Windows 10: What is smallest size of 4K screen (in inches) you would recommend?

Hello

What is the smallest physical size (in inches) of 4K screen that you would recommend with Windows10, in practice?

Background
As we all know, if one has a high resolution screen with a very high DPI, depending on how applications have been written, everything including the text tends to get physically smaller on the screen.
Obviously if one right-clicks on the Desktop ==> Display Settings ==> you can set a Custom Scale Factor which will "change the size of text, apps and other items". However I understand that if you use too large a scale factor a lot of old-fashioned UIs will "break" and become unusable - e.g. with text becoming unreadable and "Submit" buttons disappearing.

I have an old 24" 1920x1800 resolution monitor, and I already have scaling set to 200%. I LOVE having a large, higher resolution screen as it helps me thinks more clearly... But text needs to be reasonably easy to read or one gets eye-strain eventually. Is 200% scaling the max possible in Windows 10? If not what happens if you go further?

How are you guys getting on with 4K screens? What physical size are your screens and what scaling are you using?

Cheers

J

:)

 

What to buy after Nokia 700

have you considered sourcing a Lumia 620? that is the smallest fellow in the Windows Phone 8 camp, with a screen size of 3.8 inches.

 

looking for a n8 ebook reader

Interesting. Normal version is already great. HD version is meant for N8 since icons are a bit small, and the smallest font size option is really small on the normal version on the N8, maybe meant for 4 or 4.3 inch screen.

Will see which is better.

 

28", 150%.

Some applications (e. g., Photoshop CS6) don't scale their menus. The icons are tiny.

The maximum scaling I get (14393.693) is 350%.

(later) Let me add a question: how close will you sit to the screen?

I'm happy with a 28", but I position my eyes roughly the screen's diagonal length from the screen. (That's roughly the distance needed for the eye to resolve the pixels.)

 

I have no real need for a 4k monitor. I used a Dell 27" 2560x1440 UltraSharp monitor at work and ran it at 100%. I wouldn't go any less than 32" with a 4k monitor myself.

For me, I prefer more real estate space. On my 13" MacBookPro, I run the retina screen scaled at 1680x1050 as I want more on the screen and less scrolling. By default, Apple at 1280x800 on the 2560x1600 monitor. It looks very nice, but everything is just way to big. I found a utility that let me run native resolution on the Mac, which was 2560x1600, but that was useless on a 13" display.

 

Fwiw, I currently use a 24in 1920x1200 monitor running at 200% scaling. I currently sit about 20" away from it.

I am considering a 27" screen. From what I've read, I would much prefer larger but they seem to suddenly get v expensive and my budget is only c. £550.

* * *

OK I have now done quite a lot of researching of reviews of monitors.
Recap on my requirements:
- I want 4K (UHD) but I would conside QHD (WQHD)
- I will NOT be doing any gaming.
- I need reasonably accurate colours (with a matte screen)
- My budget is £550

OPTIONS:
I've narrowed it down to 2 options:

A) Dell P2715Q (£528.49 +£11.50 shipping from Scan)
Released 2+ years ago (Dec-2014?)60Hz refresh rate, HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort 1.2a

B) ViewSonic XG2700-4K (£514.97 +£4.95 shipping from Laptops Direct)
Released: April 2016?Really designed for gaming but does that matter?60Hz refresh rate, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.2a FreeSync (max 40Hz)


QUESTIONS:
- The Dell looks dull and is getting old. I also HATE the way they patronise us by not giving proper specifications on their website, and the way their website is vastly more expensive than elsewhere (that monitor costs £878.40 incl VAT & delivery on euro.dell.com!) but does any of that matter?

- The ViewSonic is more modern, and said to have superbly accurate colours despite an "18%" variation of brightness across the screen....

- The Dell also doesn't seem to do gaming but given that I don't intend to do any gaming, all I want is high resolution and reasonably accurate colours so does the AMD FreeSync vs. nVidia G-Sync actually matter? i.e. Do I need to get an AMD graphics card if I get the ViewSonic?

- Any advice/thoughts? (e.g. Can you recommend any other monitors?)

Cheers

J

 

Hi folks

On SMALLER size screens the 4K does make a HUGE difference when working with TEXT -- I know that seems exactly NOT the purpose of 4K but it makes a huge difference -- would love even a KINDLE to have a 4K screen.

For VIDEO you really need > 42 ins and even then there's a load of "different" 4K quality stuff so check the specs carefully.

There's not a lot of UHD 4K content currently -- a lot is simply "Up-rezzed" 1080p or even 720p but that should change in the future.

Beware of TV's with "4K Ready" on them -- you need TV's with at least Ultra HD capability.

Start with this to avoid real pitfalls buying "Cheap" stuff at the moment as standards change.

What is 4K TV and Ultra HD? All you need to know about 4K

Note also - most 4K HDMI splitters won't work with UHD 4K content - such as SKY Q main box -- the latest HDMI v2 cables have a load of DRM crud in them so it will be a while before splitters will work. You can usually split 1080p HDMI though so that can be passed through to a capture device so you can save content and watch it later.

My problem with a load of this new technology is that Streaming is fine - but sometimes I want to store content and watch it later. I'm not always sure if I want to Binge watch for hours on end the latest Box sets in 4K.

If you do use HDMI splitters the cheap unbranded chinese ones work flawlessly while the more expensive branded stuff have real problems when being used with things like SKY Q Miniboxes for capturing output.

Cheers
jimbo

 

Hi

To get clear I won't be watching ANY video (bar the odd youtube clip), this machine is for general purpose business plus some graphic design on a Windows (10) PC. And a little 3D design.

UPDATE:
So I just spoke to PCSpecialist (who have nice long opening hours unlike ChillBlast) and the conclusion was that I could possibly put an "8GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 1070" (or possibly a GTX 1060??) into my old PC and although there might be (slight?) bottle necking it would probably work fine as I have a Midi Tower case and a 500w ATX power supply...

However the next problem is where to buy from because he then said that he's not allowed to sell me one because they can only sell whole systems! (I would like to buy from someone who offers good advice even it costs a little bit more.)

Then I looked on Amazon but there seem to be quite a few 1 star reviews however it seems that you don't just buy a card from nVidia, you have to get something with another brand on it as well (e.g. ASUS, EVGA, MSI but how do you know what the difference is or which to buy?) And it's not just the branding - they have different fans on them... [groan] All super-confusing!

So any recommendations for where I should buy just a graphics card from?

Cheers

J

 

eVGA is about as safe as you can get. My favorite online retailer is Newegg. They do business in the UK. Their least expensive 6GB 1060 is £200. Other vendors may be a better choice in the UK.

nVidia sells graphics cards directly (GeForce.com), but I don't know whether they do business in the UK.

If you buy a "reference" card, there may be no significant differences among vendors. It looks like the reference 1060 needs a 6 pin PCI-E auxiliary power connection. Does your PSU have one?

I wonder what sort of card you need. The 1060 is supposed to be a pretty good card for 3D gaming, but I don't know what you'd need for graphic design. I suppose that if you needed a high-powered OpenGL card (as 3D CAD), you would know that. (Such cards typically have huge amounts of VRAM, high price tags, but GPUs that may not be more powerful than ordinary desktop cards.)

 

Yes, Nvidia and AMD make the chipsets. Companies like EVGA, ASUS and MSI build video cards which include either the Nvidia or the AMD chipsets.

1). You do a lot of reading and research
2). As model #'s increase, the cost of the cards go up substantially. And so does performance. A GTX 1060 is good ($300), a 1070 is faster, ($425) and a 1080 ($600) is top of the line.
3). As far as models go, you will see that companies like EVGA have a standard 1060, an overclocked 1060, a 1060 that has different coolers, etc. A slightly overclocked 1060 is better than a standard 1060, but not better than a 1070 would be. So, I wouldn't pay a lot extra for the overclocked board. If it has a rebate or comes in at the same or cheaper price, than sure. Sometimes the aftermarket fans are intended to be cooler, while others are meant to be quieter. You have to read about the particular card to get the details.
#4). Determine if you are going to ever run dual video cards (nVidia SLI). Certain boards, like the GTX1060 don't support SLI. I just built a computer for my son and we used a 1060, because I knew I would never run SLI on his box. But if you want that, you want a 1070 or 1080.

I also really like EVGA boards. That's usually what I buy. I tend to go with the reference fan layout myself. I find it cools sufficiently and is quiet. I don't need the absolute best performance, so I can live without extra overclocking, etc.

I usually buy from NewEgg or Amazon.

 

My 7-year old motherboard Intel DP55WB talks about having a "PCIe x16 Gen 2.x" expansion slot.
https://ark.intel.com/products/41162...p-Board-DP55WB

- What would be the maximum resolution of screen (in full colour - "10bit"??) that my motherboard could handle?

- And what would happen if I plug a PCI-E 3.0 graphics card in?
e.g. "EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB GAMING"
EVGA - Product Specs - EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB GAMING
Says it can do:
>>>
- Max Monitors Supported: 4- 240Hz Max Refresh Rate- Max Digital: 7680x4320
- Simultaneous Multi-Projection...
- Bus Type: PCI-E 3.0
>>>
Would the card fail to run at all or would it simply run at PCIe 2?

 

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, the motherboard is almost irrelevant as to the resolution and color depth provided by a discrete graphics card. The only concern that I am aware of is whether the board plus CPU can supply enough PCI-E lanes to support all of the devices present. That's not likely to be an issue with a single graphics card. (I trust you're not contemplating SLI or Crossfire, multiple cards combined to increase GPU performance. Mainly used for gaming.)

A PCI-E 3 card is backwards compatible. It ought to work fine in a PCI-E X16 version 1 slot. I'm not sure whether any graphics cards currently on the market can consume all the bandwidth of a PCI-E 2.0 slot.

Don't worry over much about the graphics card. I believe that you choice of monitor will matter a lot more to you. Just be sure to match interfaces. (If you wish to use HDMI, make sure that the graphics card supports 2.0a. I suggest DisplayPort, though, if only because it's not used with TVs.)

 

A niggle here: the absolute top-of-the line is a Pascal Titan X. $1200US, directly from nVidia. 12GB of VRAM probably needs two cards in SLI to be useful for gaming.

 

Running my 27" UHD at 175% scaling on a GTX 1050 graphics card at 3840x2160. Sitting about 2' from screen. In all, very comfortable viewing for this non-gamer.