So, i've been thinking; what's the ideal display for both gaming and productivity? And which resolution should be considered? Is 1920 x 1080 even really viable for productivity at this point? Me, personally, in the long run, i'll be doing some Adobe CC graphic design work. But i'd also want to get into 3D terrain rendering and modelling. It seems that full HD is just fine for Adobe CC work. And something such as 2560 x 1440 seems even moreso suitable for such work. But is it sufficient for 3D work? Is it even up to snuff for Adobe CC apps?
Well, if you want to go with one monitor - 21:9 2560x1080 or whatever will be just fine for both. It basically gives you the real-estate of two 1080p monitors in one without the bezels...
Now for better productivity I would rather go with 2-3 1080p screens and use only one of them for gaming, while the others are there for purely productivity purposes. Even more, 1440 and a couple of 1080 will be great... 1440 main and the 1080s support... Whatever combo you like, you can do. As long as it eases your workflow...
I think 1440P is kind of a sweet spot so 99.9% of computer use.
I've tried a 40" 4K, with basically the same pixel density, and the ergonomics were sort of unusual. It was fun, and the screen scaling was fine (OS X), but you really had to use the center of the screen, without cranking your neck. It was a samsung TV, and the gamma was really flat compared to my iMac. So there was tons of extra warmth in the grays. I don't know why, I returned it.
There's an article out there, of an entire development studio that went to 4k seiki's 40"...
For you're 3D work, I do think having more space will help you work, and visualize more stuff. More pixels, simply means more details. So you will see more, regardless of how big the image is. That said, I think be careful how many panels, or random noise you allow on your desktop. I think it's work the time to open the panel, or find the open, rather than having everything always at your finger tips. I would rather see my work. Also I think multitasking is kind of an illusion. You can really only do about one thing at a time. Even if you're talking to someone and typing, you're probably not thinking about adding content to the notes....
I'm glad to hear that. I was thinking 1440 was the ideal res. The way i see it; it looks even better than 1080, games will look EVEN sharper. But it isn't 4K. It doesn't have the same taxing requirements. I think the tradeoff is perfect. We're now officially at the point where framebuffers are high enough to handle 2K. 4K is hard to run at 60FPS when gaming, especially with some serious graphics settings. Nevermind 120/144FPS. Systems under $2-3000 will not run those numbers comfortably any time soon. I'm not sure where anything higher than 1440 fits in with productivity. People keep recommending 2 or 3 monitors. It seems like it's more of a matter of workspace, instead of resolution at this point.
The difference between 1080 and 1440 isn't generally sharper. Whereas a lot of 4k displays for computers are technically retina displays... The difference is pixel density.
1440 is just larger, more surface area, than 1080. Unless the 1080 monitor is like a large television, then that is different.
TV panels have a lot of things built into them for "cinema experience" which accounts for color and frame issues for your computing needs. Most newer TV firmware does the frame doubling thing, where it uses the same 60Hz monitor but artificially doubles the frames to 120Hz. This looks terrible up close(your typical use case scenario for a computer monitor), as does a lot of the post-processing color values on a TV.
Thus, TV's make pretty lousy monitors up close when you're doing anything but browsing the web or watching movies. They tend to be a tad cheaper for the size, but I wouldn't use one for Photoshop or any art related endeavors, same for any FPS gaming due to the false-frame deal with frame doubling.
This all really comes down to a few things: budget, real estate and features. 40" 4k monitors are great for productivity, but harder to drive for gaming(at resolution, you can always run 1080 and upscale though). The Korean 4k monitors are all TV/monitors, which is to say they are a solid mixture of both. They fall between gaming monitors(nearly 0 refresh rate, high frame rate) and IPS/design oriented monitors(better color reproduction, much slower refresh rate) in almost every category, and as such as probably the most ideal multipurpose Jack of All Trades type monitors in my opinion.
Well then what's all this stuff of people (such as Logan) saying outright that Skyrim at 1440 with no filtering options looks as good, if not better than at 1080 with full filtering options. I believe he said it during a Korean 1440 monitor review.
I don't know what filters you mean? I haven't played skyrim...
Filters are for post-production. Adding anything like anti-aliasing is not my thing. Interpolation at lower resolution isn't the worst thing, but like adding noise or filters to add more contrast is tricks from the 90s.
Filtering options. AA and AF.