2K or not 2K, what's your resolution?

As I look about my basement "lab" I see four VGA CRTs stare back at me. Many of which, judging by their markings, are old enough to get past a bouncer at the door to a bar. Not that they are having any problems now, I'm just a bit concerned on their longevity. The age of the screens and the declining availability of VGA ports to plug them in leads me to think I'll need a digital screen or two soon.

The question is do I invest in a 2K screen (sometimes defined as 1920x1080, or so) or a 4K screen (3840 × 2160, or so). As it is now I have a couple CRTs with 1600x1200 which is 1.92 million pixels. 2K is 2.07 million pixels. Not much of a gain in screen real estate. With that alone it makes the expense of a new display and possibly new video card as well not much of a gain. I figure nearly $150 for each the 2K capable card and screen. Getting a 4K flat panel display and a new card with a digital output would run double that, mostly in the display which runs in the $300 on the low end, $450 in the middle, and the sky is the limit above that.

I'm almost afraid to even look at what 5K would cost.

In talking with my brother who does electronics design, he claims that I wouldn't even notice between 768 and 1080 vertical lines. Thats comparing 1 megapixel display to a 2 megapixel screen. I have to wonder what he's smoking to make that claim. I thought I had the good drugs in the family, and I'm not sharing. He's been visiting friends in Chicago quite a bit so who knows what he's bringing back with him.

What it comes down to is that I get a few bucks from the GI Bill every semester to buy books and supplies and it looks like I might not have to buy all that many books this semester, so I'd like to invest that in a screen and a video card, or two cards.

I think I want to stick with ATI chipsets given their compatibility with ESXI PCI passthrough, seemingly good support in Windows and LInux as well.

Adding to this is the competition between HDMI and DisplayPort. As most cards support both outputs in some way this is not likely an issue. If I want to save money, in the short term, I can aim from continuing the 2K resolutions on my current CRTs but upgrade only those cards not capable of those resolutions.

Let's see if I can sum up my choices before my own drugs kick in.

Connections: VGA, DP (or DP++), and HDMI
Screens: 2K-ish VGA CRT, 2K (w/HDMI?), or 4K (w/DP I assume), maybe a 3K in the middle somewhere.
Video cards: cheap 2K scrap I already have with two or more of VGA/HDMI/DVI, new card with (potentially 3K (2560×1440))VGA/HDMI, or new 4K card with DP/HDMI ports.

What's my budget for all of this? I'm not sure. If I don't have to buy any books, which seems likely, then may up to $600. If not then i'd be in the $300 range.

I hop that's enough for all. It's getting hard to type with the screen going in an out of focus like that... Screens fine I'm sure. I'll need to sleep this off though. G-night all, I think I need to take a little trip now.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Welly_59

If you look around I bet you could pick up a used 1080p monitor for $30

Phalanx

At present, the VAST majority (90%) of people won't use a 4k to its full capacity. 2k is still the norm and still the best bang for buck. Personally, I use 1920x1200 for that extra bit of fidelity and screen real estate. It makes enough of a difference to my work, but also allows me to have just that EXTRA bit of graphics quality for my gaming (I'm a heavy PC gamer!).

boot

There are two additional points I recommend you consider: panel type, and refresh rate. The refresh rate of a regular computer monitor is 60 Hz, 144 Hz is the common number among high refresh rate monitors, and the marketing hyperbole models were 200 Hz last time I checked. I highly recommend you try out a high refresh rate monitor (with a decent graphics card) and see if you notice a difference (you can lower the refresh rate to 60 Hz on a high refresh rate monitor, so you're not comparing two different monitors). It depends on your workload and your eyes, but it's not just for gaming even though the marketing may suggest that. To me, the difference between 60 and 120 Hz is enormous, and buying two high refresh monitors (two Asus MG279Qs) is the best hardware purchase I've made in years. Just do proper research, as most high refresh rate monitors can only handle it on one input (usually DisplayPort), so you can't just mix and match any hardware you come across.

Panels: If you are used to CRTs, most TN panels will disappoint you. Inferior colors, poor viewing angles. If you can find some monitors on display, look at the various panel types and see what looks decent to you. The very basic rundown of various types:

TN: Poor colors (bad), poor viewing angles (bad), low latency (good)
IPS: Decent colors (good), good viewing angles (good), somewhat higher latency
*VA (MVA, PVA etc.): Decent colors, good viewing angles, high latency (bad)

As for resolution, I'm a poor judge - I have a 37" 720p TV in my living room, and I'm totally fine with it. But a guideline I often hear is that 1080p/1200p is fine up to 24". From 25" and up, consider higher resolutions (keep in mind there is also 1440p (2560x1440) in between 1080p and 2160p (4K), which is cheaper).

Phalanx

I would say latency isn't as bad as it once was. IPS panels don't have very high latency. Just look for panels made for gamers if you want to be sure.

MacGuffin

Welly_59 wrote: »

If you look around I bet you could pick up a used 1080p monitor for $30

I am *VERY* reluctant to do that unless I can see the screen in person. Lots of used flat panels out there with VGA only inputs and VGA on a flat panel looks horrible, at least IMHO. If I get a nice new video card with only DP/HDMI output and the display has no cables with it then I'm buying a $30 adapter cable and I'm in the neighborhood of getting a new screen.

Getting any 1080p (according to my math above) gains me next to nothing in screen area. Getting a 1080p screen to replace my current 1600x1200 CRT has to have some advantage to make it worth the expense. At least with sticking with VGA I can use my old VGA KVM switches if I want to add another computer to my setup, and not deal with VGA on digital display fuzziness.

Just for grins I went to the Best Buy website (because I have to start somewhere and I can do same day store pick up) and I see a couple 1080p screens for $100, new, includes cables, and has built in speakers. Might not be a great screen but I know it's got digital (some with HDMI others DVI, all the same to me) and VGA inputs, and if I have a problem I can return it. They have cheaper monitors that lack some feature and/or are refurbished. Shopping around for used monitors to save maybe $50 just doesn't seem worth it. I'd almost rather spend that $50 on a DisplayPort to VGA adapter so I can use my current displays and get a kick ass video card now, get a kick ass screen later, and still have the adapter if I need to take my laptop somewhere that I need to hook up an old projector or something.

What could I gain with getting a 1080p screen? I get a newer brighter screen. My VGA screens are getting old and faded but they might last another two or ten years, I don't know. Maybe the screens go dark before I finish this post. If I shop carefully and/or don't mind spending a few bucks more I can get builtin speakers, which may be nice, or end up worthless since they are not know for their quality. Power consumption reductions in switching from CRT to flat panels don't concern me much, we have this thing called "winter" around here and the heat off the screen is kind of nice most the time. Oh, I guess I could put a Blu-ray player or other entertainment device on the screen and have that in my basement office, that might be nice.

I'm reluctant to buy used and reluctant to buy anything 1080 or less. Buying used *AND* 1080 is something I'm *VERY* reluctant to consider. I'd consider a *NEW* 1080 screen if someone makes a good case for it.

MacGuffin

boot wrote: »

As for resolution, I'm a poor judge - I have a 37" 720p TV in my living room, and I'm totally fine with it. But a guideline I often hear is that 1080p/1200p is fine up to 24". From 25" and up, consider higher resolutions (keep in mind there is also 1440p (2560x1440) in between 1080p and 2160p (4K), which is cheaper).

On a TV 720p is fine, but for computing I'd want more. I thought of upgrading my TV and repurposing the TV I have as a computer display until I realized how much of a down grade that could mean on pixel count, even compared to a 17" CRT. I still have a few CRTs to burn up before I look to taking my TV off the wall to make up for a lack of screens.

I'm looking for displays in the 19 to 27 inch range, due to desk space and budget limitations. A 2560/2880X1440 screen would certainly be acceptable. I haven't seen many in my research so far though, and when I do see them they aren't all that much cheaper than a 4K/2160p display. One thing that a 1440p screen seems to have that no 2160p screen does is a VGA port, and I don't care too much for that any more. I'll take it if it costs me nothing but if it's not there it concerns me very little. If I can find a 1440p screen at the right price then I'll buy it.

Any suggestions on where I should be looking for *NEW* displays? I know that there are lots of places that sell refurbished, used, and open box stuff but I think I want to steer clear of that. A computer display is one of the few things I don't want to buy on a dent-n-scratch sale.

Welly_59

You know that a 1080p screen us actually what you are calling a 2k screen right?

wd40

What Welly_59 said, I don't remember reading about 2k monitors before, it is a Full HD or 1080p monitor.

You need to stop thinking about options that you may or may not be able to afford and decide on what you really want.

Personally I moved from a 22" 1680 × 1050 + 26" 1920 * 1200 monitors to 3 x 27" 1920 * 1080 monitors, I really do not miss the extra pixels from the old 26"

And regarding VGA, HDMI, DVI and DP, I some times use 2 of the screens for my laptop, one connected through DisplayPort and the other through VGA, and I really can't tell the deference between the two.

MacGuffin

Welly_59 wrote: »

You know that a 1080p screen us actually what you are calling a 2k screen right?

Yes, I know that 2K and 1080 are the same thing. I said so in my original post.

The question is something of a survey to ask others if they see the value in a 4K screen versus sticking with a 2K screen, or perhaps a "2K-ish" VGA screen with a similar number of pixels.

Everyone is different and there is no "right" answer here. I can get by cheap with a new video card with a VGA port, or I can make the leap to 4K now. If people think that 4K is something they would never do without again then I might take this server to workstation conversion project I have as an excuse to make that 4K leap now.

Another thing I'm considering is getting a laptop which brings essentially the same question. Do I get the 2K/1080 screen or spend the extra $300, $400, or so and get the 4K screen upgrade? I'm still figuring out my budget and one thing I'm wondering is the value in having a 4K screen. I can spend that money on a screen, or on more processor and memory, or save it for more hardware later.

The laptop I have been bringing to class has a 1024x768 screen, the terrible screen, it's weight, and general age have made me decide to just leave it home. Whether I invest in a 4K screen for a laptop or desktop the difference in cost looks to me like about $400. The only difference in getting the lower resolution screen on a laptop is I can't just upgrade later like on a desktop, it's all or nothing there.

MacGuffin

wd40 wrote: »

Personally I moved from a 22" 1680 × 1050 + 26" 1920 * 1200 monitors to 3 x 27" 1920 * 1080 monitors, I really do not miss the extra pixels from the old 26"

Right, I'm not going to worry too much about a difference of a 1920x1200 to a 1920x1080, that's about a 10% difference. The difference between a 1366x768 and a 1920x1080 is pretty big though, that's nearly doubling the pixel count. I've used screens limited to 1366x768 or 1024x768 and they seem just tiny and useless any more, many webpages won't even fit on a screen that small. I consider 1600x1200, 1920x1080, or something in that ballpark the bare minimum.

wd40 wrote: »

And regarding VGA, HDMI, DVI and DP, I some times use 2 of the screens for my laptop, one connected through DisplayPort and the other through VGA, and I really can't tell the deference between the two.

Then you must have a much better VGA conversion than I've seen. VGA is essentially a dead technology and so I'm willing to leave it behind, especially since VGA is not capable of the higher resolutions that digital video can get now.

The only reason I'd concern myself with the difference between HDMI, DVI, and DP is a matter of "future proofing" my hardware. Most any computer or video card with a DP output will connect to a DVI or HDMI display with a cheap passive cable, but that's an optional part of the DP specification. Every 4K display I've seen has a DP input, so if I want 4K then I need a DP capable computer. I see that HDMI 2.0 can do 4K, but with limited refresh rates, and HDMI 2.1 can do just about anything DP can do, but both specs are so new that I've seen nothing that support them yet. It looks like DP is winning this format war so, all else equal, I'll pick DP if I can.

WafflesAndRootbeer

I moved to 32-inch 1080P monitors - yes, they exist - and haven't looked back. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to see them in person since most retailers don't carry them because only a few companies make them. As for interfaces, none of that really matters at this point. Most HD monitors have HDMI and DP or 2-3 HDMI and a VGA port, so they can connect to anything. Nothing out now is future-proof because monitors and GPUs have not caught up to the current interfaces and their features. Right now, we just have HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.2 on monitors. Next year, we'll get the first 4K/5K/8K monitors with HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 for the next-gen GPUs.

Ertaz

1440P is what I consider optimal in the price performance area at 32 inches. (1600p would be better though).

MacGuffin

No one has really jumped up and down telling me I need a 4K screen. I'll give this one last bump for people that might want to chime in. I'm thinking I'll just go shopping at some big box stores in the area for a cheap 2K/1080p screen. I know I can get them online too but for something like a screen I want to see it before I buy it. Not sure when exactly I'll do this, probably in the next week, so if you have something to offer me then speak up soon.

I'm still going back and forth on needing a new laptop soon. If I can make up my mind on not needing one I might get a 4K screen.

Welly_59

Go for a 2560x1440 screen if you can

MacGuffin

Welly_59 wrote: »

Go for a 2560x1440 screen if you can

I've been keeping that in mind but they do seem to be rare. Seems like there's a bit of a "hole" between 1920 x 1080 and 3840 x 2160 in offerings, there's not much in between and when there is the price is not much cheaper than 4K.

MacGuffin

I stopped by a local Best Buy yesterday and got an AOC brand 22 inch 1920x1080 screen for $100 and change. I saw the larger model on the shelf and on the back were ports for HDMI, VGA, and audio out. I asked the blue shirted man if the smaller model was in stock and if it had audio out like the larger one on the shelf. He answered affirmative to both questions. I got it home, unpacked it, and no audio out port. Well, I guess I got what I paid for since all the others I saw were at least $50 more and had features like audio output.

I suppose I could take it back and get something better but it's here, and it works. The picture is clear and bright, and a significant improvement over my faded Sony Trinitron that it replaced.

I'll try this for a while and if for some reason the lack of audio output bothers me too much later I'll just get another monitor and be more careful about looking at the specifications. I was so concerned about not having enough space on my desk that I got what I think was the smallest screen they had in stock. Now that it's on my desk I think I have room for two of them. It shouldn't be too hard to find a screen of the same size, there's only like three companies that make the actual glass part and there's only so many ways to put that glass on a stand.

My brother was telling me that a 720p screen is just as good as a 1080p screen. I was using my 720p TV as a monitor until yesterday and the difference is quite clear. I think my brother needs to have his brain and his eyes examined.

I think I still want to get a 4K screen in the not too distant future but I'm happy for now.