27" vs 32" 4k monitors

[LOD_ismynightmare]

Has anyone seen the difference between the two? Or at least can have an educated guess about them? What would be the perfect size for a 4k monitor? 

 

I remember gaming on a 27" at 1080p and it was ugly as games look dull. 

 

 

[Zenith_X1]

I would bet that 27" is too small for 4k.  This is coming from someone with a 27" 1440p monitor.  Just an opinion but I think slightly bigger at 28" would be great for 1440p, and for 4k I would want like 34-35".  I can't have 34-35" ofc, so of the two you mentioned I would say 32"

[Mateyyy]

4K at 32" will still be really sharp, so it's mostly just a matter of preference here.

[minibois]

5 minutes ago, LOD_ismynightmare said:

Has anyone seen the difference between the two? Or at least can have an educated guess about them? What would be the perfect size for a 4k monitor? 

I remember gaming on a 27" at 1080p and it was ugly as games look dull. 

It's more a thing of "Do you have enough distance from your monitor for it to make sense to get a 32" one".

 

With enough distance (normal distance tbh), I have found 32" 1440p to be somewhat sharp even (as that is the same pixel density as 1080p 22", for reference). So 4K at either 32" or 27" is really sharp.

Sometimes 27" 4K (which is what I have) can be a bit small with programs that don't adjust for it, but those are few and far between. Plus, you just gotta zoom in on most website and you're fine. 

[Stahlmann]

These are the sweetspots imo:

 

<27" = 1080p

27-32" = 1440p

>32" = 4K

 

1440p is still plenty sharp at 32". I had a 32" 1440p panel myself before sending it back for other defects.

[LOD_ismynightmare]

4 minutes ago, minibois said:

It's more a thing of "Do you have enough distance from your monitor for it to make sense to get a 32" one".

 

With enough distance (normal distance tbh), I have found 32" 1440p to be somewhat sharp even (as that is the same pixel density as 1080p 22", for reference). So 4K at either 32" or 27" is really sharp.

Sometimes 27" 4K (which is what I have) can be a bit small with programs that don't adjust for it, but those are few and far between. Plus, you just gotta zoom in on most website and you're fine. 

I see your point, I do have enough distance so it seems that I better go with 32"

[Senzelian]

I tried 27" 4K and for me it was waaaaay too small. I don't like Windows scaling and at that screen size things become really tiny.

 

When it comes to choosing a monitor I think it is more important to choose physical size first and virtual size afterwards.

It really comes down to, what can you fit on your desk and at which distance do you sit. And so it makes more sense to either go 32" or 27". Afterwards I would select the resolution, which for me would be 4K at 32" and 1440p at 27".

[jones177]

I had 28" 4k monitors and they always felt to small.

At the time I also used editing programs that did not scale so I had to drop the resolution to see the text.

 

I upgraded to a 32" 4k monitor and I never had to lower the resolution to see text on programs that don't scale.

 

[Doobeedoo]

Can depend really, Windows scaling may not be the best though higher pixel density is neat in lile very detailed games or content and such. Have to see them in person I guess. 

[mariushm]

It depends how far you're gonna be from the actual screen.

 

Dull is more about panel type .. TN panels will have crappier colors and they'll shift colors a bit depending on the view angles, but you get lower latency... VA and IPS panels get better colors and contrast but they're more expensive. 

32" is usually just right size

[Ginger Penguin]

I've been wrestling with this. Just like with laptops, for example, all the best options seem to get pushed to the 27" and under market leaving only a few ones larger that are okay but have issues and are more expensive. I would probably be very happy with a 27" or 28" monitor but 32" seems like it would be really handy for doing video editing and other productivity. I'd probably be sitting too close to it for now (my desk isn't very deep) but the idea would be more to have multiple things open at once and to push my chair back a bit if I was watching a film or something.

[LOD_ismynightmare]

3 hours ago, W.D. Stevens said:

I've been wrestling with this. Just like with laptops, for example, all the best options seem to get pushed to the 27" and under market leaving only a few ones larger that are okay but have issues and are more expensive. I would probably be very happy with a 27" or 28" monitor but 32" seems like it would be really handy for doing video editing and other productivity. I'd probably be sitting too close to it for now (my desk isn't very deep) but the idea would be more to have multiple things open at once and to push my chair back a bit if I was watching a film or something.

32" 4k monitors are being produced now by Asus and Acer with +1000 HDR, Gsync, and all of the extreme features you get for +$3500. I can't justify this price. It is too much for a 4k monitor, but those made by Asus and Acer are OLED I think. Still I wouldn't buy them...knowing that 8k could be a thing in the future and I move around a lot so not suitable for me. I am looking for a 4k monitor with 1000HDR, Asus released one two years ago for around $2500 but that one is 27". So I still didn't find the right one yet. 

[Ginger Penguin]

6 hours ago, LOD_ismynightmare said:

I am looking for a 4k monitor with 1000HDR, Asus released one two years ago for around $2500 but that one is 27". So I still didn't find the right one yet. 

Yeah, I don't think those are going to be cheaper any time soon. I don't really watch any HDR content though I do work with 10 bit video files so I'd like a true 10-bit panel at least. That said, if I had a monitor with some HDR rating, I might seek out some HDR content. Sell some of my regular BluRays and buy the HDR versions.

 

I've also been trying to work out some PPI calculations but I'm bad with maths so I'm probably going to be wrong here. I find that, Windows scaling-wise, 1920x1080 goes well on my 17.3" laptop display. I have the same resolution on a 24" monitor and it's fine but perhaps a little big since you can't underscale. UHD on a 32" display is apparently ~137PPI and HD on a 17.3" display, ~127PPI. Assuming a roughly equal angle of view, that should put them not equal but about as close as you're likely to get, I'd imagine (it's actually about the same but slightly denser than HD on a 15.6" display which I find a little small but that's mostly because my comfortable distance is too far away).

 

1440 on a 27" is only about ~108PPI and at 32" ~92PPI. At average desk distances, for Windows scaling at least, UHD seems to make sense especially for a 32" display.