27" 4K or 32" 2.5K?

[tvanreeven]

Is it better to buy a 27" 4K monitor or a 32" 2.5K monitor for graphic design and 3D CAD? Does anyone have experience with either of these..?

 

I could buy either for roughly the same price(+/- 400 euro) but I'm not sure if a 32 inch is maybe too big, or a 4K screen is really necessary...

 

Rig:

Intel core I5-4460

Geforce GTX 1050 Ti 4GT OC

8GB RAM

 

 

 

[spellmanuk]

8 minutes ago, tvanreeven said:

Is it better to buy a 27" 4K monitor or a 32" 2.5K monitor for graphic design and 3D CAD? Does anyone have experience with either of these..?

 

I could buy either for roughly the same price(+/- 400 euro) but I'm not sure if a 32 inch is maybe too big, or a 4K screen is really necessary...

 

Rig:

Intel core I5-4460

Geforce GTX 1050 Ti 4GT OC

8GB RAM

 

 

 

 

im guessing these are 21:9 ultrawide monitors? if so the 32" aren't as big as they seem 

[grimreeper132]

7 minutes ago, tvanreeven said:

Is it better to buy a 27" 4K monitor or a 32" 2.5K monitor for graphic design and 3D CAD? Does anyone have experience with either of these..?

 

I could buy either for roughly the same price(+/- 400 euro) but I'm not sure if a 32 inch is maybe too big, or a 4K screen is really necessary...

 

Rig:

Intel core I5-4460

Geforce GTX 1050 Ti 4GT OC

8GB RAM

 

 

 

with those specs, I doubt you'll be able to do much in 4K, I could be wrong though, and 32" is possibly a bit big, depends how close you are to the screen, so it might be worth getting a different screen entirely and go looking for something which can show colours in the way that you need to show them, so you can see what you are designing properly, like they will be in real life

[Glenwing]

32" 2560×1440 is the same pixel density as 24" 1080p, just for reference.

 

32" is pretty large in general, it depends on your preference and setup but I don't know about that. 4K at 27" is also questionable. Honestly I think the best way to know would just be to try both somehow... This kind of thing is very preference based.

[tvanreeven]

8 minutes ago, peej said:

im guessing these are 21:9 ultrawide monitors? if so the 32" aren't as big as they seem 

thanks for replying

Both monitors are 16:9 ratio.

 

8 minutes ago, grimreeper132 said:

with those specs, I doubt you'll be able to do much in 4K, I could be wrong though, and 32" is possibly a bit big, depends how close you are to the screen, so it might be worth getting a different screen entirely and go looking for something which can show colours in the way that you need to show them, so you can see what you are designing properly, like they will be in real life

Thanks for replying

The monitors I'm looking at both have 100% sRGB coverage so that's okay. But yes, I'm afraid 4K will just slow down things like Illustrator and Solidworks and just for a a higher pixel density... I'm just not sure if it's worth it

 

Monitor's i'm looking at are Philips brilliance BDM3270QP2 and AOC U2777PQU

[spellmanuk]

3 minutes ago, tvanreeven said:

thanks for replying

Both monitors are 16:9 ratio.

 

Thanks for replying

The monitors I'm looking at both have 100% sRGB coverage so that's okay. But yes, I'm afraid 4K will just slow down things like Illustrator and Solidworks and just for a a higher pixel density... I'm just not sure if it's worth it

 

Monitor's i'm looking at are Philips brilliance BDM3270QP2 and AOC U2777PQU

 

32" is definitely too big if its 16:9

[tvanreeven]

4 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

32" 2560×1440 is the same pixel density as 24" 1080p, just for reference.

 

32" is pretty large in general, it depends on your preference and setup but I don't know about that. 4K at 27" is also questionable. Honestly I think the best way to know would just be to try both somehow... This kind of thing is very preference based.

At the moment I'm using 23" 1080p so pixel density would be about the same indeed. I used to work with multiple screens which I found out to be very efficient, but having all kinds of screens next to each other just didn't look nice and wires everywhere etc. etc. So I thought maybe 1 big sceen would solve this

 

 

[tvanreeven]

9 minutes ago, peej said:

32" is definitely too big if its 16:9

You think? It looks big but not TOO big looking at this though

[WereCat]

Personally I would go for 32" 2560x1440 because on 27" 4k you would need to use scaling which would be as using 27" 1440p anyway in the best case scenario when scaling works properly and doesn't do weird things.

32" is definitely big but it is still reasonable size for a monitor imo.

4k would be definitely better if it was also 32".

[tvanreeven]

3 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Personally I would go for 32" 2560x1440 because on 27" 4k you would need to use scaling which would be as using 27" 1440p anyway in the best case scenario when scaling works properly and doesn't do weird things.

32" is definitely big but it is still reasonable size for a monitor imo.

4k would be definitely better if it was also 32".

4K 32" would be ideal but this is just out of my price range unfortunately... I could save up a little more though; I found a 31.5" at 4K for just under 600 euros 

[tvanreeven]

For those interested; After all I chose a 32" 4K monitor from Philips(VA panel/100%sRGB) for about 600 euros.

 

I really think I made the right choice.. Size is ideal for 3D CAD and graphic design. Scaling works well with windows 10. The GTX 1050 4G OC can handle the screen well. Plays Battlefield 1 on 4K low settings at 45 fps/ 1440p high settings at 60 fps after a bit of overclocking.

 

some remarks;

- At 32" 1440p pixels would have been too big for my taste. On this screen I can already see the pixels...

- I had a different graphics card which could only run 4K at 30 HZ and decided to buy a proper GC... I experienced 30 Hz with this screen before setting the DP tot 1.2. Working at 30 Hz is not possible(!) for those wondering...