4k monitor - is 27" large enuf?

HDready2015

Established Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
110
Reaction score
6
Points
21
Location
Norfolk
Hi.

I need a new monitor mainly for office work and occasionally watching movies.

As 4k seems to be the main display resolution these days, I'm thinking of upgrading - previous monitor was a 27" QHD (Dell S2719).

So am I really going to notice much difference on a 4k 27" from what I had before or do I need a 32" - or even just stick with QHD?

Thanks in advance!
 
Unless you're sitting really close and have exceptional eyesight then you'd typically use a screen like that in HiDPI/Retina mode to allow supported programs to render in more detail rather than giving you more space to fit more on the screen.

3840x2160 is a lot of pixels and to use it in normal mode with sizing equivalent to your current screen you're looking at a display of around 40".
 
I think 27" at 4k is way too small. I have a 32" 4k and that is about right. 40" is just physically too large to work with properly unless your sitting some distance from it... which sort of defeats the point.

Personally I don't really like the 4K for business stuff. It's fine for more home based use and particularly gaming, but for work I find the delimiting aspect of 2x 2k monitors a much better working setup. I find the more distinct areas of desktop real-estate (for programs and purpose) work better with 2 monitors.
 
Thanks. For a number of reasons I want to stick with 1 monitor, so is 4k on 27 just too small?
 
I personally think it will be. 2K in 27" is fine but I think 4K is just too high a level of pixel density for the human eye to deal with in such a small physical area.

Talking numbers is fine, but you get a proper appreciation when you actually see it, so my advice would be to go to Curry's or somewhere you can see for yourself and get an actual idea of what's on offer for yourself. That way you can be sure before making the purchase or deciding
 
Thanks. I was planning to do just that. It seems most people think 32" is the min 'sweet spot' for 4k
 
Last edited:
I have 27" 2560x1440 and it's perfect for gaming

With windows GUI text is too small at 100% so I have to scale to 125%
 
Thanks. So does the scaling mean you end up with less real estate than if you just stayed with QHD on 27"? Guess I would be better with 32"?
 
Thanks. So does the scaling mean you end up with less real estate than if you just stayed with QHD on 27"? Guess I would be better with 32"?

I suppose it's in here try for yourself, as 100% scale fonts are just too small. Maybe if I had 20/20 vision it would be ok?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220705-090815.png
    Screenshot_20220705-090815.png
    314.2 KB · Views: 37
Thanks but I need a 4k display to try it. I guess Curry's is my best bet

You can see what effect scaling does on any monitor.

But you would need to see how small native scaling is.

4k on a small monitor would be pointless, the pixels would be only be visible with jewellers lens glass
 
Thanks. So does the scaling mean you end up with less real estate than if you just stayed with QHD on 27"? Guess I would be better with 32"?
scaling up means exactly that, you end up with less real estate because what your effectively doing is magnifying what you send to our display. It's easy to understand if you take it to extremes where you magnify the image so much you only see a fraction of the true whole picture. Upscaling is also handy because it isn't always easy to know what your going to be comfortable with so it gives you the opportunity to adjust the resolution more comfortably to what you find acceptable.

Scaling is a good thing to employ since you may need it sometimes and not others, and its nice to have the higher resolution 'IF' your going to use it. example, I have a client who's an accountant that uses 125% scaling on her 2k monitors when working month-end with multiple spreadsheets on her 27" monitors since she finds working in full resolution with so many cells is fatiguing, but during normal business weeks she works at 100%.

Most modern monitors scale well, and scaling is also a way of getting around the problem that used to exist with older monitors when working outside native resolution.

so if you scale at 125% and your running 2560 x 1440 your effective resolution (on the same screen size- this is important) will be 2048 x 1152 If you scale at 150% your effective resolution 1706 x 960
 
When you scale it's just scaling text to bigger font. It's still native output resolution of the monitor

It's not scaling 1366x768 to 1920x1080 for example
 
Yes that's correct, its not actually changing the resolution just more of an equivalent real estate calculation.
 
OK. So I've just scaled my 2560 x 1440 27" to 125%. I think I like the bigger font size. If I had a 4k display would text on a 27" screen look any sharper? And if I had a 32" I guess I wouldn't need to scale?
 
Not necessarily sharper, you would simply have to scale it to a larger percentage on a 4k 27" monitor to get the same result you are now. i.e the same look and overall size of the image.. That however kinda defeats the point of getting a 4k monitor. Really the whole point of getting a 4k monitor is to get better resolution particularly with PC's to get more on the screen. if your happy with how much you can get on the screen, stick with 2k.

Hope this helps
 
Ok, so if I scale on a larger 32" screen, then I can still get more (scaled) real estate than 4k 27"
 
Yes but clearly this is just because the monitor has a larger physical size.

You have to remember all things being equal i.e without scaling and both running native resolution, a 4k 32" will display the same image as a 4k 27" it will just be more difficult to see the image on a 4k 27" because the size of the screen means the image will be smaller. The detail is still there, but you may need to squint to see it.
 
So I think I either should stay on QHD at 27" or move to 32" 4k.
27" 4k seems like a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the mix of comments on here.
I would highly recommend an ultrawide monitor for working purposes.
I’m currently using a 34in ultra wide 3440x1440 resolution and the extra screen real estate is very useable. You can have 2 spreadsheets side by side at 100% and no scaling and all texts is very clear.
I had a 4K 30in previously and this ultrawide is a lot more useable, even though less pixels, without scaling or anything to make it useable.
 
And one thing I have just noticed after taking a closer look at my QHD monitor (Dell S2719DM) and now enabling (the buried) HDR setting is how much brighter it is. The white luminance is apparently 822 cd/m². Before I had brightness set at 100 and it still seemed dim and lacking in contrast. But now it's sprung to life! This seems more important to me than 4k...
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom