I went for 4K recently, however, I went for real 4K, as in 4096 pixels across rather than a mere 3840. So that is resolution dialed up 'to 11'. I also went for

I went for 4K recently, however, I went for real 4K, as in 4096 pixels across rather than a mere 3840. So that is resolution dialed up 'to 11'. I also went for 31" rather than anything larger as I didn't want to 'crane my neck' to see the top of the see of pixels. For me it is actually important to see individual pixels, this I can do on my 4K mega-screen. For me 31" was the 'sweet spot', 27" or 24" would just not be practical. I also stayed with the one screen, for me I get 4 'HD laptop screens' which is what I want, to have the equivalent of 12 - not sure I would be that productive with a gazillion of windows open. What surprised me was how well different devices do. I plugged in my Chromebook on the HDMI input and it just worked. My Chromebook is lowest of the low, designed for an 8 year old, I am not even sure it has things like a CPU or memory, but it just works on 4K, very nicely. Obviously I have a real PC with linux to drive the screen, I did need to create the 4096 modes as it would only do regular 3840 out the box. One feature these monitors have is the ability to run more than one input with two inputs driving the screen side by side. So you can get your refresh rates even with lame hardware if you don't mind using two cables. (These can go to the same graphics card or two PC's). If you are a developer where the bottleneck is the speed of your own brain (rather than the graphics card) then I highly recommend going 4K. Big is good but there is a limit to how big which is tied in to the vertical height - you don't want to be staring at the ceiling.