Suggestion for a new monitor?

[vol.2]

My main work display is starting to get old and I'm going to need to replace it. The existing one is a 16:10 24" NEC IPS that is intended for color accurate work. I do some work that I need a pretty decent sRGB gamut, so I want another one that will work.

I've been looking at the current NEC's, and the 27" looks like it has about the same vertical size as my current one, so I'm thinking about buying that one, but I noticed that they haven't really been pushing the refresh rates very much. They sync down to 15kHz, which is kind of interesting, but they *only* go up to 86kHz instead of the 144 that I'm starting to see quite often. I would probably do some gaming on it, but I'm generally more focused on my CRTs for that, so I guess it's not a hugely crucial point.

Any opinions on the benefits of a higher refresh rate?

[lalilulelo]

They sync down to 15kHz, which is kind of interesting, but they *only* go up to 86kHz instead of the 144 that I'm starting to see quite often. I would probably do some gaming on it, but I'm generally more focused on my CRTs for that, so I guess it's not a hugely crucial point.

I think you're confusing horizontal and vertical scan rates. For vertical rates, some monitors can do 144Hz, which is 144 frames per second. I think there are also some that'll do 360Hz, which is 360 frames per second - which seems like ridiculous overkill to me. 15kHz as a vertical rate would be 15,000 frames per second, which is not something any display can do. 15kHz as a horizontal rate would be 480i or 240p standard definition. I believe 86kHz is 2560 x 1440 resolution, which is the native resolution of that monitor you linked. I'm not sure what the vertical rate of this monitor is, but it looks like it's probably 60 or 85Hz, which is pretty standard for this type of monitor.

I have an ASUS monitor that's very similar to this (ASUS PB278Q), it's just not as advanced as far as its color accuracy. I like it a lot, the picture quality is really good. It's not the most advanced monitor around, but it suits my purposes pretty well and I think the picture quality compares pretty well to most newer displays. My monitor only supports 60Hz at 1440p by default, but supposedly if you hack the firmware it'll run at 85Hz; I haven't bothered to do that because I'm fine with just using 60Hz.

Any opinions on the benefits of a higher refresh rate?

Like you suggested, gaming is pretty much the only type of activity that would realistically benefit from a higher vertical refresh rate - higher than 60Hz. Technically it might have other benefits, but realistically it won't make much of a difference for anything other than gaming. A higher refresh rate means a higher framerate, which means smoother and more responsive movements in games. You also need to have a pretty powerful PC in order to get framerates higher than 60fps.

To answer your other question, I think the monitor you linked would probably be a good choice for you, but you haven't said what you intend to use it for - so it's hard to say. Since you mentioned you're using it for color accurate work, I'd guess you're probably using it for something related to photography or graphic design - is that right? In that case, the monitor you linked would probably be good. But on the other hand, if you want to get a high-end professional monitor, you might want to consider getting a monitor that can do 4K or higher resolution and/or an OLED monitor. I'm not sure how an OLED display would compare to an LCD for the type of work that you're doing, but it's something you should probably at least consider. 4K or higher resolutions can have lots of benefits for various types of visual work - I won't say any more about that right now.

All of that aside, I've used my ASUS monitor for photo and video editing and other types of visual work, and it works pretty well for that. The only limitation it has for me is that it isn't perfect for editing 4K video since it isn't 4K, but it's okay for that since it can at least give you an approximation of what the final 4K video will look like. Whether or not that NEC monitor would work well for you depends on your needs.

I'm sorry if anything I said is telling you something you already know, I'm just trying to help.

[vol.2]

I'm sorry if anything I said is telling you something you already know, I'm just trying to help.

Not at all, I'm happy to get input on it. Thank you for the comments.

I think you're confusing horizontal and vertical scan rates.

I stated it in a confusing way (hmin & vmax), but I know the difference and what I wrote is correct. It goes down to 15kHz horizontal and it goes up to 85kHz vertical.

15kHz as a vertical rate would be 15,000 frames per second, which is not something any display can do. 15kHz as a horizontal rate would be 480i or 240p standard definition.

Yes, I found that interesting which is why I included the information. It only accepts digital input, so whatever I sent it would have to be from my PC or and upscaler, but I think it opens a few interesting possibilities as long as there aren't any obvious issues that I'm not seeing.

I believe 86kHz is 2560 x 1440 resolution, which is the native resolution of that monitor you linked. I'm not sure what the vertical rate of this monitor is, but it looks like it's probably 60 or 85Hz, which is pretty standard for this type of monitor.

So, the monitor does 15kHz-96kHz horizontal and 23Hz-86Hz vertical. So it maxes out at 86Hz for refresh rate. I use my home monitor (now more than ever) for a variety of programs for work. My primary use is for CAD design work, but also for graphic design purposes including work that ends up on websites and needs to be fairly color-consistent. When I create an image or choose a background color, I need to be fairly confident that what I see is what other people will see when they view it on the web. However, the reality is that most people don't have perfect screens and are getting various results anyway, so my instinct is that super high degree accuracy isn't really that crucial in web environments; the main thing is that it has to be accurate enough in of itself to calibrate and give me a baseline for what people will see in the world. The CAD work isn't so much about color accuracy as it is about clarity, resolution and size. Working on big 3D models is very difficult on a small monitor with modern CAD software. I've often thought about getting a 32"+ size just to make that a little easier, but I would find it difficult to use anything that big for anything else.
I also do some video editing, and I wonder if the refresh rate would matter for that (or for CAD work for that matter)?

I have an ASUS monitor that's very similar to this (ASUS PB278Q), it's just not as advanced as far as its color accuracy. I like it a lot, the picture quality is really good.

Thanks for the recommendation, I notice these are extremely sold out at the moment, which speaks well for their popularity. I imagine the world situation is impacting manufacturing chains at the moment and the trade meltdown between china and the US is crapping all over the electronics industry right now.

IAC, I think I would probably stick with something that will do *at least* 85Hz out of the box, so probably would look for a different one.

I'm not sure how an OLED display would compare to an LCD for the type of work that you're doing, but it's something you should probably at least consider.

I've read quite a lot about OLEDs. The issue with OLED is that there is currently only one plant in Japan (JOLED) that makes PC monitor sized panels. The reasons are many-fold, but generally have to do with the inherent issues with color-shift and diode lifespan. These issues have been greatly abated in large panels, but the techniques used to do this add extra subpixels to the array and greatly impact overall pixel density to the point where it isn't really possible to get higher than 1080p displays in PC monitor sizes. JOLED's material deposition techniques are completely different than any other process for OLED manufacture and supposedly "fix" the issues to some degree without sacrificing density too much. Unfortunately, these displays are so new that increased lifespan claims are not yet validated, and they so small-batch that the ASUS monitors that carry the panels cost around $3500-$5000 for a 27" display and that's just firmly outside of what I'm willing to spend!

Thanks for the comments. It gave me some stuff to think about.

[Guspaz]

greatly impact overall pixel density to the point where it isn't really possible to get higher than 1080p displays in PC monitor sizes.

LG sells a 4K OLED TV that is 48". The equivalent 1080p size is 24". If they wanted to make a 1440p OLED monitor, it would be 32". These would both be acceptable sizes for PC displays of those resolutions. Their 48" model costs $1,500. The 24" equivalent mentioned would only contain one quarter the panel area. It wouldn't quite be a quarter the cost, because the electronics are still needed, but fab yields would also be higher due to not needing as large of a defect-free area. If we assume 25% of the cost of the TV is the electronics and scale the remaining cost, we get a retail price of 24" 1080p OLED at $656 USD, which seems perfectly reasonable for a high-end display.

[lalilulelo]

I stated it in a confusing way (hmin & vmax), but I know the difference and what I wrote is correct. It goes down to 15kHz horizontal and it goes up to 85kHz vertical.

I don't understand what you're talking about. When you say vmax, do you mean vertical resolution? It seemed like you were talking about vertical refresh rate, which isn't the same thing as resolution in the traditional sense.

15kHz as a vertical rate would be 15,000 frames per second, which is not something any display can do. 15kHz as a horizontal rate would be 480i or 240p standard definition.

Yes, I found that interesting which is why I included the information. It only accepts digital input, so whatever I sent it would have to be from my PC or and upscaler, but I think it opens a few interesting possibilities as long as there aren't any obvious issues that I'm not seeing.

I guess it's probably because it might be technically possible to output 15kHz video digitally. Maybe DisplayPort supports it? It's definitely pretty uncommon even if it's is technically a standard, but since it's a professional monitor they probably want to support the widest range of formats possible.

So, the monitor does 15kHz-96kHz horizontal and 23Hz-86Hz vertical. So it maxes out at 86Hz for refresh rate. I use my home monitor (now more than ever) for a variety of programs for work. My primary use is for CAD design work, but also for graphic design purposes including work that ends up on websites and needs to be fairly color-consistent. When I create an image or choose a background color, I need to be fairly confident that what I see is what other people will see when they view it on the web. However, the reality is that most people don't have perfect screens and are getting various results anyway, so my instinct is that super high degree accuracy isn't really that crucial in web environments; the main thing is that it has to be accurate enough in of itself to calibrate and give me a baseline for what people will see in the world. The CAD work isn't so much about color accuracy as it is about clarity, resolution and size. Working on big 3D models is very difficult on a small monitor with modern CAD software. I've often thought about getting a 32"+ size just to make that a little easier, but I would find it difficult to use anything that big for anything else.
I also do some video editing, and I wonder if the refresh rate would matter for that (or for CAD work for that matter)?

In the case of web design, you might benefit from a 4K or higher resolution monitor, since probably some portion of users are using a display with resolution that high. With CAD work you'd definitely benefit from the extra resolution, I think. I think the main advantage of 4K for any kind of visual design is that you can see more detail all at once at any given size on the screen. I haven't done any work like this myself, but I'd imagine that for stuff like drawing vector-based images, it'd be useful since the image is closer to what you'd see in print - whereas with 1440p you can see a little bit of aliasing if you really scrutinize the image. For video editing, I don't think you'd need anything higher than 60Hz since anything higher than that is typically only used for slow-motion footage - so if you were editing footage like that, you wouldn't actually be displaying it at anything higher than 60fps, if that. Regarding what you said about calibration, I think my ASUS monitor has built-in calibration features, though I haven't ever used them. I don't know if it'd be good enough for what you're doing or not.

I have an ASUS monitor that's very similar to this (ASUS PB278Q), it's just not as advanced as far as its color accuracy. I like it a lot, the picture quality is really good.

Thanks for the recommendation, I notice these are extremely sold out at the moment, which speaks well for their popularity. I imagine the world situation is impacting manufacturing chains at the moment and the trade meltdown between china and the US is crapping all over the electronics industry right now.

IAC, I think I would probably stick with something that will do *at least* 85Hz out of the box, so probably would look for a different one.

I think ASUS makes a monitor that's almost identical to mine that does 144Hz. But I'm guessing that one is out of stock too. You might be able to find a similar monitor by another brand, though - the PB278Q uses a Samsung panel which is used in monitors by multiple different brands. If you're worried about the long-term reliability of monitors like this, I can tell you I've had mine for 5-ish? years and it's still working perfectly. But I know that they do sometimes change the sources of parts even for monitors that have the same model number. I do think that, considering what you said about your intended use, you'd probably want to get a monitor that'll do at least 1440p.

[Taiyaki]

If you need pretty accurate colors I would stick with NEC, or any of the other brands known for this.

[vol.2]

LG sells a 4K OLED TV that is 48".

Thanks for the reply.

I looked at that one and it's just too big for my work area. Also, I've tried using >32" screens at the office and it's just not comfortable to me. I haven't 100% ruled it out, but I'm leaning away from it because of the size and the lack of professional calibration options.

If they wanted to make a 1440p OLED monitor, it would be 32"

I wish they would, but there isn't anything announced yet from what I can tell. I think they have some catch-up to do in the PC monitor market with some of the professional features, and they probably want to sort all that stuff out before they make an obvious ingress into the space. Even mid-tier companies like BenQ are ahead of LG in that respect.

If we assume 25% of the cost of the TV is the electronics and scale the remaining cost, we get a retail price of 24" 1080p OLED at $656 USD, which seems perfectly reasonable for a high-end display.

No argument from me there. Just the form factor available isn't really doing it for me. Maybe one of those fancy ASUS JOLED models, but I can't really justify that 3.5k-5k price tag when there isn't even any real reliability data in on them yet. Perhaps in another few years or so if they do well. If so, yields will undoubtedly improve and prices will come down.

I don't understand what you're talking about. When you say vmax, do you mean vertical resolution? It seemed like you were talking about vertical refresh rate, which isn't the same thing as resolution in the traditional sense.

Sorry, again I was confusing. I meant the maximum vertical refresh and the minimum horizontal sync rate, not the resolution. I shouldn't have tried to take a shortcut with writing it out.

I guess it's probably because it might be technically possible to output 15kHz video digitally.

Yes, as I understand it, the limitations of digital video signals have to do with the pixel clock, not a specific horizontal/vertical rate. That's one of the reasons that people use "super-resolutions" when hooking up a PC to a old 15kHz CRT. (with an HDMI to VGA connector) I *think* the minimum dot clock general corresponds to CEA mode 8, which is 720x240, centered timings.

Thanks, yes I'm not getting anything lower than 1440 or smaller than 27". I could comfortably fit something up to 32" on my desk, but I'm unsure of the cost/benefit of going to a monitor that size.

If you need pretty accurate colors I would stick with NEC, or any of the other brands known for this.

I am getting this feeling as well. I am also interested in the Asus stuff because of their ProArt series recently becoming more accepted, but I have no experience with the brand.

[bobrocks95]

Even for basic desktop usage I find it really hard to go back to 60Hz after using a high refresh rate monitor. I would definitely say it's worth it if you also play any PC games, debatable if it's just for work (guess it comes down to the price difference).

[vol.2]

Even for basic desktop usage I find it really hard to go back to 60Hz after using a high refresh rate monitor. I would definitely say it's worth it if you also play any PC games, debatable if it's just for work (guess it comes down to the price difference).

Yeah, I like to maybe go higher. However, it's hard to have that and color accuracy.

Even within the NEC 27" monitors, there is a difference. I can either get a 1440 display with a claimed 1500:1 contrast ratio and 350 cd/m2 brightness which costs $1.3k or I can get a 4k resolution with 1000:1 contrast at the same 350 cd/m2 brightness for $650. The more expensive display also has a wide color gamut, but I don't need that. I'm doing work that I need to know is basically correct, but absolutely none of it needs to have to the expanded gamut. However, I don't really want 4K as I don't care about that for gaming and windows has to scale to 4k anyway. 1440 is perfectly fine for a 27" screen for me.


Also, after thinking about it for a moment, I realized they both operate at 60Hz at their native resolutions, so that isn't a differentiater at all. It's all down to 2k with 1500:1 or 4k with 1000:1.

Any opines?

[Fudoh]

You know that all Adobe programs scale to higher dpi like shit. With some buttons and menus becoming so small that you can hardly use them. Be aware of that. More resolution is a good thing, but a higher dpi isn't always the best idea depending on your software.

[vol.2]

You know that all Adobe programs scale to higher dpi like shit. With some buttons and menus becoming so small that you can hardly use them. Be aware of that. More resolution is a good thing, but a higher dpi isn't always the best idea depending on your software.

Yeah, I'm afraid of situations like that. Honestly, I use AutoCAD more than any adobe product, but the general principle of poor program scaling is worrying me.

Do you think it's enough to choose a 2560x1440 at 27" over a 4k? The price isn't really an issue between them.

[Fudoh]

I would prefer that, yes, around 110 dpi then.

[Taiyaki]

I am getting this feeling as well. I am also interested in the Asus stuff because of their ProArt series recently becoming more accepted, but I have no experience with the brand.

I've heard good things of some of those high end Asus displays. Personally my favorite all use monitors are Eizo but NEC is up right up there too. Normally new is always better with LCD's or so you'd think (with TV's it almost always is), but I've found newer model monitors despite similar specs to sometimes have less good contrast and colors than some older monitors, ultimately I think you get what you pay for with these monitors. For example no matter what I try I cannot get even the highest end Dell monitor from a few years ago to look anything close to my nearly 7 years old Eizo (the oldest I have) in terms of color accuracy (and somehow contrast is better on that one too).

[vol.2]

Personally my favorite all use monitors are Eizo but NEC is up right up there too.

The Eizo's use NEC panels, but they bin them for quality, which is why they cost more. Also, NEC started using some other panels, I think from samsung on some cheaper tier displays. In the old days, they Eizo's were literally just rebadged NECs.
I love my current NEC, but the panel got damaged somehow, I think due to the stress of a telescoping stand I put it on. It's 10 years old now, and I've used it pretty constantly so I'm not too upset about it. It still looks good for the most part, it's around the edges that it seems to be developing a few dark hazy areas when displaying shades of dark grey (and only dark grey).

Normally new is always better with LCD's or so you'd think (with TV's it almost always is), but I've found newer model monitors despite similar specs to sometimes have less good contrast and colors than some older monitors, ultimately I think you get what you pay for with these monitors. For example no matter what I try I cannot get even the highest end Dell monitor from a few years ago to look anything close to my nearly 7 years old Eizo (the oldest I have) in terms of color accuracy (and somehow contrast is better on that one too).

I think it has to do with the maturity of the technology. CCFL displays from 7-10 years ago where made at the end of the life of the tech when they had really figured it out and they weren't even getting dim over time like they used to. (they still do, just not as quickly) LED backlit displays are still fairly new as a process technology and I don't think the backlight systems are all as robust as top quality CCFL from the endgame days.

IAC, I think the NEC/Eizo panels from the last few years are quite good and should stand up to time better than a Dell or something similar. That's another reason I'm a little weary of the Asus displays; I want to keep the next monitor for as long as possible, another 10 years if I can. This is a work monitor and I'd rather not have to replace it if I don't have to. It's basically the screen damage that's pushing me over the edge at the moment.

[Taiyaki]

Thank you for that information. I think Eizo's lower end models also use either LG or Samsung now too (iirc LG).

Yes basically I think you should stick with NEC then. I mean you're probably used to high end monitors and Asus despite also making great monitors is a step into something slightly below your standards I would say.

[lalilulelo]

Sorry, again I was confusing. I meant the maximum vertical refresh and the minimum horizontal sync rate, not the resolution. I shouldn't have tried to take a shortcut with writing it out.

If you're talking about vertical refresh rate, then what you said isn't correct. You said "85kHz vertical", which again, means 85,000 times per second. It's actually just 85 times per second. If you remove the "k" it would be correct, unless I'm still misunderstanding you. I'm referring to your second post.

You know that all Adobe programs scale to higher dpi like shit. With some buttons and menus becoming so small that you can hardly use them. Be aware of that. More resolution is a good thing, but a higher dpi isn't always the best idea depending on your software.

Is that true even of the newest Adobe programs though? You'd think they'd have that sorted out by now - most other developers have. Plus, I think macOS automatically adjusts the size of things for high-DPI displays if the program isn't designed that way already. I thought Windows does the same thing now, but I'm not sure about that.

[Taiyaki]

Along with the dpi screen size is going to make more of a difference there imo. As an adobe user I'd have to slightly disagree with Fudoh on this. One doesn't need more pixels, especially if you do close up pixel level work. I actually find work easiest on a mid size 22~24 inch 1080p display than on a large 27+ inch 4k~5k display. I basically zoom in enough to be able to see every pixel clearly. I do work with multiple monitor setups though. I guess if it's a single monitor however, then bigger is likely preferable to make multi tasking easier. Truth be told with most adobe software, 4:3 is preferable to 16:9 so I mix and match different ratio monitors on all my setups.

[vol.2]

If you're talking about vertical refresh rate, then what you said isn't correct. You said "85kHz vertical", which again, means 85,000 times per second. It's actually just 85 times per second. If you remove the "k" it would be correct, unless I'm still misunderstanding you. I'm referring to your second post.

Yes, I put a "k" on both horizontal and vertical. Typo. Sorry about that.

Is that true even of the newest Adobe programs though? You'd think they'd have that sorted out by now - most other developers have. Plus, I think macOS automatically adjusts the size of things for high-DPI displays if the program isn't designed that way already. I thought Windows does the same thing now, but I'm not sure about that.

I think he's right about that, at least for now. Adobe is slow to change on some things. I would guess that's why NEC/Eizo chose to make their most expensive 27" monitor 1440 instead of 4k. The cheaper version is available in both.

Along with the dpi screen size is going to make more of a difference there imo. As an adobe user I'd have to slightly disagree with Fudoh on this. One doesn't need more pixels, especially if you do close up pixel level work. I actually find work easiest on a mid size 22~24 inch 1080p display than on a large 27+ inch 4k~5k display. I basically zoom in enough to be able to see every pixel clearly. I do work with multiple monitor setups though. I guess if it's a single monitor however, then bigger is likely preferable to make multi tasking easier. Truth be told with most adobe software, 4:3 is preferable to 16:9 so I mix and match different ratio monitors on all my setups.

Yes, I feel the same way, but I only have space for one monitor, so I think the 27" is a good upgrade for me. I measured it, and the 16:9 27" gives me about an extra inch of vertical over my existing 24" 16:10. I would still greatly prefer a 27" 16:10, but they don't make them. The really nice thing about 16:10 is that you can integer scale 320x240, 320x200 and 320x400. That means console stuff in RetroArch fill the screen vertically, as well as dosbox having pixel perfect integer scaling in all games.

I'm on the fence about it, but there isn't any great new 16:10 options unless I want to go with another 24", and I could really benefit from the extra screen real estate in CAD work. CAD stuff does best with a single big screen so you can see more of the whole project at one time when you zoom out. It can be very difficult to visualize a large assembly when it's so tiny on the screen (relative to it's total size).

[Taiyaki]

Yes if it's for gaming too then 16:10 has a big advantage, but if you watch films, or even youtube, or some modern games made for the ratio, then 16:9 has the advantage.

[vol.2]

I would prefer that, yes, around 110 dpi then.

I just realized, the 4k 27" is 10-bit color, but the 1440 27" is 8-bit.

Do you think that 10-bit color is going to be a noticeable improvement over 8-bit?

This is a tricky decision. Either 2k with 8-bit or 4k with 10-bit.

hmmm.

Also, the 4k gives me more vertical space to integer scale VGA double-scanned content. 13.5" (vertical height of a 27" 16:9 display)/2160=0.00625*160(remainder after vertical integer scale of 400 lines)=~1" whereas 13.5"/1440=0.009375*240=2.25"
That means a 2k 27" screen is going to *lose* me 1.5", but the 4k monitor I only lose a 1/4" vertically.

Not that this should necessarily make or break my decision, but I do play around with DOSBox a fair bit, and it would definitely piss me off to lose that much screen area when buying a new "better" monitor.

[Fudoh]

Do you really care for integer scaling at THIS resolution and dpi? Really shouldn't be a decision factor.

[vol.2]

Do you really care for integer scaling at THIS resolution and dpi? Really shouldn't be a decision factor.

I suppose not, although the pixel-perfect solutions in DOSBox rely on integer scaling to work, so they would give me a pillarboxed and letterboxed image. I guess the shader solution might work, but I haven't used that yet.

Also, I'm still fighting over the 8-bit vs 10-bit color. How much of a difference do you think that will make?

Thanks

[bobrocks95]

Do you really care for integer scaling at THIS resolution and dpi? Really shouldn't be a decision factor.

I suppose not, although the pixel-perfect solutions in DOSBox rely on integer scaling to work, so they would give me a pillarboxed and letterboxed image. I guess the shader solution might work, but I haven't used that yet.

Also, I'm still fighting over the 8-bit vs 10-bit color. How much of a difference do you think that will make?

Thanks

Are you going to connect HDR/10-bit sources to it? For your color-accurate work I'd assume you would keep it in an 8-bit sRGB profile/mode that many monitors offer.

[vol.2]

Do you really care for integer scaling at THIS resolution and dpi? Really shouldn't be a decision factor.

I suppose not, although the pixel-perfect solutions in DOSBox rely on integer scaling to work, so they would give me a pillarboxed and letterboxed image. I guess the shader solution might work, but I haven't used that yet.

Also, I'm still fighting over the 8-bit vs 10-bit color. How much of a difference do you think that will make?

Thanks

Are you going to connect HDR/10-bit sources to it? For your color-accurate work I'd assume you would keep it in an 8-bit sRGB profile/mode that many monitors offer.

Yeah, I don't think I would care too much about the color bit depth for the pro stuff because I don't print out stuff myself, and I'm not scanning in artwork or anything where I have to concern myself with banding at lower bit-depths.

This would mostly be for it generally looking nicer and I suppose for gaming when I do that on my PC. I know the newer video cards support higher bit-depths, but honestly not sure how much I can take advantage of it and, if so, how much of an advantage it would even be.

[Fudoh]

I haven't run into color depth related issues so far and wished for a 10-bit workflow, you certainly won't miss it in the future.

[lalilulelo]

I think he's right about that, at least for now. Adobe is slow to change on some things. I would guess that's why NEC/Eizo chose to make their most expensive 27" monitor 1440 instead of 4k. The cheaper version is available in both.

But like I said, all of the newer OSes automatically correct it, so it's not really an issue as long as you're using a new-ish OS and not Windows 7 or something.

[Fudoh]

But like I said, all of the newer OSes automatically correct it, so it's not really an issue as long as you're using a new-ish OS and not Windows 7 or something.

the OS can apply a zoom factor to certain standard elements, but there's a lot of user interfaces that don't scale and Adobe's programs are very prone to that.

[lalilulelo]

the OS can apply a zoom factor to certain standard elements, but there's a lot of user interfaces that don't scale and Adobe's programs are very prone to that.

I'm not sure about that. macOS will scale any UI element or text that isn't high-DPI or resolution independent by default. I know older versions of Windows had this issue, but it was my understanding that this was mostly fixed with Windows 8 and 10. Anyway, I don't know for sure so I guess it's pointless to argue about it. But I can almost guarantee that there are professionals who use Adobe programs on high-DPI displays, so there must be some way to deal with it. Just to give you one example, Adobe Premiere would be virtually useless for editing 4K video if what you're saying is true - and I seriously doubt that's the case.

[ZellSF]

Like you suggested, gaming is pretty much the only type of activity that would realistically benefit from a higher vertical refresh rate - higher than 60Hz. Technically it might have other benefits, but realistically it won't make much of a difference for anything other than gaming.

Makes watching 24hz content much more convenient.

But like I said, all of the newer OSes automatically correct it, so it's not really an issue as long as you're using a new-ish OS and not Windows 7 or something.

the OS can apply a zoom factor to certain standard elements, but there's a lot of user interfaces that don't scale and Adobe's programs are very prone to that.

OS zoom factor doesn't apply to "certain standard elements", it applies to everything except applications that mark themselves as DPI aware.

[Fudoh]

W10's high dpi scaling options are a mess in combination with Adobe's line up, no matter what. For SOME parts of Adobe's CC they offer their own UI scaling per application. Other applications are not supported at all. W10's scaling breaks some of the CC apps. To call any of this optimized in any way is an insult to anybody who has used these programs for years of decades. It's a consistency issue. If all you're using is Photoshop and Premiere, then you can bend these to work, but trying to get a more demanding work environment to consistently show and perform is almost impossible.