OK, I guess, I have confused everybody. Sorry
1. I do not have lot of data need ! >Pegasus
2. I can not have a big screen TV-> min TV 4K size is (I think) 40"
3. I think 27" monitor is what I need (for the room size/distance from screen)
4. Say, I do not have any laptop to make it clear & easy.
5. I think a laptop with 4K screen is way expensive & screen too small. So, separate monitor is the solution
But I will need a matching laptop or desktop with compatible guts =graphic card
6. I hope B&H will be cheaper than retail (like BestBuy)

So can you look at it once more? Yes I have learned already : If you are not into 'gaming', you don't need the fastest refresh rates...you want IPS switching, good contrast ratio, internal speakers <-no need

Thank you all . Now I go to see Dell from B&H Miro

First of all, you do not want a "4K monitor." You will be much better served and for less money with a 4K TV. I had a 50 inch Seiki 4K TV on my desk for the last 4 years, connected to my now-5 year old laptop with an HDMI. It worked great; love having that "wall of data" as I refer to it.

At the end of last year, I replaced the 50inch Seiki with a 49 inch Samsung Q6 TV. An amazing device; it draws less than half the power of the Seiki and it's physically smaller because it has no bezel to speak of and it's very thin. The picture is also far superior to the Seiki.

Before getting this TV, I checked for 4k monitors at the usual websites and nothing even came close to 4k TVs.

The beauty of 4k is the resolution, and you are wasting it if you use a small screen. I am writing this using my 49 inch Samsung Q6, parked 2 feet in front of my nose. At 4K resolution, you simply do not see the individual pixels. It makes for a dramatic effect.

I can work on spreadsheets showing hundreds of columns and rows. I usually have about 20 windows opened at any one time.

Monitors are way too small to take advantage of 4K; 27 inch? Are you kidding me?

I leave it up to you and others to figure out if your laptop can drive a 4K screen, but don't waste the 4K resolution on a small screen.

ETA: I forgot to mention that working on pictures with a 49inch 4K screen is a lot of fun. I still can't see the full picture at 100%, that will be for an 8K screen.

OK, I guess, I have confused everybody. Sorry
1. I do not have lot of data need ! >Pegasus
2. I can not have a big screen TV-> min TV 4K size is (I think) 40"
3. I think 27" monitor is what I need (for the room size/distance from screen)
4. Say, I do not have any laptop to make it clear & easy.
5. I think a laptop with 4K screen is way expensive & screen too small. So, separate monitor is the solution
But I will need a matching laptop or desktop with compatible guts =graphic card
6. I hope B&H will be cheaper than retail (like BestBuy)

So can you look at it once more? Yes I have learned already : If you are not into 'gaming', you don't need the fastest refresh rates...you want IPS switching, good contrast ratio, internal speakers <-no need

Thank you all . Now I go to see Dell from B&H Miro

I'm glad I read through previous replies before posting (for a change). I've read the same thing, that 4k on a small 27-27" monitor is but a gimmick, that there is absolutely no need. I read that at 32" it begins to have some utility.

And as others have said, be sure your hardware will support the resolution and that you even have 4k content to display.

Personally I think 1080p is adequate, but I like to shoot in 4k for editing effects (zoom, pan) before exporting to 1080p.

Oh, and listen to Trix. He knows what he's talking about.

OK...if I understand the discussion .....and I am having Nik 7100 to use = 20MP .... I will not see the stunning difference between my existing screen 1366x768 (15") and 4k 3840x2160 (27")? And all the monitors in this size are just a sale gimmick?

I am not sarcastic. I understand that bigger size screen & bigger distance will provide better perceived picture. And I respect everybody's experience in this area ( I do not have much by myself)

I am not trying to beat the dead horse, but I am trying to get somewhere.

Miro

I think the takeaway here is if you get 4k on a small screen, everything will be so small you'll have to get so close you'll have your nose on it to make out anything. 4k is better suited for viewing a larger screen from a greater distance.

Think of a billboard. It looks great from a hundred feet. Pixel size matters most when considering viewing distance. Eight million pixels (that's 4k) on a 27" monitor will get you a pixel size much smaller than the same eight million pixels on a 32", or 40" or larger display. So on a smaller display you would need to view much more closely to distinguish them.

You just don't get it. With a 4K monitor, you do NOT have to be far away to get a great picture. As I explained several times now, even from 2 feet away, you do NOT see the individual pixels on the scream, it's like a real painting.

This is why I keep encountering this resistance to understand why a large 4K TV is fabulous to work on as a monitor for a laptop or PC. Once people experience it, they love it and don't want to work on anything else.

An 8K TV for a laptop would need to be 75 inches or more. You need the screen real estate to enjoy 4K (and later, 8K.)

I'm guessing my explanation didn't come across as expected. I use a 49inch 4K TV on my desk, but I do not increase the font size on anything, in fact I use a very small font. In Windows, it's a setting that you select when you resize your screens. So, I have a very big screen with a LOT of data on it. As I explained, I can have an Excel spreadsheet showing 100+ columns and 100+ rows, all on the screen.

I'm a software guy and I can have 3 putty sessions with 150 lines each and 132 chars wide side by side by side on the screen.

I don't have big text, I have LOTS of text.