Why such a difference? 24-25" monitors vs 27"+ monitors

[Twinsenito]

So I'm a long time user of 24-25" monitors on my PC. The case is: my space for PC is limited so I prefer to have more monitors in my multimonitor setup instead of having less of these but the bigger ones or the higher resolution ones. First and foremost for the productivity and multi-window purposes. So I have 3 24" monitors instead of 2 27" ones.

 

The case is: almost all the bells and whistles that are being developed for monitors are only available on monitors of 27" size or above. For sure, you can get a high refresh rate 24" monitor. But that's pretty much it. What if I want to have a brightness higher than 400 nits? No options at all. MicroLED? MiniLED? Local dimming? QLED? QD-OLED? OLED? HDR? Brightness above 400 nits? Thunderbolt connectivity? All of that is missing on the monitors smaller than 27".

 

So I wonder why.... I would be happy to buy these but there are just no options at all - at any prices. It is aspecially weird when you concider the fact that they are re-releasing the same stuff over and over again on 27"+ displays. But 24-25" are concidered to be budget displays I guess?.. What are your thoughts on that matter? Why is that the case? Why there is such a huge difference between 27"+ displays vs. 24-25" displays?

[TatamiMatt]

8 minutes ago, Twinsenito said:

So I'm a long time user of 24-25" monitors on my PC. The case is: my space for PC is limited so I prefer to have more monitors in my multimonitor setup instead of having less of these but the bigger ones or the higher resolution ones. First and foremost for the productivity and multi-window purposes. So I have 3 24" monitors instead of 2 27" ones.

 

The case is: almost all the bells and whistles that are being developed for monitors are only available on monitors of 27" size or above. For sure, you can get a high refresh rate 24" monitor. But that's pretty much it. What if I want to have a brightness higher than 400 nits? No options at all. MicroLED? MiniLED? Local dimming? QLED? QD-OLED? OLED? HDR? Brightness above 400 nits? Thunderbolt connectivity? All of that is missing on the monitors smaller than 27".

 

So I wonder why.... I would be happy to buy these but there are just no options at all - at any prices. It is aspecially weird when you concider the fact that they are re-releasing the same stuff over and over again on 27"+ displays. But 24-25" are concidered to be budget displays I guess?.. What are your thoughts on that matter? Why is that the case? Why there is such a huge difference between 27"+ displays vs. 24-25" displays?

I feel as though, for most people a dual monitor setup is fine, 3s start to get into excess and as a large amount of setups are gaming based (probably more prominently here and for the "gaming PC" market) then youd generally want a large high quality display as youre first and foremost and for the secondary, for some people, so long as it has a screen, its fine. I know myself i was running with a 27" 165Hz 1080p monitor for a while and my secondary i only set to 60Hz (could go higher but didnt really need it) and was 24-25" i cant remember

 

Now ive got a 27" 1440p with HDR and 170Hz refresh rate with a few other bells and whistles over my old main monitor, which is now my secondary.

 

So in all cases where ive had a dual monitor setup, my main (that displays the game) has been a higher quality monitor that will display the game nicely, whereas the secondary is for other tasks, background youtube, discord, random googling etc so doesnt need to be as "fancy" so to speak

 

To sum up what im saying, i reckon the vast majority of people only really see the need for 2 monitors, and so 2 27" monitors are more beneficial to them as they dont need the desk space 3 monitors would take up and would instead prefer the extra size

[Twinsenito]

Just now, TatamiMatt said:

I feel as though, for most people a dual monitor setup is fine, 3s start to get into excess and as a large amount of setups are gaming based (probably more prominently here and for the "gaming PC" market) then youd generally want a large high quality display as youre first and foremost and the for the secondary, so long as it has a screen, its fine. I know myself i was running with a 27" 165Hz 1080p monitor for a while and my secondary i only set to 60Hz (could go higher but didnt really need it) and was 24-25" i cant remember

 

Now ive got a 27" 1440p with HDR and 170Hz refresh rate with a few other bells and whistles over my old main monitor, which is now my secondary.

 

To sum up what im saying, i reckon the vast majority of people only really see the need for 2 monitors, and so 2 27" monitors are more beneficial to them as they dont need the desk space 3 monitors would take up and would instead prefer the extra size

Feels like it. It may be that my situation is just very unique and niche, so there are no offers with any 'premium' tech at all. It's just a bit weird that there are no attempts from the tech developers to implement anything to 24" options - at all.

[podkall]

If it's 1440p it's probably because of the "sweetspot for 1440p" everyone talks about, where 27" is just the sweetspot for 1440p in terms of pixel density at that screen size.

 

Since "everyone" is following and recommending this sweetspot, it is expected that companies might pick up on that, and make more monitors in that sweetspot size.

 

I'd assume the 27" compared to 24-25" could have ergonomic benefits as well, for example a bigger monitor that displays bigger image and text let's you sit farther away from the screen. Which is slightly healthier for the eyes I'd assume.

 

[venomtail]

Again, you're just a niche customer. Companies aren't gonna invest millions into a customer base who's market cap is like 1 million. Guaranteed loss. 32'' 4k 240HZ OLED niche customers finally had a win this year when they're getting monitors they've been wanting. Doubt you'll win this waiting game however.

[podkall]

Just now, venomtail said:

Again, you're just a niche customer. Companies aren't gonna invest millions into a customer base who's market cap is like 1 million. Guaranteed loss. 32'' 4k 240HZ OLED niche customers finally had a win this year when they're getting monitors they've been wanting. Doubt you'll win this waiting game however.

yeah supply/demand, which is what I've covered in my comment

[jaslion]

21-24" is mostly bussiness stuff these days with most consumers going to 27 inches. All these fancy image stuffs are aimed at consumers and not bussinesses as they just dont have a use for it.

 

We also have the bigger numbers better that has always been happening and by this point sub 27 inch is seen as inferior for gamers for some reason. Its not at all but oh well.

[SimplyChunk]

not to mention the biggest market for the 22" - 24" market is in the office.  there's not many drones out their on their Dells or HPs that NEED 165Hz OLED panel @1000+nits

 

Edit:

Ninja'd lol

[SimplyChunk]

9 minutes ago, jaslion said:

sub 27 inch is seen as inferior for gamers for some reason.

24" 1080p still looks super sharp imo

 

@Twinsenito  Don't forget to show us your setup at some time here:

 

[jaslion]

46 minutes ago, SimplyChunk said:

24" 1080p still looks super sharp imo

 

@Twinsenito  Don't forget to show us your setup at some time here:

 

1440 24 inch was peak. Didnt even need AA which meant back then (2015 or before when msaa was as good as it got) that you'd lose less performance most of the time. Loved using a 24 inch 1440p benq for a little while but that stuffs basically gone extinct. Think aoc has one for sale still?

 

 

[venomtail]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

1440 24 inch was peak. Didnt even need AA which meant back then (2015 or before when msaa was as good as it got) that you'd lose less performance most of the time. Loved using a 24 inch 1440p benq for a little while but that stuffs basically gone extinct. Think aoc has one for sale still?

 

 

There's just one gaming one from Lenovo but yea, seems to be a professionals only customer base these days who needs screen real estate at all costs.

[Motifator]

Why don't you just like... get ONE ultrawide that is substandard? Say 40 inches or so. That's going to be pretty wide and would probably knock your ball out of the court. Wouldn't %200 murder the budget like an OLED would, either.

[podkall]

3 hours ago, jaslion said:

We also have the bigger numbers better that has always been happening and by this point sub 27 inch is seen as inferior for gamers for some reason. Its not at all but oh well.

you can sit farther away from screen, and posture is arguably important even when gaming for consistency

[Doobeedoo]

24" are considered small monitor size and anything for bigger experience or multi-monitor generally go larger as they tend to also be further. 

Before I wanted certain spec in 24" mainly for shooters so I don't need to look around much but 27" started to gain more traction for a while. 

27" is just a decent upgrade and in multi-monitor setup it will look good. Also higher resolution option. 

But productivity wise 32" is also great really, 4K and more screen real estate, yes costs more so depends what work or need for it is important to one.

Personally for productivity I find 24" 1080p just bad, also reading text and looking at detail is a real pain. 

So really in that size don't expect an HDR monitor, no market for it. There are higher resolution options for more fine detail though which for productivity is great.

I guess you can check list here too to filter specs. https://www.displayninja.com/hdr-monitor-list/

[xg32]

5 hours ago, Twinsenito said:

.

most likely a demand issue,

 

1080p is about 20% of the market last i checked. You are the first person i've seen that's asking for a 24inch oled/hdr.

 

IIRC there were 1440p 24inch panels that were designed but no demand for it, premium 1080p monitors likely fall into the same category.

 

For me personally i prefer my main display to be 4k, as small as they can make it (my perfect monitor also doesn't exist), i'd use 1080p and 1440p monitor as text mons but that's about it. If there's a 24inch 4k monitor with all the bells and whistles i'd be interested but 27inch 4k oled is slated for 2025, there's no shot we are getting 24inch 4k of any kind.

 

the viewing experience of higher pixel density isn't something thats in demand, so i just settle for whats available. Most people sit alot further away.

[Mihle]

Fewer and fewer people are buying 24" monitors. And those that are aren't willing to spend much on them. Therefore the manufacturers aren't making good/expensive ones.

 

Dual setup is more common than triple. And I of those triple monitors I see, it seems more common now to have one of them being above the two others.

[Andrewtst]

On 4/5/2024 at 5:39 PM, Twinsenito said:

So I wonder why

In my opinion, the sweet screen size is 27" for Wide screen. It look perfectly fine in 100% scaling for 1440p.

Anything bigger than 27" is different story and most people do find it a bit too big.

 

24" is too small and I would never go back into 24" and most people once used 27" is hardly going back as well.