OK, but this means that someone sold a screen with a resolution which no one can really see ...
The only company I know of doing such weird things is Apple with "Retina" displays - which may be a pun
on putting the display directly to the retina to use the resolution.
So when you have not experienced trouble before with some games those may have used FullHD content
being upscaled - as you lose a lot of information when viewing correct 4k material - as with 21.5" you have
no chance to get a 4k impression - not even really FullHD.
To be honest even my 31.5" screen could be larger without seeing a pixel matrix (at ~ 50 cm distance) but
getting more details from 4k.
As Astronomer I try to explain that there is a comfort zone were pixels are not resolvable but resolution is usable,
at a desktop distance of said 50 cm about 75 dpi/ppi, which is a larger TV screen.
If you want to see some calculations to understand the background:
*
https://jmb-edu.de/en/kingdesktop.html#EyeResPow On that page above this explanation you can see a table with resolutions and screen sizes - I think after that
the problem is quite clear.
Thus it is not the fault of the programmers - they really use 4k and have well sized fonts for 28+" screens
on which people can see (roughly) 4k information - so it's the fault of the screen vendors selling with
non-valid arguments as the native resolution can not be experienced.
22" yields for FullHD 102 dpi - so this is well in the comfort zone - so you are not using even 2k fully
if not using a magnifying glass or a distance not reasonable for desktop use, thus 4k can not be displayed correctly
due to the insane high pixel density which is just wasted.
I know I will waste some resolution when switching to 8k when it becomes available, but I hope for >> 40"
to have a nice workplace even when not using the entire resolution. But with large TVs getting cheap with
such resolutions, one can use it.
And even though I showed and explained these calculations to students several times I have not thought about
seeing such an advantage when going from 28" to 31.5" - the new screen had much better colors - but the size
made working a lot more comfortable so this was the biggest plus for me - really amazing!!!
So 22" is not a good size for FHD - let alone 4k. This resolution is just given - but no one will get a 4k impression
with such a tiny screen. From my point of view one should clearly state that the native resolution can not be seen
in typical distances ... so it is more for people wanting to say they have a 4k screen than about people who need 4k.