2560x1440 - best on 27" or 32" monitor?

ClassicRyu

ClassicRyu

ClassicRyu

Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2011
Posts
39
Hello all.

Building a new PC soon, the new CPU will be a Core i5 6600 and the graphics card will be a Radeon RX 470 (just makes my budget). It will be used for some casual gaming and high settings of graphics do not matter that much.

One of the options I cannot seem to make my mind up on is the monitor size. I've decided on going for the 2560x1440 resolution. But I'm stuck between the choice of a 27" or 32" monitor size for it. The 27" is an IPS panel, and the 32" is a VA panel.

I've seen people say that 27" is too small for 2560x1440.

Can anyone offer any advice? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion 27" for 1440p is the perfect size.

32 or 27 is up to you and your preferences.

But i think you might be getting confused, i've seen a lot of people say that it's 4k at 27" is too small and i do agree with that statement.
 
27 is just right. I wouldn't want 32 for standard PC tasks as you'd have to sit a way back for the pixels not to be noticeable.
 
I find 25" great, 27" is perfectly fine, but 1440P on 32" I'm probably going to be wanting 4K.

27" is absolutely not too small for 1440P.
 
wrenaudrey said:
In my opinion 27" for 1440p is the perfect size.

32 or 27 is up to you and your preferences.

But i think you might be getting confused, i've seen a lot of people say that it's 4k at 27" is too small and i do agree with that statement.
Click to expand...

+1 on that

I had 2 4k 27" monitors... ended up selling them both
was using them for design work, not gaming tho... scaling in Adobe products is a shocking mess!!

In my opinion:
27" for 1440p
32" for anything bigger
 
Ste said:
27 is just right. I wouldn't want 32 for standard PC tasks as you'd have to sit a way back for the pixels not to be noticeable.
Click to expand...

There is no problem with pixels - it's just the same as you get with 24"/1080p and not many complained for all the years it was the "high end" standard. You do have to sit back though - and that's to take it all in. It does take a few days to get used to the size. I love 1440p at 32". :D
 
Why dont you tell us which monitors you are looking at? If you are going AMD for GPU, get a Freesync display. It will increase gaming joy.

I'd also suggest you go to an RX480 rather than a 470.
 
I have the BenQ BL3200PT 32" 1440p monitor too, and it's a beautiful screen. I use it for design work primarily and games second. This was the monitor that took me back to a single screen after having dual monitors for years.

As mentioned the pixel density is by no means bad, equivalent to 1080p at 24". It takes some adjusting but I could never go back now!
 
I find 32" @ 1440p to be a sweet spot; about the same pixel density as a 24" 1080p screen. If you've ever used a 15.6" HD laptop, that's about the density of a 32" 4k, and them pixels are pretty small for something that will be over an arm's length away.

That said, I don't HAVE a 32" QHD because I couldn't find one that was any good. Tried three, all had defects and got sent back. The internet is swamped with issues from similar units and I gave up. The panel lottery seems particularly biased towards crapness in this form factor.
 
Me too - 32" and 1440p. Especially for gaming. Desktop use is still decent too. I have 34" 21:9 at the mo but plan to swap to this.
 
mistersprinkles said:
Why dont you tell us which monitors you are looking at? If you are going AMD for GPU, get a Freesync display. It will increase gaming joy.
Click to expand...

The two monitors I am looking at are:

Asus 27" PB278QR

BenQ 32" BL3200PT

I am leaning more towards the BenQ.

I'd also suggest you go to an RX480 rather than a 470.
Click to expand...

I might just do that, the pricing is not far off.

I also want to ask, in general if it's a mid to above-mid range cards, which is more preferred for gaming? Nvidia or AMD?
 
ClassicRyu said:
I also want to ask, in general if it's a mid to above-mid range cards, which is more preferred for gaming? Nvidia or AMD?
Click to expand...
Truthfully, I'd go elsewhere to find the answer to this question. Or better yet, do some research of your own.

Too many people here are heavily invested in their favored GPU manufacturer and will try and slant their comments in that direction.
 
Thanks for all the responses guys.

Well in the end, I went for the BenQ 32" BL3200PT, because right now at the current moment, it's going for an extremely good price for a monitor like this.

With all the reviews I read online of the monitor and also taking your views into consideration, I thought long and hard about it. I do prefer the bigger screen size over "quality of image". That's not to say that it hasn't got good quality image though, as all the reviews I read say that it has, and that it's very close to an IPS panel. Apparently it also betters IPS panels in some areas as well.
 
Be interested to know how you get on with it. I tried one last year but it had nasty banding and had to go back :< But maybe newer stock is better?
 
eddiew said:
Be interested to know how you get on with it. I tried one last year but it had nasty banding and had to go back :< But maybe newer stock is better?
Click to expand...

Got it and set it up, it looks excellent. Even at 1920x1080 the OS looks great close up.

But then again this is me upgrading from a Samsung 24" TN panel, which lasted me 6+ years.

So far it looks fine, no dead pixels either. How would I test for banding?
 
Last edited:
Show a screen full of solid colour, shades of grey tend to work well showing up banding issues but pale blue and magenta are sometimes better.

If you get banding on solid colours and can't live with it then return the monitor immediately. As I've found to my cost, no matter how bad it is BenQ do not consider vertical banding a defect and will point-blank refuse an RMA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom