Nice monitor but my next one will be a 4k gaming monitor at ~32" I would find the pixel density of 1440p on a 32" too low, it's great at 27". My personal preference is 1080p @ 24", 1440p @ 27", 2160p @ 32".

zasy99:

Nice monitor but my next one will be a 4k gaming monitor at ~32" I would find the pixel density of 1440p on a 32" too low, it's great at 27". My personal preference is 1080p @ 24", 1440p @ 27", 2160p @ 32".

Exactly . I have seen 1440p on 32 , it's def, not enough density. 1440p on 27 is magic , i haven't seen 4k on 27' ( i think it could work well ?). But 32' +4k is the another sweet spot.

"Some individuals will find the combination of a 32-inch screen and a resolution of 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) appealing because it provides a comfortable pixel density without being too excessive." Is this a joke? I with we had 2K@24''.

kapu:

Exactly . I have seen 1440p on 32 , it's def, not enough density. 1440p on 27 is magic , i haven't seen 4k on 27' ( i think it could work well ?). But 32' +4k is the another sweet spot.

Agree. I love 1440p on 27" but once I get to 32" Im wanting 4k. I stick to 27 inch 1440p for myself as that offers a good compromise along with the benefits of higher FPS than 4k.

zasy99:

Nice monitor but my next one will be a 4k gaming monitor at ~32" I would find the pixel density of 1440p on a 32" too low, it's great at 27". My personal preference is 1080p @ 24", 1440p @ 27", 2160p @ 32".

Can you please explain why 1080p @ 24" is okay, but 1440p @ 32 is too low if they are the same pixel density and since a 32 will sit deeper into your desk it will look even better from a distance?

8 bit with FRC = 2021 FAIL imho, they should've ditched the glam and paid for a true 10 bit chip.

vazup:

Can you please explain why 1080p @ 24" is okay, but 1440p @ 32 is too low if they are the same pixel density and since a 32 will sit deeper into your desk it will look even better from a distance?

You are correct on the math, just a matter of preference and experience. We have 24" 1440p monitors at work and at a scale of 100% it's very straining on the eyes, things are too small. You can increase the scale under display settings but then most things are larger and now where is the gain from the extra resolution you paid for? Also, I find monitors are not like TV's, just because it's bigger does not mean you therefore sit relatively that far away, why, desk depth, placement of keyboard etc, wall etc... If you place a 32" monitor 33% further away from you just because it's 33% larger than a 24" then it's also appearing that much smaller so why did you buy it in the first place you are just paying more and taxing your gpu harder. I currently am using a 3440x1440 34" Ultrawide which is basically just a wider 27" at 1440p, scale 100%, it's perfect. It sits at the same distance from me that my previous 24" 1080p did. The immersion is great. The above is coming from having used a large number of monitor sizes and resolutions, it's all about what is practical, possible, comfortable, not only about the numbers. We also have some 13" 4k laptops in the office, omg, at 100% scale they are unreadable...Sure, you scale them up to make things legible and it does look crisp but what was the real point of 4k then at that screen size. Get what works for you 😀

For sure I guess I was talking from my perspective since I have only about 15cm space to move back a monitor. And a 32 is still huge enough to engulf my vision from where im sitting.

1080p future screens could easily come out in a 23.5-22.5 standard not in 24.5. Overincreasing the size of the panel for the sake to be just bigger is not a good direction. 27 inch is big enough for 1440p. Making them larger at the expense of having 1080p sharpness is not a net benefit.