1440P > 4K on a 31.5" is it worth it?

deviation

deviation

deviation

Associate
Joined
20 Jun 2025
Posts
2,209
Location
Drake Hotel, Chicago
So, 1440P 165Hz 31.5" at the desk in the office, it's 'fine' but I mainly play SP games in the lounge downstairs on a 65" 4K TV.

I have 3 issues.

When using the TV downstairs, I have to use black out curtains and play in the dark, as the sun glare on the front room is ridiculous, to the point you are just getting blinded like a mirror by the TV and everything in the room, and it gets hot.
I dislike gaming sat in a sofa chair, because they always rake backwards so you're back is very slouched far back, which is fine for TV/movies, but I can't stand it for gaming - I prefer to sit up nearly straight, like you do in a proper desk chair. I find myself perched on the edge of the sofa at a silly dead arse/leg combo angle, which quickly hurts my back.

At the desk, I feel robbed using 1440P, so that puts me off playing games, as I know I can drive them downstairs at 4K60 - which is all I aim for, as I only play SP games these days, so I just go for 4K DLSS with the quality/settings maxed out at 60FPS, even if it requires frame generation/Reflex.

I'll use whatever to maintain the eye candy over FPS, as 60FPS is more than enough for SP games, considering most of them aren't exactly fast paced these days - IMHO, only Doom Eternal really gave me that 'wow factor' of high FPS, and warranted it due to how fast paced the combat/dodging is - I'm yet to find another SP game that makes me justify it, and I play most AAA games.

So when I go upstairs to 1440P I just feel put off playing games, as I know it looks better downstairs - I also find at 1440P native it still looks worlds apart from max quality 4K DLSS?

So that leaves me in limbo wasting time when I could be enjoying gaming, because both have negatives to their usage :(

So my question I guess is: if I were to change my 31.5" 1440P 165Hz to a 120/144Hz 4K 31.5", would I actually benefit visuals wise, bar the better PPI, will a screen of that size actually make games 'look better'? As the 65" 4K TV makes games look amazing, even if I sit close to it on the floor?
So I worry that if I go 4K 31.5" it'll not look 'much' better? Due to the screen being small - I was tempted by an LG C series 42" OLED wall mounted, but that will simply be too big for 'PC use' and I'd be sat too close, so it looks like I'm stuck with a 31.5" wall mounted. FWIW I've no interest in curved screens or ultrawides, sorry :D

Ideally a 37" 4K TV, wall mounted, would have been a good choice and slight gain? But I'd prefer a monitor, as they seem to take so much abuse/screen time, versus my appauling history with brand new TV's dying/breaking (if you remember that thread, you'll know :cry:)

Will I feel underwhelmed by 4K on a 31.5"? Or will I still get that clear bump in resolution that is extremely crisp on the 65" TV downstairs? I have even gone so far as put my monitor next to the TV downstairs to compare them on the same games, and it is night and day (obviously :P) So I am a bit hesitant to buy another 31.5", but I'm stuck due to still wanting the PC usage case when at the desk/sat close...

Thanks for any input :)
 
4K on a 31.5" will have a better image resolution wise than a 65" 4K TV because it will have a much higher pixel density due to the same amount of pixels on a much smaller screen.

Between 27" and 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming at a desk IMO.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Bosh said:
4K on a 31.5" will have a better image resolution wise than a 65" 4K TV because it will have a much higher pixel density due to the same amount of pixels on a much smaller screen.

Between 27" and 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming at a desk IMO.
Click to expand...
Thanks, a 32" 4K will have to be considered then!

The idea of 4K at 27" sounds crazy to me, no offense, but the scaling when using it for PC related tasks, must be pointless having that resolution?
I'd also say 27" is far too small for 4K gaming in terms of money wasted - I'll try and explain a bit better, what I mean is, I'd feel robbed at that screen size, for the hardware required's cost/ability, to be driving a tiny screen like that?

When you think that you can plug a console into a TV and it still looks pretty good, i.e. the PC should destroy anything else in terms of 'wow factor' in all aspects, so crouching round a tiny screen at a desk, despite said screen having a big screen's resolution, kind of messes with my head? I hope that made sense :cry:

That's why I feel very meh, when it comes to gaming on the 31.5" regardless of the resolution, cause I think, well I've got a massive TV downstairs... Surely the PC should provide a way better overall experience, like how a cinema does versus a TV? So I am torn with mindsets like this :(

I hope that illustrates the predicament I'm in :P

I guess I'll have to see if I can try a 31.5" 4K in person :)
 
Last edited:
deviation said:
Thanks, a 32" 4K will have to be considered then!

The idea of 4K at 27" sounds crazy to me, no offense, but the scaling when using it for PC related tasks, must be pointless having that resolution?
I'd also say 27" is far too small for 4K gaming in terms of money wasted - I'll try and explain a bit better, what I mean is, I'd feel robbed at that screen size, for the hardware required's cost/ability, to be driving a tiny screen like that?

When you think that you can plug a console into a TV and it still looks pretty good, i.e. the PC should destroy anything else in terms of 'wow factor' in all aspects, so crouching round a tiny screen at a desk, despite said screen having a big screen's resolution, kind of messes with my head? I hope that made sense :cry:

That's why I feel very meh, when it comes to gaming on the 31.5" regardless of the resolution, cause I think, well I've got a massive TV downstairs... Surely the PC should provide a way better overall experience, like how a cinema does versus a TV? So I am torn with mindsets like this :(

I hope that illustrates the predicament I'm in :P

I guess I'll have to see if I can try a 31.5" 4K in person :)
Click to expand...

27" 4K is actually a really nice crisp image for gaming. Noticably a bit better than 32" in my experience (not that 32" 4K is bad).

Windows has had plenty of scaling options for a long time now. It was maybe an issue for 4K monitors a decade ago but not anymore.

The only reason your 1440p 31.5" is meh is because its a low resolution for a 31.5" screen. A 4K 31.5" would be over 125% more pixels than your monitor so over double the resolution.

But if you prefer gaming on a large TV just do that. Its not really a predicament if you can do both. I alternate between my PC ultrawide and 8K TV in the living room, it just depends on the game.
 
Captain_Bosh said:
27" 4K is actually a really nice crisp image for gaming. Noticably a bit better than 32" in my experience (not that 32" 4K is bad).

Windows has had plenty of scaling options for a long time now. It was maybe an issue for 4K monitors a decade ago but not anymore.

The only reason your 1440p 31.5" is meh is because its a low resolution for a 31.5" screen. A 4K 31.5" would be over 125% more pixels than your monitor so over double the resolution.

But if you prefer gaming on a large TV just do that. Its not really a predicament if you can do both. I alternate between my PC ultrawide and 8K TV in the living room, it just depends on the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah I get that :) 'real world' based on the pixel density and crispness.

But a screen that small is hardly immersive IMHO, I'd be a bit gutted if that was all that I had to absorb a massive open world/story driven SP game :(

That size is very quite budget to me, and not what I'd expect a powerhouse of a PC to be used with for gaming, as it ruins the cinematic wow factor for me, as i'll not get to enough screensize to enjoy all the little things in the background/draw distance, that make for great immersion, as they'll be tiny :P
Versus what you would on a big TV for example - that's kind of what I struggle with when it comes to PC gaming at a desk. It's fine for MP FPS online, but for SP, I always feel a bit robbed playing with a monitor, despite it obviously being better clarity/quality of screen that most 'good' TV's.
 
4k on a 27" is frankly pointless imo, you need more screen real estate to genuinely appreciate the pixels. There comes a point where in games and movies at least there's not a discernable enough difference to warrant the uptick in hardware requirements.

32" and up is probably around the minimum I'd go for 4k res when nearfield. I couldn't drop down to a 27" even from a raw size perspective now, I'd feel like I was gaming on a postage stamp. I mainly single player game myself, largely on a 65" TV, my other monitor is a 34" ultrawide. When sat at a desk/nearfield for certain games it works perfectly as an alternative to my TV, the wider aspect ratio is excellent in certain titles, open world especially. It being a very affordable OLED makes for a gorgeous picture with excellent HDR capabilities too.
 
picture quality and screen coating are more important to me that 1440p vs 4k because 1440p is already a nice resolution at that size

if identical models then its not worth bothering
 
Gray2233 said:
4k on a 27" is frankly pointless imo, you need more screen real estate to genuinely appreciate the pixels. There comes a point where in games and movies at least there's not a discernable enough difference to warrant the uptick in hardware requirements.

32" and up is probably around the minimum I'd go for 4k res when nearfield. I couldn't drop down to a 27" even from a raw size perspective now, I'd feel like I was gaming on a postage stamp. I mainly single player game myself, largely on a 65" TV, my other monitor is a 34" ultrawide. When sat at a desk/nearfield for certain games it works perfectly as an alternative to my TV, the wider aspect ratio is excellent in certain titles, open world especially. It being a very affordable OLED makes for a gorgeous picture with excellent HDR capabilities too.
Click to expand...

Definitely, that's exactly how I feel. It feels like you're insulting your hardware, and at that point you might as well have spent bugger all on a console if you're going to game on a postcard sized screen!

Yeah, there really is something about having a 65" 4K screen for gaming. I feel like doing something stupid, and wall mounting a 65" 4K TV next to the monitor on the desk :cry: The sun glare/brightness is just ridiculous where the TV is, even in the evenings. So it always has to be black out curtains drawn to watch/game anything.

A 34" would be nice or a 37" if it wasn't UW, that just does nothing for me, sorry. I 'get it' but I want the same extra vertically :P not just cut in half :D

dave28 said:
picture quality and screen coating are more important to me that 1440p vs 4k because 1440p is already a nice resolution at that size

if identical models then its not worth bothering
Click to expand...

Having put my 1440P monitor in the lounge downstairs to compare it on a game by game basis versus the 4K TV playing the same games, it was one of those 'once you've seen it you can't unsee it' differences. I could never solely use 1440P again.
 
Last edited:
deviation said:
Definitely, that's exactly how I feel. It feels like you're insulting your hardware, and at that point you might as well have spent bugger all on a console if you're going to game on a postcard sized screen!

Yeah, there really is something about having a 65" 4K screen for gaming. I feel like doing something stupid, and wall mounting a 65" 4K TV next to the monitor on the desk :cry: The sun glare/brightness is just ridiculous where the TV is, even in the evenings. So it always has to be black out curtains drawn to watch/game anything.

A 34" would be nice or a 37" if it wasn't UW, that just does nothing for me, sorry. I 'get it' but I want the same extra vertically :P not just cut in half :D



Having put my 1440P monitor in the lounge downstairs to compare it on a game by game basis versus the 4K TV playing the same games, it was one of those 'once you've seen it you can't unsee it' differences. I could never solely use 1440P again.
Click to expand...
If you're happy with 60fps, you can get some decent 65" TVs with good HDR and FALD ATM for £500-600. I think Hisense has a deal going, the U6 is solid for the price tbh.

The setup you're joking about is more or less what I do, I just include a couch to the side of the desk.
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
If you're happy with 60fps, you can get some decent 65" TVs with good HDR and FALD ATM for £500-600. I think Hisense has a deal going, the U6 is solid for the price tbh.

The setup you're joking about is more or less what I do, I just include a couch to the side of the desk.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you never saw my hilarious fail thread regarding 4 brand new TV's failing back to back, in less than a year, 3 in a rows weeks apart in the same month, then another 9 months afterwards :P

If you want to know the story:
You definitely can't get anything devent for that price :P especially not HiSense! I've tried, I had 2 HiSense in a row, 1 was £900 with FALD, HDR, 4K 165Hz Freesync Premium Pro ALLM, etc etc, and it was absolutely rubbish, then developed 6 dead pixels in under a week. The ghosting, jerking and smearing, was something I've never seen before, they use **** slow response VA panels, it was honestly horrendus and gave me a headache in some places with what it was doing to my eyes. Despite the claimed low Ms response rate!
It couldn't achieve 165Hz on any of the HDMI 2.1 ports, on anything that I plugged into it, and 144Hz was jerky, I tried 120Hz, and then for a laugh 60Hz, which made you feel like you were going to be sick, if you thought the motion blur, jerking and smearing was bad at 120+ Hz, it was twice as bad at 60Hz!

I also found out the same panels are used in the TCL TV's. The HiSense before it, was half the price and actually better bang per buck, but still rubbish, with mass amounts of dirty screen effect and none of the features :P

I had 2 LG's one 65" being around £1200 reduced to £890, that was IPS, and amazing for 120Hz 4K gaming, then when you went to watch TV on it, it was headache inducing stutter effect with anything with fast motion, and it had this glitch where after you updated the firmware you couldn't turn half the smooth motion crap off that made it look un-natural etc. As I thought I'd try updating the firmware to see if there was a glitch with the processing. Nope :cry: and made it worse! That TV then rewarded me with a line of dead pixels 6 days later.

Then I had another LG, a budget one, which was simple but good enough for what you'd expect for 60Hz, and then that rewarded me with an entire line of dead pixels, around 6-10 pixels tall going horizontally across the entire width of the screen. I don't know Richer Sounds get their stock from, but it's clearly used for kick up practice, or in warehouse training for how not to drop something off the back of a truck?

Yeah, that would be the dream setup, but then I'd be blinded downstairs at the desk too haha.

It's annoying I cant simply get that C5 42" OLED and wall mount it above the desk - I mean I can, but it'll be too big/too close :(

This is a very annoying endless loop conundrum I've got myself into, isn't it :D :P
 
Gray2233 said:
If you bought a lottery ticket they'd probably try to make you pay the winners prize with luck like that.
Click to expand...
After the 4th failure, I ended up loosing my rag and demanding the entire amount back as a money refund, versus store credit - as by that point I'd exhausted all alternatives, and each time I'd gone up and up in my budget, so I wasn't exactly being a tightarse!
 
Would to go for an AOC U32G3X or a ROG Strix XG32UQ?
I know that the latter is reduced from a previously very expensive price, but I've seen reviews say it's not that responsive when it comes to MP competitive FPS etc and more suited towards more casual high FPS SP games?
Which surprised me considering the claimed spec, they also recommended the AOC over it for competitive online FPS games - which is something I'd still like to do, as I do play MP COD matches daily, despite mainly playing SP games.
 
I had a similar story to op with a 65 oled in livingroom but instead of a 32" 1440p in office i had a 42" 4k oled but the ppi is think is quite close.
When i recently moved to a 32" 4k oled in the office its much sharper and maybe even sharper than the 65" at their respective viewing distances.

Obviously 27" 4k is sharper yet and I did consider it but you are giving up a lot on immersion and as you usually play single player games like me that's an important factor.
I would say 32" 4k is the best at a desk for single player but I will upgrade when a 5k at 240hz oled comes out.
 
markoboyo11 said:
I had a similar story to op with a 65 oled in livingroom but instead of a 32" 1440p in office i had a 42" 4k oled but the ppi is think is quite close.
When i recently moved to a 32" 4k oled in the office its much sharper and maybe even sharper than the 65" at their respective viewing distances.

Obviously 27" 4k is sharper yet and I did consider it but you are giving up a lot on immersion and as you usually play single player games like me that's an important factor.
I would say 32" 4k is the best at a desk for single player but I will upgrade when a 5k at 240hz oled comes out.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I might have to try out a 32" 4K in person then :)
 
I tried 4k 42" for a bit, but it was too big, ended up on a 27" 4k with a second portrait 1080p.

I do find some games just don't scale well, mainly old titles, so often use 1440p in some games.

May try 32" 4k at some point instead.
 
markoboyo11 said:
Don't think you will regret it, its really impressive.
If I hadn't seen a 188ppi on a laptop I wouldn't believe games could look better but surely 5k maybe 6k 32" will be the maximum the eye can distinguish from a desk distance.
Click to expand...
Nioce! As I was mainly worried if 32" was too small to make out the twice the resolution texture difference etc, lol 6K 32" with like 400% text scaling :P

sastusbulbas said:
I tried 4k 42" for a bit, but it was too big, ended up on a 27" 4k with a second portrait 1080p.

I do find some games just don't scale well, mainly old titles, so often use 1440p in some games.

May try 32" 4k at some point instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, for how close I sit, and for 'PC use cases' 42" is a right off. Lent back in a chair further away with a controller would be fine, but that's not going to work for doing PC tasks :P

I couldn't have a 27" display, as previously mentioned, I'd feel like I'm robbing myself of immersion and wasting what I've spend on a PC. I get it'll look amazing, but it's tiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom