> 4K is usually 3840x2160, which is 16:9. For me this doesn't make sense: either the monitor(s) end up being too massive, the text is too tiny, or I have to sca

> 4K is usually 3840x2160, which is 16:9. For me this doesn't make sense: either the monitor(s) end up being too massive, the text is too tiny, or I have to scale up and basically have the same vertical space as 1080p 16:9 just with sharper text. But the sharper text is the whole point. That's why I abandoned the idea of getting a 4k 43" monitor, the DPI is the same as on a FHD 22" one. Even a 32" is "pushing it", as in the DPI isn't that high. However, note that not all text needs to be big. In my case I run a 4k screen at 100%, which allows me to have tiny title and toolbars, which means more actual space. I don't need the UI elements to be huge, and since I mostly use terminals and web browsers, adjusting the "content text" is enough. Of course, YMMV on Windows and Mac OS where you have to click a lot of buttons, so their being tiny might be an issue. Of course, if for your use and / or preference "sharper text" doesn't matter, you can save a bunch of money by staying with lower-resolution screens and / or get a single giant one if that's your cup of tea.