27 vs 32 4K - Your opinion pros and Cons

[Choli90]

I currently have 2 monitors - 27" 4K 60hz and 27" 1440p 60hz.  Side note, I use a dual monitor 4k 60hz KVM switch and haven't been able to find a KVM for a decent price that can handle higher 4k refresh rate (if you know of one, please let me know).  While I don't play too many games, I have this setup because if a game doesn't play well at 4K, I can use 1440p, and if that still has an issue, worst case I could switch 4K to 1080p (since 1080p is half of 4k)

Currently, I sit about 80 cm (or so) from the 4K and have the scale percent set to 150% (recommended in Windows)

 

I was thinking of getting a 32" 4K (70hz) and wanted to get opinions of people who switched from a 27" to a 32" 4K. 

 

 What did you like about it?  What you didn't like?   

 

I also wanted to get some clarification on the following questions:

 

1) Do you have a 32" 4K sitting at (about) the same distance.  Do you have any issues?

2) Windows gave the 150% scaling a recommended, I read that the 32" gets a recommended of 125%

3) Would Excel show more cells in the same screen view (what is shown on the screen without scrolling)?

4) Any issues using Zoom/Teams and you having to do a screen share?

 

A while back I was using a 24" 1080p monitor and picked up a 27" 1080p.  Both showed the exact same number of Excel cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Red_Fog]

So about yar back i went from 2 27in 1080p displays to 2 32in 1440p displays Be warned the size difference is definitely alot in person than you would think on paper i sit about 75cm away and thats about the sweet spot for me I at 100% scale and its perfect size for me I dont use Zoom or Teams but i have no issues screen share in discord or with streaming/recording dont use Excel so cant speak on that. Curious why you want 4k though unless you watch alot of movies or 4k content 1440 is usually pretty good especially at 32in size 

[8tg]

I use a 32" 4k monitor, i sit fairly close and use 100% scaling.

I do not recommend using scaling as it just conflicts with too many applications, if youre kinda close to it, its fine. Though if you sit farther away from your monitor youd definitely want higher scaling.

You definitely get more excel cells in 4K at 100% scaling:

Spoiler

Dont screen share with anything in 4k, its a mess for anyone else viewing it since theyre likely on 1080p just going by averages. Either have a virtual capture collecting a 1080p application at most, or use an entirely seperate monitor for that. I usually just do an application share with a relatively small window, or if something requires the whole desktop to be displayed, change the resolution to 1920x1080.

 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

I currently have 2 monitors - 27" 4K 60hz and 27" 1440p 60hz.  Side note, I use a dual monitor 4k 60hz KVM switch and haven't been able to find a KVM for a decent price that can handle higher 4k refresh rate (if you know of one, please let me know).

You have to look for dumb switches, not KVMs. KVMs tend to duplicate the signal, and hence they are limited to 4K 60Hz.
Dumb Switch actually acts as a switch. So, it supports everything your monitor/GPU support (NVIDIA G-SYNC, FreeSync, 144Hz @ 4K full color, etc. (for 165Hz 4K, as it goes above specs, you have no idea how the internal of the switch is to avoid signal loss issue, or other problems. Not to mention the provided cables, if any)

 

The cool thing with Dumb Switches, is that they are cheap. The downside is that you have to physically press a button.

Example: https://www.amazon.ca/Adapter-CableDeconn-Thunderbolt-Compatible-ChromeBook/dp/B076ZKZLXT

(Make sure you use USB power plug as well, not shown in the image for best reliability)

 

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

Currently, I sit about 80 cm (or so) from the 4K and have the scale percent set to 150% (recommended in Windows)

 

I was thinking of getting a 32" 4K (70hz) and wanted to get opinions of people who switched from a 27" to a 32" 4K. 

Well, larger the screen, the less pixel density you'll get. Text won't be as sharp, icons won't be as detailed, and images would appear larger, making you need to zoom out (or the image viewer will do it for you), loosing details.

 

If you are like me, work with text all day, probably you want high pixel density to make text more readable. I mean compare the 1440p with your 4K. both 27inch, as you said, and well, 4K looks better because of this.

 

The pixel density, 4K at 32inch, will be between your 2 monitors right now.

 

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

2) Windows gave the 150% scaling a recommended, I read that the 32" gets a recommended of 125%

Use the Display Scaling that you are comfortable with. Be sure to restart your running programs (or sign out and back in of your account or restart the system) when you play with that option, as many apps don't support dynamic Display Scaling change, and appear blurry until restarted. 

 

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

3) Would Excel show more cells in the same screen view (what is shown on the screen without scrolling)?

You are exchanging pixel density with real-estate, so yes you should see a few more columns.

 

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

4) Any issues using Zoom/Teams and you having to do a screen share?

It is based on what you see. 4K 27inch, 150% Display Scale, people will see fine.

But on a larger display, and you are sharing the whole screen or the app you are sharing is full screen or just about, then yea, they'll need to zoom in Teams (not sure if Zoom support zooming in)

 

 

1 hour ago, Mayorville said:

A while back I was using a 24" 1080p monitor and picked up a 27" 1080p.  Both showed the exact same number of Excel cells.

That is normal, because the only difference was that the pixel was larger. Passing from 92 ppi (pixels per inch) down to 81 ppi. So as you porobably noticed, text was fuzzier, and you probably noticed the pixel grid more as well.

Your 4K 27inch monitor has a ppi of: ~163, hence very sharp and crisp text and visuals.
Your 1440p 27inch monitor has a ppi of: ~108

The 4K 32inch you are looking at would have a ppi of: ~137

 

[Choli90]

52 minutes ago, Red_Fog said:

So about yar back i went from 2 27in 1080p displays to 2 32in 1440p displays Be warned the size difference is definitely alot in person than you would think on paper i sit about 75cm away and thats about the sweet spot for me I at 100% scale and its perfect size for me I dont use Zoom or Teams but i have no issues screen share in discord or with streaming/recording dont use Excel so cant speak on that. Curious why you want 4k though unless you watch alot of movies or 4k content 1440 is usually pretty good especially at 32in size 

A few years back when I picked up the 4k, it was based on a tech tuber review and they had mentioned that 1080p scaled evenly with 2160p, so if a game didn't play well at 4k, you could drop the resolution to 1080p.

 

When I got the 4K (I was using 2 1080p monitors at the time).  When comparing the 4K to the 1080, I liked being able to see more within the same screen view, along with YT videos being clearer and just text was a lot clearer.

 

When I compare text between the 4K & 1440p, it seems that in some cases text is clearer on the 4k, but other cases I can't really tell too much of a difference.

 

To answer your question on why I want 4K..  It was because I already have one and for some reason my mind things going back to 1440p is a "downgrade", even though I have seen multiple reviews mention that there isn't too much of a noticeable difference between 1440p and 4K and another thread I just read mentioned that 4K at 150% is the same as 1440p. 

 

Now that I think about it, I'm open to either, depending on the price difference.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, Mayorville said:

A few years back when I picked up the 4k, it was based on a tech tuber review and they had mentioned that 1080p scaled evenly with 2160p, so if a game didn't play well at 4k, you could drop the resolution to 1080p.

 

When I got the 4K (I was using 2 1080p monitors at the time).  When comparing the 4K to the 1080, I liked being able to see more within the same screen view, along with YT videos being clearer and just text was a lot clearer.

 

When I compare text between the 4K & 1440p, it seems that in some cases text is clearer on the 4k, but other cases I can't really tell too much of a difference.

 

To answer your question on why I want 4K..  It was because I already have one and for some reason my mind things going back to 1440p is a "downgrade", even though I have seen multiple reviews mention that there isn't too much of a noticeable difference between 1440p and 4K and another thread I just read mentioned that 4K at 150% is the same as 1440p. 

 

Now that I think about it, I'm open to either, depending on the price difference.

Everyone is different. I see a big different between 1440p and 4K on a 27inch. Some say that they look identical.

Personally, I never cared what other people say, I get what I enjoy and works best for me.

[Choli90]

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You have to look for dumb switches, not KVMs. KVMs tend to duplicate the signal, and hence they are limited to 4K 60Hz.
Dumb Switch actually acts as a switch. So, it supports everything your monitor/GPU support (NVIDIA G-SYNC, FreeSync, 144Hz @ 4K full color, etc. (for 165Hz 4K, as it goes above specs, you have no idea how the internal of the switch is to avoid signal loss issue, or other problems. Not to mention the provided cables, if any)

 

The cool thing with Dumb Switches, is that they are cheap. The downside is that you have to physically press a button.

Example: https://www.amazon.ca/Adapter-CableDeconn-Thunderbolt-Compatible-ChromeBook/dp/B076ZKZLXT

(Make sure you use USB power plug as well, not shown in the image for best reliability)

 

Well, larger the screen, the less pixel density you'll get. Text won't be as sharp, icons won't be as detailed, and images would appear larger, making you need to zoom out (or the image viewer will do it for you), loosing details.

 

If you are like me, work with text all day, probably you want high pixel density to make text more readable. I mean compare the 1440p with your 4K. both 27inch, as you said, and well, 4K looks better because of this.

 

The pixel density, 4K at 32inch, will be between your 2 monitors right now.

 

Use the Display Scaling that you are comfortable with. Be sure to restart your running programs (or sign out and back in of your account or restart the system) when you play with that option, as many apps don't support dynamic Display Scaling change, and appear blurry until restarted. 

 

You are exchanging pixel density with real-estate, so yes you should see a few more columns.

 

It is based on what you see. 4K 27inch, 150% Display Scale, people will see fine.

But on a larger display, and you are sharing the whole screen or the app you are sharing is full screen or just about, then yea, they'll need to zoom in Teams (not sure if Zoom support zooming in)

 

 

That is normal, because the only difference was that the pixel was larger. Passing from 92 ppi (pixels per inch) down to 81 ppi. So as you porobably noticed, text was fuzzier, and you probably noticed the pixel grid more as well.

Your 4K 27inch monitor has a ppi of: ~163, hence very sharp and crisp text and visuals.
Your 1440p 27inch monitor has a ppi of: ~108

The 4K 32inch you are looking at would have a ppi of: ~137

 

I looked at the dumb switch you linked and didn't see where to plug in a keyboard and mouse.  I have a separate laptop I use for work.

 

That being said,  I was thinking about if I wanted to stick with a 2 monitor setup or switch to 3.  It looks like this  switch would work for that

 

 

[xg32]

9 hours ago, Mayorville said:

.

 

i went from a 27inch 4k monitor to 32inch as the fan on the 27inch broke (it'd work with a fan behind it but not during hot summer days), it was right before the gp27u came out and thats the only reason i went 32inch, there were no other options. I sit about a foot from the monitor with 100% scaling

 

With that said, the 27inch was not big enough to cover my peripheral vision and all and the 32inch better with that but not perfect, need ultrawide for that but it's something i'm willing to sacrafice for 4k.

 

The text on the 27inch is a bit sharper due to higher ppi

 

excel would show more cells

 

if i had a choice i'd pick 27inch 4k with 100% scaling and just sit closer, but 32inch is a good compromise.

 

Just my 2 cents, everyone has different preferences. 

[Mihle]

I like my 32" 4k, but I would not play games fullscreen at 1080p on it, it's too big for that. Tho, it's not uncommon I will set a game to 3072x1728 pixels (80%), even if it's not like an exactly half or double resolution match with 4k, it still look better than a 1440p 32" run at native to my eyes, especially if the the game itself have individual screen and rendering resolution settings because then AA and stuff is still calculated for 4k.

And with newer games with DLSS and FSR you can use that.

 

I run mine at 125% scaling and most programs support it fine without being blurry, the few that don't get fixed by going in to properties on the .exe file and changing the scaling on it individually (compatibility). Haven't needed to do that on any of the things I use most often, mostly just the installers themselves and some niche programs that have issues with it in my experience.

 

That this information as you want to.

[Mihle]

11 hours ago, Mayorville said:

I currently have 2 monitors - 27" 4K 60hz and 27" 1440p 60hz.  Side note, I use a dual monitor 4k 60hz KVM switch and haven't been able to find a KVM for a decent price that can handle higher 4k refresh rate (if you know of one, please let me know).  

 

Level1Tech have some DisplayPort KVMs that support 4k 120hz, but they are not cheap.

[Andrewtst]

13 hours ago, Mayorville said:

1) Do you have a 32" 4K sitting at (about) the same distance.  Do you have any issues?

2) Windows gave the 150% scaling a recommended, I read that the 32" gets a recommended of 125%

3) Would Excel show more cells in the same screen view (what is shown on the screen without scrolling)?

4) Any issues using Zoom/Teams and you having to do a screen share?

I don't own 27" before but I seen before, it looks definitely much sharp text but also need more scaling. 

 

1) How big the screen, my seat distance always same. 

2) 125% is the best scaling for me in 32" 4K. The windows recommendation always unbelievable too big, don't trust their recommendation. 

3) Excel more columns and rows is depends on your scaling, it get more if scale 100%.

4) Most user screen still 1080p, you need to zooms more if you are sharing excel or word doc, no issue on PowerPoint full screen. 

 

I am a type of person prefer 100% scale, so I already sold my 32" 4K, now using 42" 4K as I find 42" is the minimum size I can use on 100% scale. 

 

12 hours ago, Mayorville said:

my mind things going back to 1440p is a "downgrade"

Never for me, actually I am back to Super Ultrawide 49" in 5120x1440 for my gaming PC and this is 1440p in 27", I still find this is the sweet spot for me in everything from gaming to productivity. The 27" in 4K and 1440p isn't very big differences to me, off course text sharpness in 4K surely better than 1440p, but to consider the gaming performance, I am back to 1440p.

 

My current 42" 4K only connected to my MacBook Pro for the moment. Why I never connect back my 42" 4K to my gaming PC, because I find first gaming performance issue, where I am already using RTX 4090, second the 42" feel a bit too big sometimes during gaming on my seat distance. 

 

Actually I find 32" is the best screen size, not too big and not too small but the issue is no resolution looks good in 100% scale. 1440p everything look too big, 4K a bit too small. I really hope they is a 3.5K resolution for 32" as I believe that resolution will be the best resolution for 32" in 100% scale. Too bad no such resolution exists for 32" monitor. 

[Doobeedoo]

Really only issue can be bad scaling. I don't want to use anything other than 100% but Windows needs improve on that and same for software devs. Increasing scaling just wastes display realestate, can cause issues. Higher resolution on smaller display is good since it's better pixel density for scenarios where there's a lot of detail but you don't need scaling. Like detailed games, no aliasing and screen door effect or graphic stuff.

[GoodBytes]

4 hours ago, Mayorville said:

I looked at the dumb switch you linked and didn't see where to plug in a keyboard and mouse.  I have a separate laptop I use for work.

 

That being said,  I was thinking about if I wanted to stick with a 2 monitor setup or switch to 3.  It looks like this  switch would work for that

 

 

If you need a KVM feature set, then you need to get Level1Tech Wendel custom KVM which does that, especially if you have more than 1 monitor to switch to.
 

In my case, I made my own solution, I got 2 dumb switches, and a USB 3.0 switch, and I have an Arduino wired up managing the switch, and both PCs communicates via USB to Serial to the Arduino. I have a software on both PCs. This is assuming you can run your own software on the work PC, else you'll need to use a physical switch that you add that switches all your boxes together. If you go switch only approach, then no software needed, and you don't even need an Arduino. You just wire up all the buttons together, share the ground, and you have 1 button. You press it, it will act as if you press on buttons on each switch.