4K Monitors Can You actually see the difference ?

With 4K monitors becoming more and more affordable, it appears that the long-standing reign of 1080p may finally be coming to a close. The question is: can the human eye actually see the difference with a 4K monitor or are manufacturers just using the hype to sell you a more expensive product?

While this sounds like an easy question, unfortunately it does not have a completely clear-cut answer. Different people have different eyesight quality, and both the size of a monitor and the viewing distance between the monitor and a person's eyes make a huge difference. In order to accurately answer whether a 4K monitor is going to look any better than a lower resolution monitor, we will need to determine the pixel pitch (which is the distance between the pixels) of a monitor and compare it to what you are actually capable of seeing.

Editor’s Note:
Matt Bach is the head of Puget Labs and has been part of Puget Systems, a boutique builder of gaming and workstation PCs, since the early days. This article was originally published on the Puget blog.

To do this, we only need a bit of math and four pieces of information:

• The size of the monitor
• The resolution of the monitor
• Your visual acuity (20/20, 20/15, etc.)
• The distance between your eyes and the monitor (viewing distance)

While the math in this article isn't terribly difficult, if you don't want to feel like you are back in high school math class we've also put together an easy to use Google Spreadsheet. In this spreadsheet you can simply enter the relevant information and it will tell you the pixel pitch of a monitor and the pixel pitch you are actually able to see. With this, you can determine if you are physically capable of seeing the difference with a 4K monitor or if you should use a cheaper, lower resolution monitor instead.

Determining the pixel pitch of a monitor

The first task we need to accomplish is to determine the pixel pitch (or the distance between pixels) of whatever monitor you are interested in - whether it is one you already own or one you are considering purchasing. If you are lucky, the manufacturer will simply have this information included in the specs of the monitor. If they don't (or if you don't trust that they didn't pad the number a bit) you can determine the pixel pitch based on the resolution and physical screen size.

There are many different ways to work this out, but the method we prefer is to first determine the diagonal resolution of the monitor then relate that to the physical screen size. To find the diagonal resolution, we need to use the Pythagorean Theorem (a²+b²=c²).

In our case, the formula to determine the diagonal is:

For a 4K screen, the calculation would be  which works out to a diagonal resolution of about 4406. With this, we can find the PPI (pixels per inch) of the monitor by determining the ratio between it and the physical screen size in inches (which is the diagonal measurement of the screen):

For a 31.5 inch monitor we would use the calculation  which gives us a PPI of about 140. To get the pixel pitch in mm (which is what most marketing uses), you need to convert from how many pixels there are in an inch to the distance between the pixels. Since there are 25.4 mm in an inch, we can also convert to millimeters at the same time with the formula:

For our example 31.5" screen that has a PPI of 140, this translates to a pixel pitch of about .182mm

What resolution can the human eye see?

Asking what resolution the human eye can see is actually a bit inaccurate as the human eye does not see a fixed resolution. Instead, human vision is measured based on angular resolution which is how far apart two objects need to be for you to be able to tell them apart at a certain distance. In terms that we are familiar with, this looks like:

We have already worked out how to determine the pixel pitch of a monitor, so the trick now is to determine the pixel pitch you are able to actually see at whatever distance you sit away from your monitor. To do this, we first need to determine your angular resolution based on your visual acuity.

For a person with 20/20 vision (using the Snellen chart) your angular resolution works out to be one arc minute which is about .017° or .000296706 radians. However, since not everyone has exactly 20/20 vision, you can determine the angular resolution for any visual acuity (20/10, 20/40, etc.) with the very simply formula:

So a person with 20/10 vision would use the calculation:  which gives a result of .5 arc minutes. We need to convert this into radians and since there are about 0.000290888 radians in an arc minute we need to use the formula:

For a person with 20/10 vision (or .5 arc minutes), this translates to .000145444 radians. With the angular resolution in radians, we can then determine the pixel pitch you are able to see at a set distance. To do this, we need to use part of SOHCAHTOA:

In order to properly apply this formula, we need to actually use only half of the angular resolution (in order to keep the viewing distance and pixel pitch at a right angle) then multiply the result by two to get the full pixel pitch. Taking this into account, we can re-arrange this formula into:

d = distance to screen (inches); a = angular resolution (radians)

This is still in inches, however, so if we also wanted to convert to a pixel pitch in mm we simply need to multiply by 25.4 since there are 25.4 millimeters in an inch:

d = distance to screen (inches); a = angular resolution (radians)

With this formula, a person with 20/20 vision who likes to have their monitor 24 inches from their eyes would use the calculation:

This works out to a pixel pitch of about .177mm. If we would rather think in terms of PPI (pixels per inch), we simply need to take the inverse and convert back to inches by multiplying by 25.4:

In our example, this works out to about 144 PPI. In other words, a person with 20/20 vision who likes to have their monitor 24 inches away would ideally want a monitor that has a pixel pitch of less than .177 mm (or more than 144 PPI).

If you can't get the math to work out properly (or want to be able to easily check multiple resolutions and monitor sizes), feel free to use the Google Spreadsheet we created that has all of the math automated for you.

Conclusion

Now that we know how to determine the PPI or pixel pitch your eyes are actually able to see at certain viewing distances, we can come up with a basic chart showing the ideal maximum size of a monitor for different resolutions based on your visual acuity:

Ideal maximum monitor size for 24" viewing distance	20/30	20/20	20/15	20/10
1080p (1920x1080)	23"	15"	11.5"	7.5"
2K (2560x1440)	30.5"	20"	15.5"	10"
4K (3840x2160)	46"	30.5"	23"	15.5"
5K (5120x2880)	61.5"	41"	31"	20.5"

At a viewing distance of 24 inches (which is about right for most desktop monitors) it is actually really surprising how soon you should be able to start making out individual pixels with a 1080p monitor. With 20/20 vision, if you want a monitor that is larger than just 15 inches you would ideally want a monitor with a 2K resolution instead of 1080p. Even with a 2K monitor, however, once you get above a 20 inch screen you should start to see a difference by using a 4K monitor. Between a 20 inch screen and a 30.5 inch screen there is no reason to go above 4K, but if you want a very large monitor you may consider using a 5K monitor once the technology matures a bit more.

However, the average acuity for a healthy adult under the age of 60 or 70 is actually closer to between 20/13 and 20/17 (source 1 and 2). So if you are average and healthy, you should have a visual acuity of around 20/15 at which point the need for a higher resolution is even greater. At that visual acuity, for anything larger than a 15.5 inch screen you would ideally want to have a 4K screen. But even with just a 23 inch monitor, even 4K technically isn't good enough for your eyesight. 5K, which is still in its infancy, is really what you would ideally want for any monitor between 23 inches and 31 inches. For even larger screen sizes, you will have to wait for 6K or even higher resolutions to become available.

Ideal maximum monitor size for 24" viewing distance	20/30	20/20	20/15	20/10
1080p (1920x1080)	21"	14"	10.5"	7"
2K (2560x1440)	28"	18.5"	14"	9"
4K (3840x2160)	42"	28"	21"	14"
5K (5120x2880)	57"	37.5"	28"	18.5"

Moving in just two inches isn't much, but we found that this is about right for the average laptop user when sitting at a desk. Of course, this will change from user to user, but we arrived at this based on our very scientific method of sitting different employees in front of a laptop with a tape measure.

At this distance, the need for 4K is very apparent. If you have average vision (which as we stated earlier is actually around 20/15 for a healthy adult), you would ideally want a 4K monitor at anything above a 14" screen size. This means that from a 14" laptop on up, the average healthy adult would ideally want to have a 4K screen. At the same time, unless you have 20/10 vision there should be no need for anything above a 4K screen on a laptop - so at least in terms of resolution a 4K screen is likely all laptops will ever need.

Remember that both of these charts are generalizations. If you like to have your monitor either closer or farther away (or know more precisely your visual acuity) feel free to use our Google Spreadsheet to experiment with different monitor sizes, distances, or visual acuity.

Now that we have all this figured out, we can attempt to answer the question: is there a benefit to having a 4K monitor? For desktop monitors, the answer is very clear: yes! Even a person with just 20/20 vision should be able to see the difference on any monitor larger than just 20 inches in size and the difference becomes greater and greater for larger monitors. Laptops with much smaller screens are a bit less clear-cut but the answer is still a firm "yes". For the average healthy adult with 20/15 vision, you should be able to easily tell the difference between a 2K and 4K 15.6" screen at a distance of 22 inches. And if the choice is between a 1080p screen and a 4K screen (which are usually the two resolutions found on current laptops), 4K will be noticeably better at a viewing distance of 32.5 inches or closer. If you have 20/20 or worse vision the difference might not as noticeable unless you sit closer to the laptop, but in general the math says that there is definitely a benefit to having a 4K screen even in a laptop.

Origin PC Omega Review

Interest in smaller, quieter gaming machines has steadily bloomed in recent years. Ongoing industry improvements in efficiency and design has fueled this movement, filling the market with capable gaming devices like tablets, media streamers and Steam Machines. Devices like these have helped loosen the rigid notion of computer games being for, well, just computers.

Unfortunately, most devices destined for the living room are leagues behind a dedicated gaming PC where it counts -- performance. With ultra high-res displays and gaming becoming commonplace, there’s now more pressure than ever to deliver beautiful graphics to any and every screen-enabled device. This is where Origin PC is stepping up with its Omega, an uncompromising SFF (small form factor) gaming machine loaded with the best CPUs and GPUs available. No, the Omega isn’t Roku-sized, but its mini-ITX-based chassis may be just compact enough to fit on a shelf or inside a cabinet. Despite that, onlookers should still view the Omega as a stand-alone gaming PC first and foremost. Even if you aren’t sold on the whole living room gaming thing, this is a PC worthy of any gamer contemplating a smaller, better gaming system.

Origin PC Omega
Starts at $1,370, $3,400 as tested

• Case: Silverstone RVZ01

• Motherboard: Asus Mini ITX Z170i Pro Gaming

• Cooler: Frostbyte Asektek 120

• CPU: Intel 6700K – Overclocked to a 4.7GHz

• Power Supply: 600W Silverstone SFX Series

• Video Card: 12GB NVIDIA GTX Titan X

• Memory: 16GB Corsair LPX DDR 4 2666MHz

• OS: Windows Home 10

• HDD 1 OS: 512GB Sasmung SM951 PCIe M.2

• HDD 2 Storage: 5TB Western Digital Red

• Inputs: 1 x PS/2, 2 x USB 3.1, 6 x USB 3.0, 4 x USB 2.0

• Optical Drive: 6X Slim Slot Load BLU-RAY Writer

• Warranty: Lifetime 24/7 Based Support and Lifetime Free Labor. 1 Year Part Replacement

Overview

Origin PC shipped our review unit in their usual wooden crate. First impressions matter and this is a good one. The crate may be an additional $5 at checkout, but it's worth the added protection and novelty.

The Omega comes in a few shapes and sizes, all of which are based on Silverstone’s great line of mini-ITX SFF cases. Bread box and set-top box form factors are amongst the available choices, but our review unit is built on the slim desktop design of theSilverstone RVZ01 -- which is, by the way, is a TechSpot favorite. It measures 15 x 13.7 x 4.1 inches, making it compact but not stunningly small. Yes, these double-digit dimensions are a far cry from the cute Steam boxes which now pepper electronics stores, but unlike those highly-embedded systems, the Omega hosts an array of high-end hardware suitable for gaming domination.

For starters, our Omega houses an overclocked Skylake Intel Core i7-6700K and a full-sizedGeforce GTX Titan X graphics card. All of this brought to life by a modular 600W Silverstone PSU.

The parts selection is fairly premium and the overall build quality is high. Assembled with a Asus Z170i Pro Gaming motherboard, our review unit had plethora of USB inputs (2 x 3.1, 6 x 3.0 and 4 x 2.0). The integrated WiFi+Bluetooth chip came with an external directional antenna which is useful for any desktop PC. Buttons, indicator lights and commonly used ports are in sensible locations.

Additionally, Origin has included a sizeable 5TB HDD (Western Digital Red) and a 512MB Samsung M.2-based SSD. Note that the RVZ01 is capable of housing a variety of storage options like a M.2-based SSD and up to 4 x 2.5 inch drives. Or, if preferred, you could also do a M.2, two 2.5 inch drives plus a single 3.5 incher.

Despite the tight spaces, there is ample airflow and a 120mm sealed liquid cooler.

On the outside, we have access to a plentiful array of ports and even a slot loading DVD-RW. The inclusion of an optical drive should help quell flare-ups of acute onset user nostalgia.

Home Entertainment Use

For purposes of airflow, the RVZ01 must stand vertically. This makes our configuration ill-suited for most home theatre setups (i.e. not low profile). Additionally, our review unit didn’t ship with a remote control nor a gamepad, so my conclusion was this: treat our Omega purely as a gaming PC, not as a game console or HTPC.

However, Origin does advertise the Omega as having “the power of a desktop for your home theatre”. While I think this claim is indisputable, it is perhaps somewhat self-evident; the Omega performs like a desktop because it is a desktop. This is true regardless of what case you pick. If you’re going to plop one of in your living room though, opt for the Silverstone GD05 or GD09 to maximize its HTPCness.

Although footprint-friendly with its mini-ITX SFF design, the Omega (regardless of case) is still considerably larger than your typical streaming appliance, game console or even home theatre device. True, size doesn’t necessarily preclude it from living room use. After all, it’s a fairly compact gaming PC measuring 15 x 13.7 x 4.1 inches. Also true, there are chassis options which seem generally admissible for such use (Silverstone GD05, GD09) . At its heart though, the Omega is clearly a gaming PC. How you choose to wield its power is entirely up to you.

Because the system is Windows-based, your home entertainment experience will only be as good as Windows 10 allows. You don’t have to search hard to find the struggles and triumphs of using Windows in this way, but there’s little reason you couldn’t turn an Omega into a powerful console-like device by way of Steam’s Big Picture Mode, Plex or various other softwares. It’s doable, but again, this is not unique to the Omega.

Interestingly, Origin’s product page directly compares the Omega to the Alienware Alpha, a diminutive PC at only 1/6th the volume. Instead, I suggest comparing it against Alienware’s X51 R3. Our Omega configuration still smokes even the best equipped X51 R3, but at least it would be doing so within its own size class.

Value, Configuration, Upgrades

With a web price of roughly $3,400, I’m acutely aware of the fact that our configuration won’t be in-budget for everyone. Of course, our build packs the very best possible CPU and GPU; a SkylakeIntel Core i7-6700K and a beastly 12GB Geforce GTX Titan X. The base price starts at about$1370 and from there, the sky's the limit. Our $3400 build also includes generous storage options (512GB Samsung M.2 SSD, 5TB WD Red HDD). If you still think this is pricey, keep in mind that high-end SFF solutions always come at additional cost.

While value is often more than the sum of something’s parts, I still see adding parts up as a good exercise to create a point of reference. A mental tear-down of our Omega configuration revealed a retail component cost of nearly $3000 based on prices found at Newegg. Comparing apples strictly to apples, the asking price doesn’t seem abusive. Is it cheaper to build your own? Absolutely! And you can cut all the corners you want to save even more. However, while the overlap between gamers and system builders is significant, not every gamer wants to roll their own PC nor does every gamer want to spend the time necessary to achieve this level of fit and finish. Having a system built for you, be it by Origin or anyone else, can be an attractive alternative. Having some disposable income helps, too.

As typical with any Origin machine, the Omega is remarkably customizable. The base configuration is reasonably attainable at just $1370 (Intel Core i5-6500, 8GB RAM, Geforce GTX 650, 120GB SSD -or- 1TB HDD). Many gamers though will want to opt for beefier graphics and storage. For reference, a solid mid-range config (i5-6500, Radeon R9 390, 512GB SSD) will run closer to $1850. Tricked out with the best and most absurd options like multiple 2TB SSDs, the Omega can easily top $5000. Naturally, applying some self restraint while building your Omega is advisable.

When compared to similarly equipped systems from a couple of well-known boutique builders (e.g. Maingear Drift , Falcon Northwest Tiki), the Omega proved to be a “best value” when matching components as closely as possible. Major OEM Alienware offers their own similarly-sized system as well, the X51 R3. However, the X51’s graphics options are limited to a modest Geforce GTX 960. I went ahead and configured a comparable Omega anyway (i5-6600K, GTX 960, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD). Interestingly, the Alienware was only about $150 cheaper. That’s actually a pretty small difference when you consider Origin is using top-shelf parts -- no mysteries here.

If there’s one catch, it has to be the inability to install two graphics cards. Origin’s mini-ITX offerings, namely the Gigabyte Z170N and Asus Z170i Pro, only have one PCIe slot so you’ll always be stuck with a single GPU. Of course, wanting (needing?) more than one Titan is a first-world problem if I’ve ever heard one. But for most gamers, a single 12GB GTX Titan X will do just fine; it’s a hell of a card capable of chewing through any game at 1080p regardless of quality settings. 4K gaming is less certain, but yes, very doable on a fully loaded Omega. Most games will run without compromise, but expect the toughest titles (e.g. Crysis 3, Witcher 3) to require some slight downward adjustments to maintain their sweet spots.

Despite its smallish dimensions, the Omega isn’t difficult to work on. CPU, GPU and SFX PSU upgrades are all possible, but the need to upgrade these items is likely years away. The most common DIY upgrades, like adding RAM or an SSD, are also the easiest to perform. The PCIe riser card and expansion bay shroud may have you thinking “umm, what did I get myself into”, but just one minute and a few screws later, they are out. Once removed, all of the Omega’s innards will be exposed to your whims. It’s worth mentioning that without SLI/Crossfire, GPU upgrades mean replacing the graphics card entirely versus the option of adding a second.

Gaming Performance, Benchmarks

Origin armed our review configuration with Intel’s Core i7-6700K (Skylake) and Nvidia’s Geforce GTX Titan X. Admittedly, Skylake’s release was less exciting than we hoped (see our i7-6700K review) but its efficiency tweaks are welcome to small platforms like the Omega. Meanwhile, the Geforce GTX Titan X, a $1000 graphics card aimed at the gaming elite, proved its mettle in an earlier review as one of the fastest GPUs we’ve seen. Knowing this, expectations are the Omega will be a stellar performer.

Test	Score
3DMark Fire Strike Ultra	4901
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme	9010
3DMark Fire Strike	13135
3DMark SkyDiver	13280
3DMark Cloudgate	12916
PCMark Home (Accelerated)	4943
PCMark Creative (Accelerated)	8333
PCMark Work (Accelerated)	5538

Other than size, the real difference between the Omega and a larger gaming rig is the impossibility SLI or Crossfire. Limited by one PCIe slot (mini-ITX limitation), SFX PSU and physical constraints, one graphics card is as good as it gets. Aside from this, the Omega performs like any single-GPU machine several times its size.

Nearly three years later, Crysis 3 (2013) remains a very demanding PC game to run. Under its highest possible settings, Crysis 3 ran beautifully at 1080p (1920 x 1080). At WQHD (2560 x 1440) Crysis 3 ran well, staying above 50 FPS. Our Omega finally started to bead sweat after exposing it to Crysis 3 in ultrawide (3440 x 1440) but still mustered a respectable 40-45 FPS. 4K gaming is clearly possible here, but today’s most demanding titles will require some modest tweaking to achieve smooth gameplay.

Game	Avg FPS	Settings
Crysis 3	75	1920x1080, Very High, TXAA (high)
Crysis 3	40	3440x1440, Very High, TXAA (low)
Crysis 3	60	3440x1440, High, TXAA (low)
Warhammer: Vermintide	73	3440x1440, Extreme, TXAA
Sleeping Dogs	36	3440x1440, Extreme, TXAA (high) + FXAA (high)
Sleeping Dogs	120	3440x1440, Extreme, FXAA (normal)
Sleeping Dogs	81	1920x1080, Extreme, TXAA (high)
Witcher 3	34	3440x1440, Graphics (Ultra), Postprocessing (High), AA on
Witcher 3	50	3440x1440, Graphics (High), Postprocessing (Medium), AA on
Witcher 3	46	1920x1080, Graphics (Ultra), Postprocessing (High), AA on
Witcher 3	77	1920x1080, Graphics (High), Postprocessing (Medium), AA on
Bioshock Infinite	86	3440x1440, Ultra, AA on

In its full visual glory, Witcher 3 (2015) proved challenging even at even 1920 x 1080. Stepping down postprocessing from high to medium made a significant difference though, raising framerates nearly 50 percent. Naturally, UQHD (3440 x 1440) was even more challenging. At max settings, Witcher 3 averaged less than 30 FPS in some areas at UQHD. Once again though, lowering postprocessing from high to medium was a huge improvement, raising the average closer to far more playable 50 FPS. For gamers attempting Witcher at 4K, be sure to dial down some of its visual decadence for better frame rates.

Aging favorites like Tomb Raider (2013), Bioshock Infinite (2013), Sleeping Dogs (2012) and more recently, Warhammer: Vermintide - The End Times (2015), were no match for Origin’s killer combo of i7-6700K and Titan X. Bioshock, for example, routinely topped 120 FPS in even the busiest of areas. Even with older games, be mindful of your anti-aliasing settings as you approach 4K. High resolutions make anti-aliasing that much more taxing. Sleeping Dogs, for instance, ran beautifully. The moment I set anti-aliasing quality to “extreme” (FXAA + SSAA) though, it performed worse than Witcher 3.

Power Consumption, Heat and Noise

Despite the crowded internals, the bundled liquid cooling system proved effective. Our review unit shipped with an Origin (Asetek) Frostbyte 120 liquid cooler. This sealed unit features a fairly compact radiator design mounted entry-side with a single, high quality 120mm Scythe fan. Additionally, two 120mm fans were installed on the opposing side. There is a significant amount of airflow, but the ratio of noise to airflow definitely remained on the quiet side. While under light use, our Omega stayed quiet. Under full load, fan whirring was audible but not surprisingly loud. Fan sounds were free of “annoying” characteristics like whine, vibration and abrupt changes. I should add that fan aggressiveness can be easily adjusted using an included utility with user definable presets.

Under synthetic testing (and full load), temperatures remained under 76 degrees celsius with fans set to their most aggressive setting. During gameplay, temperatures were far more variable but significantly cooler overall. The Frostbyte 120 is a competent low-profile cooler having responded well to bolts of activity and keeping temperatures consistently reasonable without the need for a ridiculously loud fan.

With its GPU and CPU under full assault, our review unit topped out at a healthy 475 watts under max load. During more organic gaming sessions, power consumption typically hovered between 350-400 watts. Silverstone has a pretty good reputation for offering quality power supplies, so the included 600 watt PSU should be just enough to handle your highest-end config. If the minimal headroom makes you anxious though, customers can opt for a 700W PSU.

As Good As Mini-ITX Gaming Gets

With the Omega, it seems that Origin PC has struck a harmonious balance of performance, cooling, noise and features in this size class. Personally, I’ve been rocking mini-ITX machines for several years now. With some confidence, I can say the Omega is a worthy contribution to the cause. It’s a high-quality machine with performance rivaling that of larger systems. If you’re looking for a compact gaming option, there’s very little not to like here -- this is as good as mini-ITX gaming gets.

In terms of value, Origin’s system is pricey compared to building your own, but not outrageously so if you compare exact parts. If you’re set on having a PC built for you, the Omega is actually on the cheaper side of its market, the world of high-end custom SFF offerings. By high-end, I’m referring to top-end, desktop-class graphics cards and i7 CPUs. Even mid-range builds will set you back $1700-$1900 though, so buyers should carefully weigh their needs and options.

If this system has any shortcomings, it’s the lack of SLI or Crossfire. Omega inherits the space, slot and power constraints of SFF and mini-ITX, so this was a necessary sacrifice. Small systems tend to limit cooling and storage options as well, but the Omega fares pretty well with up to 4 drives (5 if you count M.2) and an effective liquid cooling solution.