Going from 1080p to 1440p

[Ophidio]

I'm looking at upgrading my current monitor which is a 27" 1080p LG 144hz monitor to a 32" 1440p LG 165hz mointor.

 

My concern is will I see a difference in quality with the size jump. I know the ppi on the monitors is around 85ppi for the 1080p and 93ppi for the 1440p monitor. I understand that 27" is the "sweet spot" for 1440p gaming but at this price point it's hard to pass on. I don't really play competitive games to much if I do it's usually just Call of Duty which is more casual play with friends. I mostly play single player games ( AC: Valhalla, Elden Ring, Horizon: ZD, Spiderman) or adventure/survival games with friends.

 

I've read a bunch of old post about this same discussion from a couple years back and that's got me scared. I'm just worried that I won't see much of an improvement because of the size.

 

Specs for my pc are:

 

Ryzenn 7 5800x

32GB DDR4 3200mhz

RTX 3070

 

If those matter in this.

 

If the link above doesn't work properly : https://www.microcenter.com/product/662617/lg-32gp750-315-2k-qhd-(2560-x-1440)-165hz-gaming-monitor\

 

Thanks in advanced, I may not see some replies until the morning.

[Andrewtst]

For 32", 1440p not good for productivity, not sharp enough for text and everything look too big. 

 

For gaming, it is kind of ok as AA help a lot to smooth out the object but I still suggest 4K for 32" and above in 16:9 aspect ratio. 

[saintlouisbagels]

Disregarding the PPI, you will notice a huge productivity jump going from 1080p to 1440p. You're getting 77% more work space.

I cannot imagine getting anything done on monitors below 1440p anymore.

 

Now with respect to PPI.. this is going to be up to you. At 1440p at 32" can be a little soft, but 4K can be too sharp and everything is too small unless you have the monitor fairly close to your face.

 

At work I run my 32" 4K at some in-between resolution of 1440p and 4K.

At home I'm running my 43" 4K at full resolution.

[Andrewtst]

1 hour ago, saintlouisbagels said:

Disregarding the PPI, you will notice a huge productivity jump going from 1080p to 1440p. You're getting 77% more work space.

I cannot imagine getting anything done on monitors below 1440p anymore.

 

Now with respect to PPI.. this is going to be up to you. At 1440p at 32" can be a little soft, but 4K can be too sharp and everything is too small unless you have the monitor fairly close to your face.

 

At work I run my 32" 4K at some in-between resolution of 1440p and 4K.

At home I'm running my 43" 4K at full resolution.

32" basically no resolution is best fit. 

- 1440p too low. 

- 2160p too high and need scale 125% 

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

For 32", 1440p not good for productivity, not sharp enough for text and everything look too big. 

 

For gaming, it is kind of ok as AA help a lot to smooth out the object but I still suggest 4K for 32" and above in 16:9 aspect ratio. 

I disagree. I have both 27" and 32" 1440p and I prefer 32". I actually replaced the 27" for another 32" yesterday. 

Using it for both gaming and productivity. Can't really tell any difference in sharpness from my typical sitting distance about 75cm to 100cm having eyes from the screen. 

 

Yes, if I lean in closer to the screen I can notice individual pixels faster vs 27" but that's irrelevant as I don't typically lean close. 

[Andrewtst]

4 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I disagree. I have both 27" and 32" 1440p and I prefer 32". I actually replaced the 27" for another 32" yesterday. 

Using it for both gaming and productivity. Can't really tell any difference in sharpness from my typical sitting distance about 75cm to 100cm having eyes from the screen. 

 

Yes, if I lean in closer to the screen I can notice individual pixels faster vs 27" but that's irrelevant as I don't typically lean close. 

Normal distance already can seen it is pixelate for 1440p in 32" and the most part I can't accept is the icons and wording all absolutely giant size. Not for me.  

 

Actually this is user preferable, but due to 32" don't have better look in 100% scaling, they is no more 32" for me anymore. 

 

I prefer 100% scaling in

• 1080p in 24 "
• 1440p in 27" and
• 2160p in 42"

[WereCat]

25 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Normal distance already can seen it is pixelate for 1440p in 32" and the most part I can't accept is the icons and wording all absolutely giant size. Not for me.  

Well, regardless of our opinions... Either of them will be a big upgrade for OP. 

 

1080p 27" 81.59 PPI

1440p 27" 108.79 PPI so around 33% higher pixel density

1440p 32"  91.79 PPI around 12.5% higher pixel density and also equal to 24" 1080p (which is what you said you prefer with 100% scaling) 

[Andrewtst]

14 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Well, regardless of our opinions... Either of them will be a big upgrade for OP. 

 

1080p 27" 81.59 PPI

1440p 27" 108.79 PPI so around 33% higher pixel density

1440p 32"  91.79 PPI around 12.5% higher pixel density and also equal to 24" 1080p (which is what you said you prefer with 100% scaling) 

I normally prefer 100 PPI and above. The 24" is no choice, just if user prefer smaller screen size, then they is 24" which is much common. 

 

Agreed either is big upgrade for OP. 

[saintlouisbagels]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

32" basically no resolution is best fit. 

- 1440p too low. 

- 2160p too high and need scale 125% 

58 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Well, regardless of our opinions... Either of them will be a big upgrade for OP. 

 

1080p 27" 81.59 PPI

1440p 27" 108.79 PPI so around 33% higher pixel density

1440p 32"  91.79 PPI around 12.5% higher pixel density and also equal to 24" 1080p (which is what you said you prefer with 100% scaling) 

Honestly 2160p with 125% scaling is probably the best answer.

 

If we follow Apple's design, they like to aim for ~109 PPI for their UI, and ~218 for Retina displays.

This is why their 27in Studio Display is 5K and their 32in Pro Display XDR is 6K.

 

So if we work backwards from 6K (6,016x3,384), you'd want a 32in display with around 3008x1692 resolution.

Coincidentally enough, 3840x2160 at 125% scaling is 3072x1728 which is essentially perfect at ~110 PPI.

 

[Andrewtst]

48 minutes ago, saintlouisbagels said:

Honestly 2160p with 125% scaling is probably the best answer.

 

If we follow Apple's design, they like to aim for ~109 PPI for their UI, and ~218 for Retina displays.

This is why their 27in Studio Display is 5K and their 32in Pro Display XDR is 6K.

 

So if we work backwards from 6K (6,016x3,384), you'd want a 32in display with around 3008x1692 resolution.

Coincidentally enough, 3840x2160 at 125% scaling is 3072x1728 which is essentially perfect at ~110 PPI.

 

Scaling look nice but they is issue on scaling which I not accept. 

• Windows - old apps look blur, if you change scaling by application, it look big on others lower resolution monitor. 
• macOS - scaling impact to performance, it look obvious not smooth minimize animation. (this only impact to connecting to 3rd party external monitor). 

Due to above this two, I prefer no scaling. 

[r00tb33r]

5 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

For 32", 1440p not good for productivity, not sharp enough for text and everything look too big. 

Actually...  It's normal.

 

You can use Windows programs at 100% normal scale so there won't be any distortions.

 

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

Scaling look nice but they is issue on scaling which I not accept. 

• Windows - old apps look blur, if you change scaling by application, it look big on others lower resolution monitor. 
• macOS - scaling impact to performance, it look obvious not smooth minimize animation. (this only impact to connecting to 3rd party external monitor). 

Due to above this two, I prefer no scaling. 

Correct.

[r00tb33r]

I have a 32" 2560x1600 at work, it's similar enough.  I actually have to scale up because my eyesight isn't what it used to be and the monitor is far away.

 

A coworker recently got a new machine on his desk, he had the same monitor as I did.  He got a new 32" 1440p, which is actually 10% less pixels, but new computers mostly don't support dual-link DVI, so.  Anyway, my point is, 1440p is good, but I think I'd actually go for an ultrawide for productivity instead.  1280 pixels per half is a little on the tight end, ultrawide will be better, perhaps curved, even.

[Andrewtst]

2 hours ago, r00tb33r said:

Actually...  It's normal.

 

You can use Windows programs at 100% normal scale so there won't be any distortions.

 

Correct.

100% scaling is not ok for 4k in 32" as it is too small for me. For 32", I need to scale at 125% which will have those issues I mentioned. 

 

So in my preferable, 4K is better for 42" and no resolution look great in 32" at 100% scaling. 

[Ophidio]

6 hours ago, WereCat said:

Well, regardless of our opinions... Either of them will be a big upgrade for OP. 

 

1080p 27" 81.59 PPI

1440p 27" 108.79 PPI so around 33% higher pixel density

1440p 32"  91.79 PPI around 12.5% higher pixel density and also equal to 24" 1080p (which is what you said you prefer with 100% scaling) 

This is the information I was looking for the most. There is no productivity involved just gaming. Still kind of puts me on the fence but it is an upgrade so I still have to think about it. 
 

might try and find a 27” in around the same price if I can. 

2 hours ago, r00tb33r said:

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

5 hours ago, saintlouisbagels said:

 

 

Thank you for all the replies and information. This really does help me evaluate my options and make a decision. 

[MeDownYou]

1 hour ago, Ophidio said:

This is the information I was looking for the most. There is no productivity involved just gaming. Still kind of puts me on the fence but it is an upgrade so I still have to think about it. 
 

might try and find a 27” in around the same price if I can. 

 

Thank you for all the replies and information. This really does help me evaluate my options and make a decision. 

In general 105-110ppi is the sweet spot.
Hence why 27" 1440p's are popular and 34" ultrawide 1440's. 
That's also why most manufacturers pushed 21" 1080p displays they're in that range. 

Some additional considerations for monitors
- matte/glossy screen
- Refresh rate (going from 60hz to 90 hz is 100% noticable after that studies show, that most people just can't tell the difference.)
- Panel quality
- antiglare material
- construction quality

[saintlouisbagels]

2 hours ago, Ophidio said:

There is no productivity involved just gaming.

I don't believe you lol. Unless you literally use your computer for nothing except gaming, you will notice a massive enjoyment and boost in productivity in using a 1440p screen over a 1080p screen for basically everything you do.

2 hours ago, Ophidio said:

Still kind of puts me on the fence but it is an upgrade so I still have to think about it.

might try and find a 27” in around the same price if I can. 

If possible, you should try to find a 32" display in stores somewhere to test if 1440p looks good to you.

As noted above by @WereCat:

9 hours ago, WereCat said:

1080p 27" 81.59 PPI
1440p 27" 108.79 PPI so around 33% higher pixel density
1440p 32"  91.79 PPI around 12.5% higher pixel density and also equal to 24" 1080p (which is what you said you prefer with 100% scaling) 

getting a 32" 1440p screen is still going to look sharper than staying with your 27" 1080p screen. IMO once you go 32" you can't go back lol - everything is so much more enjoyable.

I own a beautiful 27" 5K Apple Studio display... I prefer using my 43" 4K display way more lol.

[Ophidio]

1 hour ago, saintlouisbagels said:

I don't believe you lol. Unless you literally use your computer for nothing except gaming, you will notice a massive enjoyment and boost in productivity in using a 1440p screen over a 1080p screen for basically everything you do.

If possible, you should try to find a 32" display in stores somewhere to test if 1440p looks good to you.

As noted above by @WereCat:

getting a 32" 1440p screen is still going to look sharper than staying with your 27" 1080p screen. IMO once you go 32" you can't go back lol - everything is so much more enjoyable.

I own a beautiful 27" 5K Apple Studio display... I prefer using my 43" 4K display way more lol.

The only thing I do with my pc other than gaming is shopping for Pokémon cards, browsing this forum and some TCG forums, and watching YouTube/anime oh and Amazon. 
 

I’m probably gonna go to micro center and have a look at the monitor in person . Microcenter is just a bit of a drive for me so I was trying to make the decision before I went to see if I really even wanted to get it. 
 

unfortunately the only other store close to me is a Best Buy and they don’t carry anything good at the Best Buy’s around here. 

[WereCat]

16 minutes ago, Ophidio said:

The only thing I do with my pc other than gaming is shopping for Pokémon cards, browsing this forum and some TCG forums, and watching YouTube/anime oh and Amazon. 
 

I’m probably gonna go to micro center and have a look at the monitor in person . Microcenter is just a bit of a drive for me so I was trying to make the decision before I went to see if I really even wanted to get it. 
 

unfortunately the only other store close to me is a Best Buy and they don’t carry anything good at the Best Buy’s around here. 

For mainly consuming content the larger screen is almost always a better choice. If you can try in person before buying, definitely do so though.

[Ophidio]

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

For mainly consuming content the larger screen is almost always a better choice. If you can try in person before buying, definitely do so though.

Gotta have the optimal screen for consuming Linus’ face. 

[r00tb33r]

14 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

For 32", 1440p not good for productivity, not sharp enough for text and everything look too big. 

 

For gaming, it is kind of ok as AA help a lot to smooth out the object but I still suggest 4K for 32" and above in 16:9 aspect ratio. 

~92-93ppi is normal.  4k is not 92ppi.

 

I'm not talking about 4K.

[Andrewtst]

5 hours ago, r00tb33r said:

~92-93ppi is normal.  4k is not 92ppi.

 

I'm not talking about 4K.

I am let you know 1440p is not good for 32" because the PPI is still not reaching ~100ppi.

 

For 24" 1080p is no choice to be below ~100ppi because 24"is common now, not the better in sharp text screen 22"

[r00tb33r]

3 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

I am let you know 1440p is not good for 32" because the PPI is still not reaching ~100ppi.

 

For 24" 1080p is no choice to be below ~100ppi because 24"is common now, not the better in sharp text screen 22"

Okay, whatever you say.

 

I have it and I find it normal.