Mihle

Yes, 1080p looks more pixelated, and therefore grainy than 1440p. It's has less pixels. I wouldn't personally call that an upgrade.

No, as one pixel on 1080 would be exactly 2x2 pixels on 4k, while on 1440p its not even close to a whole number of pixels, it would have decimals. I believe there would be one 1080p pixel per 1,333333....x1,33333... Pixel on 1440p. If my math is right.

If the 4k monitor and 1440p monitor is the same size, 1080p should look worse on the 1440p monitor than the 4k one, theoretically.

I have 4k monitor, 3072x1728, aka 80% look good to me in games. Change it in game and not in windows/drivers. More and more games have seperate display resolution and game/render resolution. Have display resolution at native resolution and change the render resolution. It looks better.

Things that help much more towards preventing climate change, and most of them we already have technology to do plenty more of than we are currently doing: Replace all gas and resistive heating with heat pumps. Increase insulation of buildings. Build and use more public transport. More electric cars and busses. Build more clean energy production, including nuclear power. Make items people buy last longer. Make people and companies keep what they have for longer. Make datacenters use spare heat for for example heating up nearby buildings. Repurpose materials more than we currently do. New server hardware do become more and more efficient over time already and it would be much harder to accelerate that.

You can just sew it on so it's fits you, but you can't adjust it anymore.

Be blind, save money!

I haven't had issues with it in 99%+ cases, and those that have, that is mostly installers, or old shitty programs. (MySQL Workbench for example) And I think those would have issues(blurry) on 150% scaling too. You can turn off scaling on individual programs, so that they specifically become 100% scaling for those.

If you don't play games, there is even more reason to go for higher resolution in my opinion. I use 125% on my 4k 32".

32" is a nice size for 4k. My personal opinion is that 1440p is too low resolution for that size. 1440p is maximum 27" for me. If we are talking about 16:9 monitors.

Fewer and fewer people are buying 24" monitors. And those that are aren't willing to spend much on them. Therefore the manufacturers aren't making good/expensive ones. Dual setup is more common than triple. And I of those triple monitors I see, it seems more common now to have one of them being above the two others.

If I go 2x16, these ones are fine, right? Corsair CMK32GX4M2Z3600C18 Kingston KF436C18BBK2/32 Both are 3600 CL18.

I have RX 5700 XT and 4k monitor(32") Its plenty games it can't play native 4k, but some you can, just maybe not at max settings. (To reach 50-60 fps) For plenty games where it put the rendering resolution to 70/75/80%, with or without FSR. I have played plenty games that way and it looks fine. Worth noting I have not played Cyberpunk spesifically. I can come with a more detailed list of some games and what settings I played at, if someone wants to. Benefit of 4k is bigger outside of games, than in games is my opinion.

I didnt talk about OCing or adjusting anything, I was talking about 3200 CL16 and 3600 CL18 having the same latency, and therefore should have the same performance?

How would I know the layout/chips? Different people saying different things. Arent 3600MT CL18 basically the same as 3200 CL16? For reference, the 2x8GB mentioned in OP, cost about 60€ while replacing with 2x16GB would be about 110€, no matter if its 3200 CL16 or 3600 CL18. Decisions... People saying different things... Different things being written on different places on the web... Wish there just was an black and white answer you could look up on a website, or know exactly how big the risk for it not working properly is