Normally closer to £400, probably a mispriced item. Best all-round size / resolution / refresh rate compromise you can get at the moment in my opinion.
thats 4k @ 60hz... its a different product. depends what camp you want to join..
high res vs high refresh rate.
cigbunt to trickcm
20 Aug 16#12
if you want 4k you could go for a 40+ inch tv you'll still get 60hz plus loads more screen estate
delusion
20 Aug 161#3
This is a far better choice than a 60hz 4k,unless you have a specific need for 4k res.
I purchased a 60hz 4k around 2 years ago, but use my 1080p 144hz monitor far more when gaming for example. It makes a clear difference
RedRain to delusion
20 Aug 16#5
can you explain what gaming is like above the on a 144hz compeared to a 60mhz
MrPuddington to delusion
20 Aug 16#13
It completely depends on the purpose. If you are working on static content like drawings or even text, 4k is very nice. For gaming, the higher refresh rate is better, and many 4k monitors also support 1080p120.
I would be worried about the IPS panel, usually they have excellent colours, but a poor response speed. Any experience?
trickcm
20 Aug 16#4
True, no use for gaming, great for cramming lots on the screen, perfect for coding.
delusion
20 Aug 162#6
Well you need a graphics card capable of running that many frames per second. It just feels and looks far smoother, and that allows for you to react faster as well so if you play fast paced games it's really noticeable. I find it hard going back to 60hz after using 144.
googleboogle
20 Aug 16#7
Nice price
longback2
20 Aug 16#8
has freesync, good deal
3kliksphilip
20 Aug 162#9
Having both a 4K 60 Hz monitor and a 180 Hz HD monitor...
60 Hz is acceptable for most game types unless you're going to be playing twitch-based shooters. But 85+ Hz will make everything far smoother (even at lower framerates since the latest picture is more likely to be displayed sooner. For example, a 144 hz screen is updated every 1/144th of a second, compared with a 60 Hz monitor's 1/60th of a second). Funnily enough, on my 180 Hz screen I find g-sync doesn't make much of a difference, probably because it's refreshed so frequently without it enabled already.
4K at 60 Hz has its uses. It makes text and websites look super smooth, the grid of pixels is almost invisible and it's great for viewing high resolution pictures and videos. It can make programs designed for HD difficult to use, since everything will look tiny on the screen and the built-in Windows scaling can lead to problems (ie, grabbing 1 pixel-thick items remains at 1 pixel, even if it's represented by 4 at 4K, so you have to be more precise with your mouse movements). Be careful in games, too- very few cards can run recent games at 4K @ 60 Hz. Dropping to 2560x1440 will practically double the framerate whilst still giving you a crisper image than standard full HD. Using programs at 2560x1440 feels similar to being at full HD but with a bit of extra screen space. 4K is like using another program entirely. Unless you absolutely need 4K, 2K is a much more compatible and sensible choice right now.
'But with a 4k screen you can just set it to 2560x1440!' ...which you could, combining the worst of both worlds: 60 Hz and with a non-native, fuzzy lower resolution. With a 4K screen it's 4K or nothing, the pixels might be small but they're not small enough to accurately represent lower resolutions, even if they precisely divide. If you're on an HD screen, try lower ones right now and see this fuzzy phenomenon for yourself. It's like using a TV screen instead of a computer monitor or something. It makes using 2560x1440 on a 4K screen look less clear than HD on an HD screen, even if in theory it's displaying more detail.
In short, in my opinion this monitor is the best all-round size / resolution / refresh rate compromise you can get at the moment.
Opening post
All comments (24)
high res vs high refresh rate.
I purchased a 60hz 4k around 2 years ago, but use my 1080p 144hz monitor far more when gaming for example. It makes a clear difference
I would be worried about the IPS panel, usually they have excellent colours, but a poor response speed. Any experience?
60 Hz is acceptable for most game types unless you're going to be playing twitch-based shooters. But 85+ Hz will make everything far smoother (even at lower framerates since the latest picture is more likely to be displayed sooner. For example, a 144 hz screen is updated every 1/144th of a second, compared with a 60 Hz monitor's 1/60th of a second). Funnily enough, on my 180 Hz screen I find g-sync doesn't make much of a difference, probably because it's refreshed so frequently without it enabled already.
4K at 60 Hz has its uses. It makes text and websites look super smooth, the grid of pixels is almost invisible and it's great for viewing high resolution pictures and videos. It can make programs designed for HD difficult to use, since everything will look tiny on the screen and the built-in Windows scaling can lead to problems (ie, grabbing 1 pixel-thick items remains at 1 pixel, even if it's represented by 4 at 4K, so you have to be more precise with your mouse movements). Be careful in games, too- very few cards can run recent games at 4K @ 60 Hz. Dropping to 2560x1440 will practically double the framerate whilst still giving you a crisper image than standard full HD. Using programs at 2560x1440 feels similar to being at full HD but with a bit of extra screen space. 4K is like using another program entirely. Unless you absolutely need 4K, 2K is a much more compatible and sensible choice right now.
'But with a 4k screen you can just set it to 2560x1440!' ...which you could, combining the worst of both worlds: 60 Hz and with a non-native, fuzzy lower resolution. With a 4K screen it's 4K or nothing, the pixels might be small but they're not small enough to accurately represent lower resolutions, even if they precisely divide. If you're on an HD screen, try lower ones right now and see this fuzzy phenomenon for yourself. It's like using a TV screen instead of a computer monitor or something. It makes using 2560x1440 on a 4K screen look less clear than HD on an HD screen, even if in theory it's displaying more detail.
In short, in my opinion this monitor is the best all-round size / resolution / refresh rate compromise you can get at the moment.