48" 4k is equivalent to having a quad of 24" 1080ps.

Putting a trio of portrait 24" 1080ps gives you 42" of almost 4k (3240x1920 as opposed to 3240x2160).

I don't see whats extreme about this at all, its a better use of area than my trio of 24" 1080ps (in landscape) that I use now.

> Putting a trio of portrait 24" 1080ps gives you 42" of almost 4k (3240x1920 as opposed to 3240x2160).

As opposed to 3840 × 2160, no?

Yup, my bad, typo.

I didn't mean to imply that a 40" diagonal was necessarily excessive (if you have the space, go for it!), I was just disagreeing with the claim that you need a screen that big for 4k. I have a smaller 4k screen, and I think the pixel density is perfectly fine.

It's about pixel density vs efficient use of pixels.

If you have a 48" 4k, then you're running it at 100%/96 dpi, just as if you had a 24" 1080p or a 27" 1440p. Same density, just more pixels.

If I was ultrarich, a 48" 8k would be the best of both worlds. It would also murder game performance, but oh well.

I mean, if that's the density you like, then sure. I think 1080p at 24" looks pretty bad.

I have UI scaling disabled on my 27" 4k display and it looks fine to me.