is inexorably connected with a
specification of display size and viewer distance. Ages ago IBM introduced
"Big Bertha" probably the first 4K display. It was about $20K. The problem was
that IBM made the display 22 inches diagonal and, at that size and resolution,
you had to be 6 to 8 inches away in order to actually make use of the
resolution.

There are other considerations but I think being able to actually use the
resolution is key.

Personally, I prefer multiple (3) 1920x1200 monitors because it allows
segmentation of your workspace. For example, you can maximize a the video of a
course or online class you are taking while you code on the middle monitor and
have reference material on the third.

I know this will not be well received on HN but I have to say it. The OSX UI
has been grossly outdated as it pertains to large or multi monitor setups for
a long, long time. This insistance on having menu's at the top of the monitor
is rather than within the application window simply isn't sensible. I've had
the experience of projecting a Mac on a 40 foot 4K theater screen. The only
way I can describe the single top menu bar experience is tiring and
ridiculous. Windows or a similarly setup Ubuntu systems with menu's owned by
the application are a dream to use on a huge multi-screen environments. I've
done just that with huge stadium-sized LED video walls mapped as multiple
monitors to the OS. Nothing like hqving to move a cursor across 160 feet of
screen real estate to reach the menu's to show, in no uncertain terms, that a
UI is broken.

~~~
qubitcoder
FWIW, El Capitan lets you auto hide the top menu bar. Since I mostly use
keyboard shortcuts anyway, I find the extra space to be quite nice.

------
icefox
I personally found the 4K monitors just nice, but could never justify them.
Just recently I discovered monitors that have a 21:9 ratio. It is the same as
having two monitors, but without the bezel in the middle. It is the first time
in a long time that I happily put down cash only shortly after time thinking
about it. For me there have been very few big jumps in the desktop: 8GB+ ram,
SSD's and now a single 21:9 monitor over dual monitors.

~~~
facorreia
After reading the opinions here, for my use case (programming with eventual
gaming) I think I'll opt for a 21:9 monitor like the Dell U3415W. I can't
really picture how I'd work with a 40" screen, and if I can use 1 graphic card
instead of 2, I think that's a plus.

------
joshmn
Whatever you do make sure you get at least 60Hz. A friend made the mistake and
he regrets it every day.

~~~
bbcbasic
And the video card needs to support 60Hz at that resolution.

------
kogir
I have a 32" 3840x2160 60Hz Asus PQ321Q which I run at native resolution with
no scaling. It's fabulous. More pixels than the dual 2560x1600 30" monitors I
had before, and it fits entirely in my field of view. I barely need to move my
head.

Get a TV only if you can return it. A matte monitor will nearly always look
better in realistic lighting scenarios.

Definitely worth it, at least for me, especially since I expect I'll keep it
for 5-10 years.

------
fezz
Very much so if the monitor is larger than 36" and not too large. 60Hz is a
must have.

------
learc83
Yes, worth it. I went from 3 1080p monitors to this 40" 4k.
[http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN40JU6700-Curved-40-Inch-
Ultr...](http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN40JU6700-Curved-40-Inch-
Ultra/dp/B00TWFHDYA/ref=sr_1_3?&ie=UTF8&qid=1438915997&sr=8-3&keywords=40%22+4k+monitor)

------
halotrope
I have recently switched from a Apple thunderbolt display to an 27" 4k display
from Samsung. I can't speak for other platforms but OSX lets you use the 4k in
"retina" mode thus doubling the pixel density. So you end up with incredibly
sharp text. Since it is possible to adjust the scale via software you can
adjust for more space / better readability depending on the needs at hand. For
me the switch was as big of a switch as going from low-res to hi dpi phones. I
really love that you can have good legibility with much smaller text in
editors / terminal. After all I can say that while I am missing the docking /
hub / power plug / webcam features of the thunderbolt display (colors where
also better) due to the increased sharpness and the (perceived) productivity
gains I would never switch back to less than 4k for a workstation screen. So
purely subjectively speaking: 4k is just the business.

------
TurboHaskal
I don't think they would for me.

My Dell u2412m has a pixel density of 94 PPI (I think?) which is quite low for
today's standards but it does the job and I can't justify upgrading it.
Compare this to my current smartphone (xperia z3 compact) which at 720p has
319 PPI and is still considered low end in this regard.

Work provided me with a macbook pro retina and I don't see what's the fuss
about. Hence running mostly on clam-shell mode.

On older notebooks I simply use the Dina font which looks great on low res
screns.

Of course when I go to the stores and see these 4k TVs I definitely notice a
difference but we're not talking media consumption here.

I feel the same about 21:9 aspect ratios or multi monitor setups. My favorites
are still 4:3 or 16:10. I used to have a multi monitor setup for a while but
ended up selling it.

I might have to get my eyes looked at, or maybe I spent too much time staring
at mainframe screens.

------
adultSwim
Remember that the size of the screen determines how much "real estate" you
have. It's easy to think that higher resolutions will allow you to see more.

It's hard to say if it's worth it or not. Software support is getting much
better but the benefits seem unclear.

I recommend Dell P2715Q. It's $700 for 27" (though Dell often has
sales/coupons - I got mine for about $500). IPS + matte. The stand is pretty
decent. Nothing stupid like a glossy bezel, etc.

I'm not sure I would but it again. I use 19020x1080 monitors at work and don't
notice a big difference. Plus monitor resolutions jumped up quickly (after
being stagnant for so long) but video cards didn't. Not a huge issue for
editting text but something to consider. You can always game in 1920x1080 (and
it will look fine) but alt-tabbing to your desktop will be slow.

~~~
OJFord

        > I recommend ...
        > I'm not sure I would [buy] it again.
    

I'm confused.

~~~
0942v8653
I believe the parent was recommending that one out of all 4K monitors but was
unsure whether it was worth getting a 4K monitor at all.

------
tlack
I prefer 21:9. The form factor is much more friendly (I almost always want two
different things on screen while working, but I rarely need more than that),
seems less obnoxious on the desk, and I found the display performance much
faster on my somewhat underpowered tablet. Cheaper too, which is nice.

------
orangecat
From a retina iMac: yes, absolutely. High-DPI is even better for text than for
images.

------
jleehey
The UI scaling looks a little off on windows. I have a 28" 4K and it takes a
little bit to get used to. Make sure you have a desk where you can sit far
enough back (I'd say around 3 feet), otherwise eyes start hurting. Only
certain IDEs have decent scaling too (Android studio needs some font size
tweaks). Visual Studio does a pretty good job.

It's amazing for gaming in the off-hours though. I'd say go for it if you do a
lot of front-end work, otherwise wait until there's better support.

------
cweagans
I don't necessarily care about the actual resolution, but after moving to a
high PPI display > 24", I certainly won't be going back.

FWIW, I'm using an LG UM95 (Thunderbolt display better than Apple's). If I was
buying again today, I'd go for the 34UC97, which is essentially the same
display, but slightly curved. Ultrawide displays benefit a lot from a slight
curve, and the only thing you lose is the VESA mount. Might be important for
some, but not for me.

------
MalcolmDiggs
For a work computer, it really depends on what you're developing. If you're a
backend person (and don't spend your lunch breaks watching movies) I don't
think it's worth it, no.

But if you're a front-end person building a web-app, I think it's important to
have access to screens that are as good as what your visitors have (so you can
see what they see). If your site is catering to users who would have 4k, then
you definitely need it yourself.

------
i386
I bought a Dell U2515H recently. Not "retina" but really close enough.
Everything looks so damn crisp it might as well be for the price. The extra
inch (its 25") really makes a difference too.

[http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en...](http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=480-ACRZ)

------
jamespcole2
I use a 28" 4k monitor with ubuntu 14.04 and it works great(with an nvidia
card). One issue is that in gnome 3 the UI scaling cannot be set per monitor
so that if you are using a mix of HD and 4K it can become a bit annoying. If
you're wanting multiple monitors I recommend upgrading all of them(assuming
your graphics card has enough grunt).

------
rbanffy
It depends.

Software support is a bit spotty (unless you have a Mac). If your eyesight is
up to the task and the 4K screen is large enough, you can just treat it as a
huge normal monitor and have lots of reasonably sized pixels to play with. I
would go with something in the 40" range, which is the same pixel density as a
20" one.

------
bjourne
Reading stuff on the web is 1000x nicer with completely crisp, perfectly
shaped serif fonts. It feels like I can read fonts at smaller point sizes due
to the much improved shapes. Unfortunately, Linux support for HiDpi is lagging
significantly but hopefully it will catch up in 6-12 months.

------
blt
I just got the dell 27" 4k and it's great. Text looks amazing. Some Linux gui
apps look awfully tiny though. I'm not worried about it, the world will catch
up in the long run. But I also have decent eyes and can read really tiny text
if I must.

------
rbut
Yes definitely. I bought a DELL P2715Q @ 60hz and run it at 150% scaling,
which gives me 2560 x 1440, the same resolution as my old 27". Text is much
easier on the eyes now.

------
atom-x
Agreed as well. Moved to an Asus ASPB287Q, and absolutely love it. Using
SwitchResX I enabled HighDPI modem and it's stunning. It's like having a giant
Retina display.

------
dman
Highly recommend using three 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 monitors in portrait mode.

~~~
rebootthesystem
That's an interesting thought. We have three 1920x1200's in landscape mode on
every system. Never thought of trying them in portrait.

What happens when you tell a 16:9 video to go full screen?

~~~
dman
Well you get black bars on top and bottom and video takes ~1/3rd of the screen
vertically. On the other hand having dwm setup with keybindings on such a
setup and three fullscreen emacs frames is pure goodness.

~~~
rebootthesystem
I've always wanted to try square monitors. They exist but are really
expensive:

[http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/](http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/)

A system with 3 of these could be amazing.

------
avoidwork
worth it

