4k vs 1440p at 32 inches

[the_gremlinn]

Hey All. 

Finally looking to upgrade my monitor, now that I have everything else sorted in my setup. I currently have a 27 in 1080p monitor and I notice significant screen door effect when typing or playing games, and am unhappy with it. since I do not own a tv and have one room this is the Primary display I will consume all content on, play Games, Watch YouTube, twitch, Tv shows, Movies, Etc. So I have chosen 32 in as my desired screen size. from people who have these monitors of this size in 1440 what is your opinion, is it good do you enjoy 4k content? if you could go back would you switch to 4k? 4k users what do you think? is gaming performance good enough? Do like it. Responses appreciated. have a great day!

[e22big]

I haven't own it but I have a friend who used to own 1440p monitor at 32 inch size, and I have a chance to use it fairly frequently when visiting his apartment for our late night gaming session. 

 

It's terrible, I would take  4k at 32 inch even if it's 60hz. You can very clearly see pixel and the image looks notiecably less sharp. It's even worse when displaying content because most films are either 4k or 1080p. This mean in addition to having low PPI, it will have display even lower, none-native resolution and reduce the picture quality even more. 

 

I wouldn't say it's unberable bad but certainly not great if you use it for both game and movies. 

[Dukesilver27-]

I have a 32" 1440p 165hz IPS Samsung Odyssey G50A S32AG50 and a 27" 1080p 144hz IPS AOC 27G2.

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the 2 displays, as in there's no better picture clarity due to the PPI density.

 

And I, like you, uses my PC monitor to consume everything, games movies shows etc.

I like the 32" inch size for content consuming, but from a gaming perspective, I kind of regret not going with a 27" 1440p. But since I do need the bigger screen size since I sometimes play and consume content from my bed which makes my eyes about 2 meters away from the monitor, I kind of have no other choice, other than going to 4K. 

 

My PC could play 4K games decently, for now at least, i5-12400 and RX 6800 XT, so I do regret it a bit for not going with 4K display, but 4Ks are expensive.

 

So, again, back to whether your PC could handle 4K games and your budget. 1440p for general use and gaming is decent enough on 32". 

[Andrewtst]

I once use before 32" monitor in 1440p - ViewSonic VX3209-2K, for productivity, you already can notice font pixelate issue.

But you might not see the differences as you are using 1080p previously on 27".

 

But I still recommended 1440p is good at 27" (16:9), 34" (21:9) and 49" (32:9) only.

For 32", it is better pick 2160p resolution, but 4K gaming is heavy, you need to know your GPU can handle or not. For NVIDIA, I suggest to have GeForce RTX 3080 series, as for AMD is Radeon RX 6800 series.

 

For 4K content if it is video, then no impact even your monitor is only 1080p.

[the_gremlinn]

5 minutes ago, Dukesilver27- said:

So, again, back to whether your PC could handle 4K games and your budget. 1440p for general use and gaming is decent enough on 32". 

my pc can play most games at 4k pretty well(I have a 3080 and 5950x), and I have no problem using dlss as well. I would prefer the savings of 1440p vs 4k, the 4k monitor is 200 dollars more expensive. and I would prefer the higher refresh rate as well. and ppi at 1440 at 32in is 91 so the same as 1080 at 24in so slightly better density, but the 4k ppi is just crazy.

 

12 minutes ago, Dukesilver27- said:

 but from a gaming perspective, I kind of regret not going with a 27" 1440p

is that due to size or ppi?

[Andrewtst]

5 minutes ago, the_gremlinn said:

my pc can play most games at 4k pretty well(I have a 3080 and 5950x), and I have no problem using dlss as well. I would prefer the savings of 1440p vs 4k, the 4k monitor is 200 dollars more expensive. and I would prefer the higher refresh rate as well. and ppi at 1440 at 32in is 91 so the same as 1080 at 24in so slightly better density, but the 4k ppi is just crazy.

 

is that due to size or ppi?

Once you use 1440p in 27" then you will know how bad 1080p in 27" for text and icon clarity. Also the workspace is so small and everything look so freaking big in 1080p for 27".

 

This is same apply to 1440p in 32". Everything look pixelate and bad.

[the_gremlinn]

4 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

This is same apply to 1440p in 32". Everything look pixelate and bad.

so you dont think it matters that there is a slight benefit over 1080 at 27

[Andrewtst]

11 minutes ago, the_gremlinn said:

so you dont think it matters that there is a slight benefit over 1080 at 27

1440p is freaking awesome and benefits in 27". (This is equivalent to 34" 21:9 and 49" 32:9). You shouldn't use 1080p in 27".

 

But for 32", it is not good enough and better up to 4K resolution. 32" in 1440p give you good working space but the rest is same bad as using 1080p in 27".

[BetteBalterZen]

IMO, anything above 27" and 4K is beginning to become more attractive than 1440p, and at 32" it's a must IMO. Pixel density is simply too low with 1440p at 32" if you ask me. 

But if it is purely gaming orientated and you have a 32" 1440p high refreshrate and a 32" 4K with 60Hz, you know, I might actually pick the 1440p... But I know for a fact that the pixel density will annoy me, and a lot. 

[Andrewtst]

26 minutes ago, the_gremlinn said:

my pc can play most games at 4k pretty well(I have a 3080 and 5950x), and I have no problem using dlss as well. I would prefer the savings of 1440p vs 4k, the 4k monitor is 200 dollars more expensive. and I would prefer the higher refresh rate as well. and ppi at 1440 at 32in is 91 so the same as 1080 at 24in so slightly better density, but the 4k ppi is just crazy.

 

is that due to size or ppi?

You have RTX 3080 and 5950X, they is no worried on performance. 

 

My spec is similar as yours except I only have 5900X. I am using 5120x1440 resolution monitor without any gaming issue. You are assure no performance issue. 

 

It is better pick 1440p in 27" or 2160p in 32".

[Dukesilver27-]

49 minutes ago, the_gremlinn said:

my pc can play most games at 4k pretty well(I have a 3080 and 5950x), and I have no problem using dlss as well. I would prefer the savings of 1440p vs 4k, the 4k monitor is 200 dollars more expensive. and I would prefer the higher refresh rate as well. and ppi at 1440 at 32in is 91 so the same as 1080 at 24in so slightly better density, but the 4k ppi is just crazy.

 

is that due to size or ppi?

Yes, the PPI density, there's no noticeable improvement from a 27" 1080p monitor, so basically no picture clarity improvement from my upgrade. If I had more budget for 4K monitor, I would've gone with a 4K.

 

For everyone else who says that they could see each pixel, I personally can't say so myself, texts are crisps, 30 cm away from the monitor, still can't see each pixel. Only If I'm really looking for it like really up close like eyes literally in front of the monitor, then I could see each pixel.

 

Personally, you should determine the priorities, for me:

1. Budget

2. Screen size

3. Resolution

4. Color reproduction (accuracy and wide gamut)

5. Refresh rate

[Spainz]

As a general rule I've noticed that 108op at 27 inches looks less crisp and more pixilated or "Vaseline" than a 1080p monitor at 15 inches... The same is true of any resolution.

 

The real question you didn't know to ask is whether a 32inch width would distort the sharpness of the 1440p monitor. personally, I have a 1440p 27inch, look sood damn amazing. But if you're going 32 inches, it very well make it look pixelated, because the pixels will be larger to accommodate the extra width. At higher inch widths you're better off at higher resolutions if you want that crispness. 

[Spainz]

Just now, Spainz said:

As a general rule I've noticed that 108op at 27 inches looks less crisp and more pixilated or "Vaseline" than a 1080p monitor at 15 inches... The same is true of any resolution.

 

The real question you didn't know to ask is whether a 32inch width would distort the sharpness of the 1440p monitor. personally, I have a 1440p 27inch, look sood damn amazing. But if you're going 32 inches, it very well make it look pixelated, because the pixels will be larger to accommodate the extra width. At higher inch widths you're better off at higher resolutions if you want that crispness. 

 

Just now, Spainz said:

At higher inch widths you're better off at higher resolutions if you want that crispness. 

no matter what resolution you pick, remember that it's a matter of simple division. If you have the same number of pixels between screen A and screen B, but the width is not the same, you end up with a different size of pixels, because to fill the larger screen, you still only have 1440pixels available, yet a larger screen. If you want the appeal of a 4k's CRISPNESS, you can pull off a 1440p monitor, but it needs to be smaller width screen in my personal opinion. When look at a friend's 4k 32 inch monitor, I don't see a crispness value increase in their screen over mine, even though I'm running a 1440p monitor, and I believe it's because my pixels are smaller so it appears as crisp, due in nature to the 27inch screen size I'm rocking. 

 

if you want the screen size over the resolution, pick 4 K to maintain crispness and sharpness of the pixels. If you care more about the perceived crispness people get from 4k monitors, picking a 1440p monitor at lower screen sizes should pull of the effect with ease. 

[Spainz]

When folks state that they don't see a large difference between 1080p and 1440p, it may be because they're not just moving up in "P" but also in screen size. And so the ratio of pixel to width of screen hardly changes, thus the perceives sharpness of the new monitor may not seem that drastic. But if you were to keep your current screen size at 1080p, and JUST increase pixel count in new monitor, it's likely have a much more noticeable effect. I wonder if what I'm saying makes any sense. Guys? Opinions?

 

1440p is certainly cheaper at 32inches... so I guess that'd be one reason to risk a larger screen size at 1440p but I care more about pixel sharpness, more than screen size or resolution. Why invest in an expensive resolution if it looks grainy? And why invest in a large screen if it does the same thing?

[IPD]

1080p @ 27" = 81.59 ppi

1440p @ 32" = 91.79 ppi

2160p @ 32" = 137.68 ppi

 

---

In gist, either will be an upgrade, but 4k will be a significant improvement. 

[rotexen]

I bought the samsung odyssey g7 32"

And sold it in a month becsuse i didnt like it

Now im using a 1440p but 27"

Its better than 1440p 32"

The 1440p on a 27" looks better 

 

[the_gremlinn]

Thanks everyone I will probably go 4k if it goes on sale in the next month or 2, if not I will try the 1440 and if I don’t like it I will return it.

[YDoUWntSoMnyPrmsnsOnSgnUp]

4.5 to 5 inches or 13.75 to 15 centimetres larger diagonally does not justify requiring twice as many pixels. I can’t stand going on the internet because of people that make these remarks, it’s clearly advertising trying to get impulsive wealthy people’s money by people who have personal investment in the industry (which is basically every poor person would benefit from their competition having a garbage lcd monitor because someone told them to make the sacrifice in order to afford 4K), but it really effects all of us negatively because it’s turning the internet into a toxic wasteland of Wish-like-merchant-advertising when it should be a safe haven for poor young lads like myself.