1440 vs 4K

Wow for a good 34" UW its going to be over £1K.
Think I may have to revisit 27s and 32s, common sense seems like I can get a better 27 with all the features for half the 34.
Would still like to see what 1440 is on a 32 when you sit close to it even if its to rule it out or not
 
I sit close to a 32". I have a 1440p (DELL S3220DGF) and a 4K (Benq EW3270U). I love the Dell for it's 165Hz refresh rate in games and the curve is really good for when your sitting close. But it's really no comparison with the 4K. Everything on the 4K screen is so much better. Text and everything is so much is clearer and sharper. But although 60Hz is OK for most things, some games could use more.

So personally I think 32" is too big for 1440p if you are going to sit quite close.

I've been swapping between these two displays for quite a while now and I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy with 32" 1440p if I'd never owned the 4K. But now I'm desperate to get a 32" 4K curved monitor with high refresh rate. I haven't found one yet.
 
sybaris said:
Wow for a good 34" UW its going to be over £1K.
Click to expand...
Which should the price level of 32" 4K monitors with lot more image for desk space usage...

sybaris said:
Would still like to see what 1440 is on a 32 when you sit close to it even if its to rule it out or not
Click to expand...
Didn't you have 2560x1440?
You could simulate 32 incher's pixel size by moving 27" screen closer.

http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
First check say physical height of 32" model from specs, or just use diagonal sizes and calculate angle at which it shows from your current (average/usual) viewing distance.
Then copy that angle to clip board for using it to calculate distance for 27" monitor to show at that angle.
Then move monitor that difference closer and start the test run.
 
I don't think that will tell the whole story. That will help when considering the physical size of the screen but pixel density is important here and the pixel density of a 27" UHD screen is around 163ppi whereas a 32" UHD screen would be 137ppi. You can't make a 163ppi pixel density look like 137ppi just by moving it closer.

Scaling also needs to be considered - I find text on a 32" UHD screen to be fine without any scaling because I sit close to the screen. I don't think I could handle it on a 27" screen and would need to apply some scaling in order to be able to comfortably read anything.
 
EsaT said:
Which should the price level of 32" 4K monitors with lot more image for desk space usage...

Didn't you have 2560x1440?
You could simulate 32 incher's pixel size by moving 27" screen closer.

http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
First check say physical height of 32" model from specs, or just use diagonal sizes and calculate angle at which it shows from your current (average/usual) viewing distance.
Then copy that angle to clip board for using it to calculate distance for 27" monitor to show at that angle.
Then move monitor that difference closer and start the test run.
Click to expand...

It is sharp on my monitor, moving it closer just makes it closer, it will still be sharp.

But I like the thought behind it though. If only it was that easy.
 
Buffalo2102 said:
I don't think that will tell the whole story. That will help when considering the physical size of the screen but pixel density is important here and the pixel density of a 27" UHD screen is around 163ppi whereas a 32" UHD screen would be 137ppi. You can't make a 163ppi pixel density look like 137ppi just by moving it closer.

Scaling also needs to be considered - I find text on a 32" UHD screen to be fine without any scaling because I sit close to the screen. I don't think I could handle it on a 27" screen and would need to apply some scaling in order to be able to comfortably read anything.
Click to expand...

Does it look sharp to you? People say that sitting close to a 32 UHD looks fuzzy and its best viewed from over a meter away
 
sybaris said:
Does it look sharp to you? People say that sitting close to a 32 UHD looks fuzzy and its best viewed from over a meter away
Click to expand...

No the 32" UHD looks sharp to me and my face is around 50-60cm from the screen. UHD has never seemed fuzzy to me but then I'm fairly short-sighted. I should imagine those comments are from people that are longer sighted.
 
Here's a thought.
If I had a 4K screen and set it to display as 2560x1440. When I ran a 4K game or streamed a 4K movie, will windows upscale the resolution while its using 4K and then go back to its pre set resolution after?
 
Not something I've tested but I think once you set the Windows display resolution you will not have the option to play a game or movie in any resolution above that. You would have to change the windows display resolution as well.
 
sybaris said:
Ok, really confused now
My current screen = 27" @60hz
GPU = 3070 Ti (actually its in transit).

Use for a screen = MS Office, legacy apps and software. Old and new games, streaming
Mounted on an arm and is about 60cm to 80cm away.

I want the least fuss with scaling as I still use some older software that I don't think will scale well but I would like to go up a size or possibly two.

Option A
Go for another 27" monitor with 144hz or 165hz refresh rate
2560x1440.
+ Everything stays the same resolution and continues to work
+ Least power hungry out of all my options (lower W rating)
- Was hoping a slightly bigger screen would help with having a bit more real estate which I may have to forgo if I stay with 27"
- 4K probably not worth it and would limit me to 60hz which I may as well stay with what I have

Option B
Go up to a 32" screen at 1440p and 144hz/165hz
+ More real estate
+ Can sit further back
- Things may not scale properly
-Native resolution at 1440p may be too small

Option C
Get a 34" ultrawide at 3440x1440
+ Higher refresh rates
+ More desktop real estate (can have a zoom window and a word doc open together at a decent size
+ I just about have room for one of these at a push ... not literally, dont want if falling on the floor.
- looks cool but that's a lame reason to get one.
- Not all software can stretch at a bigger aspect ration
- Some software may not run at all
- Not everything can run in a window and its a pain each time to window size everything that will run in a window.

Sensible head says stick with Option A - It works, why move the goal posts?
Impulse head says get a 32 and risk it
Wishful head says yeah go on get the biggest display you can physically stick on the desk.
Click to expand...

I don't think you would notice any issue with games on the 32 inch 1440p, I was worried about that but it is an upgrade over a 27 inch, more immersive and the new panels are much more responsive. Clarity and motion, something you have to see but it is impressive (on my one at least). Saying that it's come with some issues. My 32inch due to the stand is slightly closer than I had the 27inch, but it's not an issue.

1440p, not an issue at this size, 4k would be nice but so would a graphics card more powerful than the current generation to run it. 1440p is the sweet spot 32inch, the ideal size for me.


If you currently have a 27 inch, 60hz upgrading to a modern 27inch high-response monitor will feel like an upgrade. Also, pick up some really cheap which is a plus.

I don't think you will be disappointed with either option and 1440p gaming is awesome on newer graphics cards.

The only issue is the monitor lottery, buying more expensive, monitors with more and newer features, more possible points of failure.

I expect my next monitor to be 32-34, inch, 4k with good H.D.R, with a next-gen card to run it, but that is for the future. Meantime 1440p, fast response and image clarity of these newer displays, pretty sweet.
 
There are some cheap 34" ultrawides but for slightly more I can get a much better 27"
Its a gamble with the 32. Nowhere near me has any on display and I'd like to see how sharp text is sitting fairly close.
The sensible option would be to go with a mid range 27" but I'd like bigger. A 32 is 6cm taller and 7 cm wider and I can put that on a monitor arm, so no stand issues.
Its just that I work on the PC and watch TV/movies/game on it so it gets a lot of use.
I got to admit, text on the current 27" is small but its sharp. I did scale it up but after many years of this size, its an adjustment, but I have hit the point where I ether
increase the text size a bit or sit closer
 
Buffalo2102 said:
I sit close to a 32". I have a 1440p (DELL S3220DGF) and a 4K (Benq EW3270U). I love the Dell for it's 165Hz refresh rate in games and the curve is really good for when your sitting close. But it's really no comparison with the 4K. Everything on the 4K screen is so much better. Text and everything is so much is clearer and sharper. But although 60Hz is OK for most things, some games could use more.

So personally I think 32" is too big for 1440p if you are going to sit quite close.

I've been swapping between these two displays for quite a while now and I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy with 32" 1440p if I'd never owned the 4K. But now I'm desperate to get a 32" 4K curved monitor with high refresh rate. I haven't found one yet.
Click to expand...

Interesting as I have looking up around making a shift from my current AOC 1440p 32" to the same BENQ panel as you have got. Looks a great panel. I even considered the 28" 4k variant but a bit of me doesn't want to go down a screen size. I sit close my panel as it's just on my desk office desk in front on me. Wife uses the main machine in the house for admin for work as well as it being my gaming machine. I play at a 60/vsync at 1440p so won't miss the FPS of going up the resolution and from what I can see the 6700xt should be fine in most stuff up to 60fps (obviously not cyberpunk lol)

Decisions decisions.......
 
1440p 144hz until 4k 144hz monitors are affordable and there are GPUs out that can run it (the 3090 comes not even close).

4k does look stunning but I haven't used 60hz on my PC for years and I refuse to ever use a 60hz monitor again, even for secondary monitors.
 
TheRandomGuy7 said:
1440p 144hz until 4k 144hz monitors are affordable and there are GPUs out that can run it (the 3090 comes not even close).

4k does look stunning but I haven't used 60hz on my PC for years and I refuse to ever use a 60hz monitor again, even for secondary monitors.
Click to expand...

sums it up.
4k requires some hardware to run.

165hz 1440p and 32inch is really great for games and hardware.
 
RBImGuy said:
sums it up.
4k requires some hardware to run.

165hz 1440p and 32inch is really great for games and hardware.
Click to expand...

I think that is my biggest fear, I get a nice 4k screen and suddenly i have start turning everything down and the experience is sub par vs. what I have now.

Have no intention of getting a new GPU for the foreseeable as just got this one

My other, and most likely more sensible option is to get a fast (144+) 32" 1ms 1440p panel that can do HDR.
Same res at my current screen granted but at the same time all the extra bells and whistles sets it up nicely and I know the 6700xt smashes through everything with ease.
 
phatboy said:
I think that is my biggest fear, I get a nice 4k screen and suddenly i have start turning everything down and the experience is sub par vs. what I have now.
Click to expand...

To make a wild prediction, the Nvidia 50xx series will be when 4k can be comfortably maxxed out settings-wise at 144fps on a non-flagship class GPU (i.e on a future 5070). So IMO we're 3-4 years away right now.

Plus rushing into a 4k monitor now doesn't make sense to me. It is almost 100% guaranteed that prices will come down, and quality of monitors will go drastically up as more models are made and perfected.
 
Depends on expectations and what you play really. My RX6800XT handles most games at 4K 60Hz without too much trouble and without dialling everything down. If you're happy with 1440p at 144Hz and moving to 4K expecting the same experience you may be disappointed.

I don't only game on my PC and, as I said earlier, I would rather have the higher resolution at 60Hz than 1440 at 165Hz, while sat close to a 32" screen. If I sat further away or had a smaller screen or only used my PC for gaming I would likely feel differently.
 
Buffalo2102 said:
I don't only game on my PC and, as I said earlier, I would rather have the higher resolution at 60Hz than 1440 at 165Hz, while sat close to a 32" screen. If I sat further away or had a smaller screen or only used my PC for gaming I would likely feel differently.
Click to expand...

This is true and very important. I strongly argue for 1440p 144hz but I'd never use 1440p on a screen larger than 27". For more screen real estate 4k becomes very important if you care at all about visual fidelity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom