I have two full size windows open side-by-side all the time - one of the many benefits of having two screens. In all seriousness, no matter what advantages one big, high res screen offers, there will always be the compromise of having to sit closer to make use of the extra detail. I reckon I sit about 2 feet away from my screens, and at 87ppi it's perfect for the work that I do. If you're upscaling everything, then what's the advantage of all that detail that you probably can't even perceive from a normal sitting distance?
I have already got a 4k monitor. I think they are great, although on the software front font scaling needs improving. Windows 7 was immediately out of date for me, as an example. A freesync/g-sync chip is important too. I have used G-Sync and the difference is fantastic. Having no lag and tear within 30-60fps is something all gamers should experience.
I have to totally agree with you regarding the importance of G-Sync (not tried FreeSync, so can't comment first hand). I recently purchased a new 2560x1440 monitor with G-Sync and the difference when gaming (BF4) is just stunning. I've never enjoyed playing it so much, it is just silky smooth all the time. I am truly amazed at how much better the experience is, even though my previous 1080p monitor was 144hz. I have to disagree on the 30-60fps though, in that to me, it still feels like playing in treacle at these rates (albeit smooth treacle). This is another reason that I won't be going for 4k any time soon as the refresh rates are so low.
I've now been using a 27" 4k monitor for about 4 months, must admit it's amazing, particularly for photo editing and 3D work. It's not a substitute for multiple monitors, that's for sure though. I've never understood it when people look at high res panels like that. Usually with multiple monitors it's the added size and mounting options that make them good, not the pure pixels. However, I definitely wouldn't go back to a lower res panel. I have a 27" 1080p panel to compare directly to (as that's what it replaced) and it's like night and day for some uses. Being able to scale down menus in apps like Blender without losing text crispness is brilliant, it's given me a lot of usable working area back. Compared with a good 1440p panel it's not quite as noticeable, but it's still an improvement (comparing it against an iMac screen there). Game support has been surprisingly decent too. Whilst it's quite demanding, I've found there's basically no need for AA, not even 2x, which makes things much easier to run. I have enough GPU grunt anyway, but some titles don't like SLI (CSGO for instance stutters all the time for me) but still play fine on a single card (Titan, so a 780 or equivalent I guess). The ones that aren't that good on SLI and don't fully support 4k tend to be older or less demanding anyway, so not a problem. GTAV is glorious in 4k, that's for sure.
I have 3 x1080 monitors running off (sorry Matt) SLI GTX 970 x2. I'd consider switching to one larger 4k monitor possibly, but even though I can afford it, I balk at paying the current prices, as I don't really see enough of a gain for me from my current set up for the price. When prices drop enough I may consider getting one, but I do love having triple monitors, and the thought of buying 3x4k monitors and the outlay of the graphics cards required to run such a setup adequatley makes my eyes bleed at the thought. It's been a few years since I last had to actively hide what I'd spent on something computer related to the wife, and I'd rather keep my clandestine PC related purchases under the radar and without getting into a dicussion about it with her. Triple 4k monitors and graphic cards to go with them would certainly require a long "discussion" with the wife about such purchases. So, my short answer is : if the cost is reasonable enough that I don't need to discuss the purchase upfront with my wife, I'll just buy them. They are not at that price point yet. Your poll didn't cover my situation
I'd buy a 4k monitor right now, but there are none available that fulfill all my criteria: 1) 4k (obviously) 2) >27". Because my current monitors are 2560x1440 27", and I want more surface area a lot more than I want higher pixel density. 3) IPS. Because colour accuracy and viewing angle are important to me. 4) Freesync and >60Hz. I hate tearing, and I hate lag even more. 5) Curved. The flatness of monitors starts to become noticable with larger monitors. I would also prefer the aspect ratio to not be too extreme, as I often find myself wanting more height than my current 1440, but rarely feel that more width would be beneficial. 16:9 is fine, 16:10 is perfect. I don't care for extra features. In fact my current monitors don't even have an OSD.
I agree with point 5 (well most of your points actually) I am using the Philips 40" 4k screen daily and sat where I do it looks like the screen bends backwards at the edges, due I guess to my eyes field of view, a curve would fix that. I am used to it now but it would be better with a curve when 2ft from my face, still its been awesome for work and I am the envy of the office, covet my screen Just works, no scaling needed for windows/unix etc just lots of real estate and no black bars so I can have my design windows any size I want and not be confined to a small screen in my old triple setup. Though I will admit some parts of my workflow work well with the old screen seperations.
I think I'd rather get a couple of these over a 4K monitor at the moment (if I had the cash of course). Less money, more pixels and more screen real estate than a decent IPS 4K, such as the Dell P2715Q. You can even get a 24" 2560x1440 Acer for just over £200 on Amazon. For me this is the real benefit of 4K monitors right now.
No but I am looking for a upgrade from my current 27" Dell to something around 34" curved with Gsync.
