I have been keeping an eye on this monitor for a while. Noticed a huge price drop today. It should be the cheapest 4K monitor you can find in NZ. Let me know if anyone knows a better option.
Please note that this is a business monitor, not a gaming one.
Great deal, I game on a 4k "non gaming" monitor and it works great for my use case :)
Great if it's for more than gaming, but I would never get a 4k 60hz monitor over a 1440p 75hz+ one.
1440p is a far better option for most people unless they always get a xx90 card every gen or two - most people just don't have the hardware to display 4k at any reasonable settings and frame rate.
60hz is like the standard these days, but even 75hz and 100hz are noticeably better, not to mention the response times on non-gaming monitors.
As someone who doesn’t play games that much I’m firmly in the res over fps camp!
Another other person said they have a 7900xtx and prefer 4k. But even that card can't hit 60fps cyberpunk at 4k. Hence, unless you're upgrading to xx90 cards every 2nd gen (or you play games that are not demanding), you're going to get a better experience on 1440p, especially at 27", where you can actually max out the settings and ensure you do have 60fps or more.
Very few people have the hardware capable of actually getting 4k 60fps in modern games without significantly dropping the settings to achieve it. And if the argument is then "but DLSS", then it's pointless to begin with because at the distance you're actually viewing the monitor, you're not going to notice a difference between high settings upscaled to 4k, and 1440p native max settings in any significant way except for fps - you will absolutely notice an improvement from 60fps to even 75fps, and 100fps in most games.
@chunder: I played cyberpunk and elden ring right through at 4k and was pretty happy with my 3080 on a 32" monitor. I think this was when it was the AMD upscaling only in Cyberpunk?
Actually the only reason i've considered upgrading the card was training models for my thesis was getting a bit slow / mem constrained.
Frankly, if I could buy a reasonably priced 5k monitor I would. I'll take fuzzy games at a lower res over fuzzy text in day to day use any day of the year.
I guess it's like when I used to sell TVs. Better backlighting is a LOT more valuable than 4k or 8k or a high frame rate for 99% of people (if they even play games most people would be plugging in a console anyway)
@Grandma: Elden ring isn't overly demanding, but yes, of course you'd use upscaling for cyberpunk - that's the point. 1440p native ultra settings would be sharper and better quality than upscaled to 4k medium settings which is what you would've had to use - just because you were okay with what it was, doesn't mean it's a better quality image than the former, that's an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Side by side you'd pick the 1440p native which is able to use higher quality settings and therefore would also be a sharper image with better frame consistency. On top of that, again, as said, you'll need to be upgrading to the latest top range cards to continue getting 60fps at 4k in the latest games - you ain't hitting 60fps 4k on a 3080 in Avatar, TLOU2, Black Myth etc without dropping those setting to med/low and using upscaling.
I'd be pretty damn surprised by anyone saying a 27" 1440p monitor had "fuzzy text" outside of upscaled images. That makes no sense. Unless your primary use case is only viewing text, you are not getting significantly sharper text from 1440p to 4k on a 27" monitor when used at a proper viewing distance - but yes 32" is a reasonable size to choose 4k over 1440p because that's a significantly larger area - however again, .
But if your concern is text sharpness anyway then clearly you're not buying a monitor for gaming as a priority and therefore, as said initially:
Great if it's for more than gaming
The entire point is someone saying they think a 4k 60hz monitor is great for gaming in their use case without specifying the use case, and it's objectively not "great for gaming" in any sense in comparison to a same sized 27" 1440p higher refresh rate. Anyone arguing that 27" 4k 60hz is a better experience than 27" 1440p 75-100hz higher settings is being disingenuous or ignorant. It's not debatable at this point, youtube and the internet in general is jam packed with such opinions and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone with any credibility suggesting otherwise.
@chunder: I think the other person was just saying that they were happy with a 4k 60 thing and this cheapies post is pretty good value, My 32" 4k is a samsung M8 that I paid a few hundred dollars for as an ex demo unit years ago and factoring that in, it's really good.
'Anyone arguing that 27" 4k 60hz is a better experience than 27" 1440p 75-100hz higher settings is being disingenuous or ignorant.'
Idk about that, it really depends what you play. Maybe for esports shooters? But for single player games or things like cities skylines or clunkier games like GTA or red dead imo higher fps adds nothing considerable to the game. IIRC elden ring is 60fps capped anyway and for none of those input latency is an issue. It's purely a tradeoff of density vs fps and purely preference. Over in TV land, you used to be a hell of a lot better off getting a 1080 tv with good fullarray back lighting over a 4k edge lit thing, the modern equivalent is probably an edgelit x80 or whatever the models are now with vrr 120hz vs x95 with a much denser back arrays (models maybe wrong or out of touch!)
What about watching 4K movie
If I'm really that vested in it I'd watch it on a TV.
This monitor is relatively dark in HDR (compared to more expensive ones) and has low color representation. I'd not want to use it for watching movies.
To each their own.
I am running a 7900XTX, which hits 60fps native for pretty much everything, other than Starfield.
My old eyes enjoy the resolution, and I don't have the reaction speed for above 60FPS these days.
I tend to play slower games.
Cool but you're also not maxing out the settings at 4k to hit 60fps on newer games or future games: Cyberpunk 4k ultra gets 50fps: https://youtu.be/rvveQdbLf6E?t=386
So at 27" unless you're literally eyes to the screen, 4k on med/high settings to be able to hit 60fps isn't going to look better than 27" 1440p 75fps+ ultra settings.
And as I say, even that extra 15fps to hit 75 is a noticeable improvement over 60fps regardless of the type of game you play - you don't have to be playing competitive twitch shooters to benefit from increased frames (not to mention the extra stability from your card not having to struggle to output 60fps)
1440p 75hz+ and being able to play games at max/higher settings is better than 4k 60fps medium/high settings.
I'd strongly recommend against 4k 27"
27" is too small for a 4k monitor, you will need to use display scaling of 125-150%.
better to get 1440p at that size so you don't need to use fractional display scaling and can run at 100% with the native resolution.
Native resolution looks better than fractional display scaling.
I have a 27" 4k monitor and really regret that i didn't buy a 1440p 27" or bigger (32") 4k monitor.
I don't play games i just use desktop apps.
I have both — a dell 1440p 27", and , a dell 4k 27" (one of the first dell 4k monitors, with a rocking 30hz refresh rate!). I prefer the dell 4k 27", text on the 1440p is not great.
30hz sucks though. This could be a great upgrade.
Got one today for using in with Windows desktop
Looks ok, is super sharp. Compare it to my old monitor HP Z23n the color isn't as nice.
The HDR is a bit dim. But for the price it's understandable.
Windows 11 has settings that can help. In Settings Display HDR, can do the HDR Calibration to create a profile for the monitor. That helped.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/calibrate-your-h…
If you want high resolution to get more workspace. It's good for the price.
If you want (or need) good colors then skip it, you'll need to pay more.
Really good deal, nice find