The viewing distance matters a lot and needs to be taken into consideration definitely. It's an interesting discussion to be had. Unfortunately you do get those people who bought into some of the latest most expensive tech that feel the need to belittle others who have weaker hardware or game on a lower resolution display or whatever trying to justify their purchase and those people suck but what it comes down to is enjoying whatever you have and to be happy.
It only matters to those with myopia or some other eyesight issues. Those with healthy eyesight can tell that its 1080p even when sitting further back. Yes, sitting further back will ever so slightly make the screen less pixelated or blurry, but a higher resolution monitor will still be noticeably better even when sitting back. Even on tiny little cellphones, you can always tell the difference between a 720p phone vs a 1440p phone even if you are holding both phones far from your face. But like I said, this is only for those with healthy eyes. Those who wear glasses probably wont be able to tell.
@@angrysocialjusticewarriordisplay scaling: I need to use 150% display skill on my 27 inch monitor. Perhaps the 32 inch 1080P monitor, things will be big enough that I can get by with 100% scaling, which means a lot more space for me to work with.
Eye health also matters. Choose a high-pixel-density, smaller-size monitor as much possible, for any kind of non-gaming non-media daily work (professional or personal). We sit right in front of our monitor and stare at it for a huge chunk of the day. Lowest nits of brightness supported, is another spec that can be further helpful for eye health. Best to use dark mode in as many applications as possible, and at OS level. Highest ppi 4k config I see is 163 in 27 inch. It would be great to see 24 inch 4k 183 ppi in budget brands, for quality-conscious users who have already experienced (else you would keep saying there is no use of high ppi). iMac desktop screen is 23.5 inch 4.5K 218 ppi. Mac air & pro laptop screens are 227 & 254 ppi. iPhone is 460 ppi. Even these being much smaller screens. So 27 4k 163 is not "ridiculously useless". Go visit an iMac in a shop. You can see the quality/experience difference when you work daily with a lot of text, charts, images, zooming out, zooming in etc even more if your eyes need you to sit closer to screen. Of course check whether your computer can handle that 4k load of monitor.
@@ezzyMODE I tried about 4 monitors before finally settling with 27" x 1440p. 4k resolution in all sizes was out because it would cripple frames of my $1000 gpu.. I have a 55" 4k lg oled for low fps demand games. So I tried 32" x 1440p with curved and without curve screen. Had it side by side with a 27"x 1440p.. yes, 32" was more immersive, but as I sit fairly close it looked like a lower resolution.. like the image was getting stretched. I also had to turn my head more to look at each corner of the 32" screen.. Remember you see the exact same image accept it's stretched when going from 27 to 32 at 1440p, you only see "more" when you increase the resolution. Summary: I preferred the more crisp resolution of the 27" vs. what to me was fuzzy stretched image at 32", and didn't strain my neck moving my head to see all corners of the screen. I did not find the bigger size made it "easier" to see people etc.. I believe if both bigger 32" size + 4k resolution than yes that would be true.. gotta find the sweet spot for you.. I bought and tried, because I also thought bigger = better and when finally in front of me I liked 27". Sorry for the long winded answer. cheers!
I love those graphs with total pixel count of resolutions. I did the math ages ago, because 1k, 2k, 4k terms for resolution really annoyed me since performance scales way more than those numbers would indicate.
I bought a 55" TV to use as a PC monitor and this thing is amazing. Previously I had a 27" monitor. Now with the TV FPS games feel like VR games just without 3D. My entire field of vision is just filled the game and nothing else. In fact I think it's better than VR because with my Oculus the FOV feels narrower. It's also my first experience with 4K and it's definitely worth it coming from 1080p especially now when DLSS is so good. Yes, a 120Hz 4K TV is worth it over a small monitor if you have a dinner table as a desk like I do.
34 inch 3440x1440 is the sweet spot for me. I also have a 27 inch 3840x2160 next to it, but gaming on it just isn't immersive at all. Nothing beats ultrawide.
Is 34 ultra wide good for productivity (I will use it for word, excel, ppt, outlook, youtube and might be video editing) or is it too big. I think in 32 might b better. Thank you in advance (Mohamed).
Finally, one sane person in all of the internet. THANK YOU mr Owen! if u use 27 inch monitor with full hd 1080p - You are perfectly fine! Mine is situated in a stretched hand distance and i see NO pixels, and its PERFECT to me. Dont listen to anyone tell you u need QHD one, cuz they arent gonna buy you a new system to feed that beast of resolution
I have always been telling people this when purchasing monitors/TVs or just screens in general. The "pixel hunt" is not healthy. Purchasing decision should be based on what content will be consumed (movies, games, reading etc), what pixel density (ppi) the screen has, and your viewing distance AND of course, your eye sight. This is why 720p isn't necessarily bad on the Nintendo Switch since it is a tiny portable device you have it in your lap. A 720p 6.2" screen at a 40cm distance strikes a perfect balance of sharpness and performance for portable games... On phones on the other hand when you read a lot of text or watch photos or slower paced videos, 1080p does have an advantage, although 720p is "good enough". For a monitor setup on the other hand the screen should fill up your close periphery vision. This is why a 1440p 27" screen at normal desk distance (50cm) is still a very nice gaming option (especially if you lean back a bit and play comfortably). once you go 48" 4K you need to sit further away. 1m-1.5m. If you sit at the same distance as the the 27" screen; although you might feel more immersed in the game, you will also be at a disadvantage in fast-paced games (competitive shooters or Doom Eternal as examples) and it could also potentially lead to more motion sickness. why 60"-80" screen, well it depends on your room size and viewing distance. big living room a sofa far away from the screen justifies a stupidly large screen. :)
What if I have bad eyesight, is 27" or 24" better for 1440p? Because the smaller screen has larger PPI, but if you scale it then the UI and text are still smaller than on the scaled 27" screen. I'm not really sure which might relieve eyestrain more, clearer and sharper text or larger text overall..
@@schnitzel9715 technically, the higher ppi is the better quality panel for smooth & sharp text, charts & other content. But here, i think you can manage with either of 27 or 24, by **adjusting the viewing distance**. If your eyes need you to sit quite closer and you have mostly a focused-1-application kind of work, it is safer to go for 24-1440. But if you need multiple parallel windows for your kind of work to be easy, a 27-4k can be better (split the rectangular screen space/width into 2 squares) of course this needs you to sit slightly farther. Splitting the 16:9 normal rectangle or 21:9 ultra-wide, into 2 squares is not an ideal solution for "dual monitor" kind of work. Because many applications are designed for 16:9 and have multiple sub-sections/tabs layed out from left to right and expect more width. Example: MS Outlook - folder tree, inbox listing, email preview, calendar+meetings. Similarly you have left to right sections in photoshop or video editing software. To solve this, better buy 2 smaller physical monitors, like 24-1440. Again, which is better for eyes, "clearer and sharper text" or "larger text overall"?? I think this can be adjusted by your viewing distance. The larger text can also look sharp if the screen is moved farther a bit.
im using wide because im using all that free real estate, it doesnt matter if some games have black bars, i can use all of in multitasking, like playing an android emulator while browsing, and can watch streaming while browsing, etc, and i know also the difficulty of my gtx 1080 on it on games, but still, by adjusting settings and some, its still smooth somehow on my plate, im not even competitive also, and not to mention playing genshin that always locked at 60fps XD and yes it supports ultrawide :'D.....
I think it really depends on if youre gaming with kb&m or controller. most ppl playing competitive shooters on PC use kb&m and lean forward when playing while controller users are more laid back
After getting used to sitting less than 1m (3ft) a 48" CX for two years I just find normal sized monitors (27") ridiculously small. There is no going back.
I've got a 180" 1080p screen in my living room I sit 15 feet away. It's perfect. Up close the pixels are like 1/8" wide but that far away the picture is perfect
I just bought a 32in Samsung G7 on Black Friday for $500. My previous monitor is the Acer XF250Q (25in, 1080p, 240hz). At first I was like "well 1440p 32 in has roughly the same PPI as my current monitor so why get it?" then I thought that the bigger the monitor means I don't have to sit as close to the screen so it would be better. I was eyeballing the Sceptre C40 which is a 40in 1440p screen but people say it has significant ghosting which was a let down for me. I really wanted 40 inches lol but 32 inches is still a significant size increase over my Acer monitor. I now have a different perspective on large screens lol
Thanks for taking the time to explain this and doing it patiently. Nicely done. I've tinkered with this stuff for a while and this is about the best explanation I can point people to. 👍
Excellent video with sound and logical explanations. I’ve been testing how far or near I want my 32” 1440p monitor to be for FPS such as warzone and through testing I’ve found that having it nearer fills up my field of view and enables me to respond quicker and feels more immersive. 👍
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I've heard 48 is a bit big, but 42 is okay. Personally I've feeling its like 38-39 inch is ideal, speaking about 1440p & 4k (however not used 4k yet).
Lol "4k in 27in doesn't make sense", that cracks me up. Any normal desk situation you can easily tell the difference between 4k and 1440p with a 27in monitor from say 2 feet away which I would consider a normal desk setup. Which is why I've been using a 4k 27in for years now.
@@hhhfdsfs that's the thing it's the distance you sit and normal desk setup is around 2 feet between you and the monitor. A 720p 30in will look good if you are far enough back. But that's not normal desk sitting. And at a normal desk setup I can easily tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k
If you ever tried playing a game with a VR headset as your display its even more immersive since it really fills up your entire FOV. I don't mean actually playing VR either, you can just wear the headset and use your keyboard and mouse. Ofc having a good VR display that's a good resolution, hz, etc is important. I do it sometimes
I went with 24 FHD (1.9K) an unbeatable value for monitors 1080p is the #1 most common res. worldwide esports professionals prefer this size larger than phone, tablet, portable monitor, laptop thin, lightweight, energy efficient
Im on 27” 1440p 165Hz 4ms but kinda thinking about 25” 1080p 240Hz 1ms for a faster screen for FPS. Just not sure if I will actually be able to see the difference and regret the quality.
It all depends on what your using it for…if your more of a competitive gamer smaller is better as its less head movement and alot easier to look around and focus on certain areas, I play on a 24.5 inch and it is perfect for me
I feel the LG C2 42 inch is the sweet spot for me. It is way more comfortable than the 48-inch c1 i had before. And becasue i also watch movies and play some console gaming on it i can still sit back and enjoy that content with features like dolby vision and 4k blu rays in HDR. Its 120hz too so i am good with this until i ever build a rig that can do well above 120fps at 4k AAA gaming. Its OLED or NOLED for me!
Great arguments; i get you. Please help me with buying a monitor for my new rig. Here are my concerns From 6 feet away, can i tweak settings and get my text on screen to look sharp - on a 27" 1440p panel or would 4K do better? I don't think going 32" would help matters - or would it? Another important need...I'm counting on my 4080super to upscale my 720P movies so they look decent on a 27" display - from 6' away. Again, would 2560x1440p screen be better for that or 4K? Stick with 27" size? For the time being, i'll have to use my cheezy 1080p tn desktop panel...yuk Thank you.
The problem about too small screens is that you will not be able to sit close enough: If you put the TV directly behind your keyboard this means your eyes will be about 50cm away.
Typically, monitors range in size from 22 to 32 inches. On that scale you will not be too far away from the screen because the distances are what they are, the distance between your chair and where you have the monitor, which is usually not very far. In this case if you opt for low resolutions it is likely that to see small things on the screen you will have to get closer and therefore you will be seeing the pixels. However at higher resolutions you would not see the pixels if you get closer, which is ideal. Therefore it is best in these cases to opt for higher resolutions such as 4k. It is no coincidence that Apple sells its equipment such as macbooks, iMacs or monitors with such a high pixel count. They know that you are not going to be far away from the screen and the ideal is to see everything as sharp as possible. A different thing is if you are going to play games. There, sharpness is not so important. So in reality is that you are almost never going to buy a 50 inch monitor and stand 2 meters away or more, in which case you would also see everything very sharp.
It does make a difference for temporal AA which modern games tend to use. At 1440p there's definitely going to be more clarity, maybe not for all games but still. I don't really agree with the distance part unless you're playing on your console from the couch vs playing on a desk. If im browsing the web, i often keep at a close distance to the monitor but when im gaming i usually kick back and prefer to have the monitor as far back of my desk as possible. Now just because say i decided to lean onwards as opposed to sitting back while gaming, that doesn't mean the clarity of the image will somehow be better. Unless i was a 70 year old grandma, i wouldn't put the monitor distance as a such defining factor for whether i by a 24 inch 1080p vs 27 inch 1440p.I would only have that discussion at 4k , still depending if it's about pc or console gaming.
Can we use 4K on 55" TV screen instead of monitor, if yes whats the procedure of it? can we hear gaming sound from TV as well or we should need to buy speakers?
You have to be looking really close at your monitor to see individual pixels on a 24" 1080p screen. I'm sitting 16" inches from my 27" 1080p display and I don't see individual pixels.
You must have really bad eyesight then 😂 I have 14/20 vision while wearing glasses and I can perfectly see the pixelation on my 21.5" 1080p screen while sitting about 23 inches away. It's very noticeable when looking at text and small interface icons, and not so much in games.
thats a hell true, i have played a game at resolution 1600:1200 or something bc my GPU can't hold my original resolution for a clean play but then i wanted to lay down on my bed to play on a pad and i find out that from a long distance like about 2m the looks very well, so yeah distance makes a different! have great day and if u have problem with resolution on your game coz your GPU aint that good lower the spec and sit in long distance from your screen and should be good, have a good day
Having used my Samsung UE40C6540SKXXU TV for the last 10 years as my main PC monitor, I could never use a smaller monitor. It is listed as 1080p but works flawlessly at 1440p. It was quite a high spec TV in 2011 with dlna as the main feature I wanted, it is able to play all my networks media files without having to turn on my main PC. Just ordered my new monitor for my all AMD 4k PC build, a 50" Samsung QE50QN90AATXXU Qled monitor, 4k @ 120hz, 1500nits brightness etc. So nearly all the benefits of OLED without the screen burn possible issues.
Size does matter what 1080p on a 27"? What's wrong there? Iol I'm thinking 🤔 on a 34" ultra wide as the aspect ratio is more immersive to my viewing. Hopefully Black Friday or Cyber Monday will come to my aid..
You are so right. FOV is the main aspect and the quality of the display. But i have to ask. How much FOV you prefer for an FPS or TPS game ? I find by lots of research, that cinema like FOV is 40°. I wanna buy a 32 monitor, but i can get around 50-60° FOV, cause im using MIC and keyboard for FPS games and i cant get further away (70-80cm). Isnt that too much ? too big FOV for FPS games ? Pixel density doesnt matter.:) I will by a G65 1440p monitor.
What screen size do you recommend for coders and programmers. Is 14" size too small if you are running two windows at simultaniously? as in in one window you are running a meeting or a tutorial video and in other window you are running a code editor? is it okay to use 14" laptop for such use case without any external screen? or we should with 15 or 16"?
always go for external monitor, to avoid neck & back issues, you will get them eventually if you keep on using only laptop screen. If you don't have much money now, try getting the smallest FHD resolution monitor possible. If you have good budget, check coding/programming monitors, i've seen Benq & others make some. 14/15/16 laptop screen doesn't matter for you who needs multiple applications open parallelly. Dividing the rectangle width will give you narrow square-ish or vertical windows, usually useless. Ideally you need 2 full/normal 16:9 rectangles. So get an external monitor.
i have a 32 inch monitor and i think its too big and i have problems with the games textures loading, i think its the size it might not be able to load in things quickly or i need a better resolution one.
27" is perfect for me. So as 34/35" which i treat as same viewing distance, comfort and usability as a 27" but just with extra peripheral vision or bezelless second monitor
My glasses make everything small and curved, so I can't even be satisfied with monitor size the closer i get the worse the effect gets 0_0 god I feel so weird when I take my glasses off and my phone is suddenly so nice and big, and so much straighter! curse you genes! tho wearing contacts fixes it, they are a pain and one ruined my eyes a bit. I gotta get surgery but i don't want a needle poked trough my eyes as i watch
I keep reading 42" is the sweet spot, but after this video I'm going with the 48". When he compared the two screen sizes to sitting 6" closer from one to the other, that works as I will wall mount it and have a deep desk which I can also move a few inches closer / farther as needed. Well done, thanks.
I laughed when you said "having 27 inch at 1080p, you just have to be an idiot!" since I'm watching this on a 32 inch screen at 1080p lol. Like you, lean back when using the controller on the PC and PS4 so that's how I justify it to myself :D I do prefer having the bigger screen now, even with a lower res and will probably go for another 32 inch in future, being 4k or 1440p.
In other words you dont even know what a clear image looks like lol. It also proves how humans can get used to literally anything after time. If 27 inch 1080p looks bad, i can only image what 32 inch monitor at 1080p looks like. It must look hideous, lmao. I mean i can see individual pixels on my 24 inch when i pay attention and sit too close. 1080p on 32 inch, i dont even wanna know the ppi (pixels per inch). Well i was so curious i just looked it up now lol. 1080p on 32 inch has around 70 ppi. When compared to 1080p on 24 inch with a usual 93 ppi, giving you way better visuals. 24 inch is the maximum for 1080p if you ask me. Anything above 24 inch with only 1080p is an actual downgrade and just not good quality. But hey if it works for you, that's all that matters ;)
it really is not bad at all considering you will also need to buy a more expensive gpu suited for the more expensive 1440p monitor so in my opinion its better to have a 27 inch monitor with 1080p resolution and a gpu that can run that with a cheaper price. computer hardwares are just too damn expensive, i need a new shoe and a new phone lol.
that is the video I have been looking for to verify my theory because I feel comfortable with 24 inch screen but bigger than that is not good at all while sitting on the desk
Im sure this was a joke, but if you really ditched 27 inch 1080p Full HD for 13 inch 1080p Full HD, then you certainly have sharper graphics now. Smaller but sharper and better visual. Just as smaller 1440p monitors give you better graphics than bigger 1440p monitors. 24 inch QHD 1440p gives you clearer and better graphics compared to QHD 1440p on a 27 inch and above. The bigger you go, the worse the graphics get. High ppi is important, but most people dont even take ppi into consideration when buying a monitor. Bigger is not always better.
@@sebastianwehler3218 It's not a joke. I had a macbook retina connected via usb-c to a Dell S2718D monitor. I just use the macbook now connected up to a 13-inch 4k monitor on a monitor stand. Now I'm going to sell the macbook and the monitor, and I'm only going to have a samsung book2 360, so I can turn the keyboard backwards, put it on the monitor stand and use it in the correct posture when I'm at my desk. When I need to go out, I use it in notebook mode.
I have a 28in 4k and I would like to move to a 32in, or even a 40in 3840x2160 display if it fits on my desk or if it can be mounted to the wall. I would like to fill more my field of view and a bigger monitor. I moslty mix music and play some games.
Excellent Daniel. Now I have a Q: when will you ever use your UW again? All the more so since it is so easy to create a UW custom resolution on your LG OLED (and it could even be better at 3840 x 1620 !). So when will you use the actual UW again? Just curious...
I use it for productivity when I don't want to leave the OLED on the same image for too long like a video editing program. It also fits my camera behind it easier for filming my greenscreen style videos. But I dont use it for gaming anymore unless I'm using it specifically to test 3440x1440.
Hey Daniel, you've commented on viewing distance, monitor size, and viewing distance. My question is slightly unnrelated to those, but I am wondering how you feel about the HDR experience for gaming, in general? I have an HDR alienware monitor, and every game seems to require calibration, settings changes, blah blah. Sometimes I just appreciate SDR for what it's worth. Thoughts?
I'm not Daniel but I can share my view on HDR: I don't find it useful, frankly - all it does it just make bright objects way brighter so that I thought about using sunglasses many times. I have 20/20 eyesight and still think it could be bad for the eyes
HDR definitely looks very good, better than SDR. But, so does 4k. And motion looks better at 240hz. So essentially, wait and save for the ASUS monitor coming to it next year and buy a 4090 LOL. And yes, on hdr peak 1000 with default 75 contrast, it’s too bright for me. I turn down the contrast to solve it.
I use a LG 48C1 but play on 1440p windowed mode resizing it to 32". At a distance of 36" from the screen it doesn't actually look bad because at full screen with 48" with 1440p it really looks bad.
With a 32 inch monitor you have to sit further away and you will also get worse visuals compared to 27 inch with higher pixel density. I recommend 27 inch, it will also give you better visuals due to higher ppi (pixels per inch) which most people never take into consideration when buying gaming monitors. Graphics-wise, 32 inch 1440p will look worse than 27 inch 1440p. Like the person before me already said, with 32 inch you need to sit further away. May be more immersive with a bigger screen but also worse visuals compared to 1440p at smaller sizes. 27 inch is perfect for 1440p if you ask me. Personally i prefer 1440p at 24 inch. Gives you even a sharper image, but one downside to 1440p 24 inch is that the text in windows also gets smaller.
@@sebastianwehler3218 yea I don’t want to repeat my last mistake. I bought a 27in 1080p monitor with 165hz I find myself trying to get closer cause it feels like I have trouble seeing. I don’t have this issue on my brothers monitor and his seems better although smaller. I’ll be getting 1440p 27in then.
You're over simplifying it imo. If we have a 32" 4k monitor and sit close to it, we can have more effective real estate to open more windows or with one window we can fit more into that window - it's not all about gaming!.. The reason I'm agonizing about this is where I live my choices are limited and I'm looking for a colour accurate monitor that has a refresh rate greater than 60hz. I had set 32" as my target but the best option available, feature wise, is 27" (grrr!). Currently I have a 27" 1080 panel that is fine, so while the obvious boost in sharpness would be great, I'm thinking that to realize the extra real estate, I will have to sit closer to the monitor. You get it?
Another thing about monitor size-to-distance and field of view calculation (and considerations to focus areas which can be a problem on ultrawides having UI elements out of central vision if you keep them close) is the fact that your eyes will focus at a different distance for hours. This means mechanically on your eyes there is a different stress. You probably don't want to have a screen too close to your near focus distance. There probably is an "optimal" neutral distance for eye focus over a long period of time where the muscles in your eyeballs don't work as hard to bend your optics stack to get your view in focus.
everything you have just explained is why it's perfect for my 2560x1080x34 for me ultra-wide hd my distance works awesome even with the 1500 curve the next is a 1440 but the same.
I was going for a LG OLED but I settled with a 27" IPS 2560x1440 165Hz for $350 and a monitor arm for now. This way I can move it closer while playing Battlefield 2042 and move it back while working or browsing. I'll check the market again in a few years and see what gives, LG is comming out with a 42" panel 2022 but I actually would prefer a 32". Or maybe MicroLED will be out from Samsung but those are most likely gonna be too big screens :D
I personally use a 32" lg hdr 10+ 60hz (yes it's not a monitor but has gaming mode whit18 ms response time tested, and the HDR is gorgeus not like 90% monitor), aniway i stay usually about 70cm or almost 2 mt when i play whit a controller or watching a movie.....try doing that whit a 27 you can''t fill your field of view unless you stay at 30cm from the screen....and believe me you can't see any pixel....try one time a 32" for pc and you can't come back, as you sad is immersive!!!! Actually i probably going to buy a 43 oled just for movie and game....
I have 21 inch monitor with AMD rx 5600 XT, AMD Ryzen 5 2600, 16 gb ram 2666mhz. I am not sure if buying a Full HD 23-24.5 inch144/165hz monitor would downgrade my gaming experience in terms of fps... So my question is, should I buy 144/165hz monitor or not?
In simple terms, the bigger the monitor is, or the higher the monitor's resolution, the more GPU power you need. In other words, you will indeed lose FPS using a bigger screen. Furthermore, if you have a 21 inch 1080p monitor, then your current monitor has much higher PPI, giving you a better visual (graphics-wise), compared to a 24 inch 1080p monitor. It would indeed be a downgrade with a slightly worse visual. Unless your current 21 inch monitor is not 1080p Full HD and instead less? Then it would be a little upgrade to switch to 24 inch 1080p Full HD. But if you switched from 21 inch 1080p to 24 inch 1080p, it would be a definite downgrade visual-wise. PPI (pixel per inch) is important if you ask me. Most people dont even take PPI into consideration when buying a gaming monitor. For instance, a 24 inch 1080p Full HD monitor has better pixel density = more pixels per inch (PPI), compared to a 27 inch 1080p Full HD with around the same PPI = worse image. Bigger is not always better. 27 inch 1080p monitors are even worse than 24 inch 1080p, because 1080p is stretched even further = bigger individual pixels on your screen, that can even be seen if you sit too close. Bigger is not always better. Im currently actually looking for a QHD 1440p gaming monitor that is not bigger than 24 inch. These type of monitors are very rare though. The standard for 1440p is 27 inch. Not many 24 or less inch monitors out there with QHD 1440p. Only downside is that the text gets smaller, which seems to bother some people i read. Summary: Switching from 21 inch 1080p Full HD to 24 inch 1080p Full HD is a downgrade visually. 21 inch 1080p would have a much better image quality compared to 24 inch 1080p. But if your current 21 inch monitor is not 1080p Full HD, then switching to a 24 inch 1080p Full HD would be an upgrade if you ask me, but make sure you dont sit too close. I have a 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming monitor and my desk is not optimal, meaning i sit quite near, where i can actually see individual pixels if i pay attention. The norm for a 24 inch monitor is to sit away from it around 70-90 centimeters. Dont know how many inches that would translate to, im german lol, and too lazy to look it up right now. Hope that could help you. PS: No matter what you do, never buy a 1080p Full HD gaming monitor that is bigger than 24 inches. 24 inch is the maximum for 1080p Full HD if you ask me. Anything bigger than that will look worse. If you want a 27 inch monitor you have to go with QHD 1440p. But then of course more GPU power is required, the bigger you go. I currently only have a RX 5500 XT which is only mid range GPU but specifically for 1080p gaming, it manages a mix of ultra and high settings in most games. Your RX 5600 XT can handle 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming but not always on max settings, and yes your FPS will go down if you go Full HD 24 inch. Also with a RX 5600 XT i highly doubt you can ever reach 144 / 165 hz, at least not on ultra or high, not even on medium settings in many AAA titles. With my RX 5500 XT i get 69 FPS on ultra settings in RE2, RE3, RE7, RE8, FF7R, SOTTR, and Uncharted with FSR on using a 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming monitor. And these games are not the most demanding. Your GPU is only a tiny bit better than mine, around 5-7%, to give you some numbers. So you will never even come close to 144hz / 165hz with your current RX 5600 XT. Its too weak to give you that many FPS on ultra settings in 1080p Full HD. But maybe you dont play demanding games. Im currently eyeing the RX 6700 XT. I will most likely buy it this or next week. Best bang for your buck. Its a card for 1440p gaming and it handles every AAA game with no issues at all. Its a real beast and currently the cheapest compared to nvidia gpu's in the same range, but im an AMD fanboy anyway, lol. Cheers.
(continued) Also your current RAM 2666mhz might not give you the same FPS results as mine with 3200mhz, even though your GPU is 5-7% faster than mine. Higher RAM also plays an important role.
@@sebastianwehler3218 And what do you think, is it better to buy a processor instead? AMd Ryzen 5 5600x or AMd Ryzen 7 5700x? Thanks for the lengthy reply.
@@AgoraphobicNews Well im not that much of an expert, but if you ask me, ugrading your CPU wouldnt give you that much of a boost. Its not like your Ryzen 2600 is bottlenecking your GPU heavily. In some more demanding games yes it bottlenecks you to some degree. But ugrading your CPU wouldnt give you that many more FPS. After all, the RX 5600 XT is just a somewhat higher mid range card for 1080p gaming. Can't expect crazy high FPS with that GPU in AAA titles and you wont be able to play all games on ultra settings. The 5600 XT is too weak, just as my RX 5500 XT is too weak. Your GPU is only a good 5% faster than mine. It also depends on what games you play and what your goals are? Are you playing competetive games where you want to achieve as many FPS as possible or do you play more story related games where ultra high FPS are not that important? Whats your current FPS in games? Either way, without getting a new more powerful GPU, your FPS wont go up. Ugrading your CPU would give you only a little boost and only in "some" games. But to answer your initital question, if you ugrade to higher resolution monitor or bigger screen in terms of inches, it will downgrade your playing experience and you will need an even more powerful GPU. And if you do get a new more powerful GPU, then your Ryzen 2600 will definitely and heavily bottleneck you in 1080p. Not so much in 1440p but the Ryzen 2600 CPU is too weak for higher cards than 5600 XT, the one you have. That one is the limit to be paired with a Ryzen 2600 if you ask me. For intance the RX 6700 XT paired with Ryzen 2600x (my current CPU) has more than 30% bottleneck. You lose a good 30 - 50 FPS. Like i said upgrading your CPU wouldnt be that much of a good choice, the tiny boost it will give you wouldnt be worth the price. The culprit is your GPU, its mid range only and only for 1080p gaming and also not all AAA titles on ultra settings. If you want to keep your current gaming experience and FPS, dont upgrade to a bigger resolution monitor or bigger monitor in size, it will require more GPU power and downgrade your current FPS even more. Bigger screen / Bigger resolution = more GPU power needed with the exact same graphic settings, because a bigger monitor or bigger resolution has more pixels that need to be rendered = more GPU load. Much love, cheers.
I have 27inch factech chimera which 1080p 165hz and I think it is enough we use anti aliasing like fxaa In games anyway 1440p and 4k are just too hard for my i5 10600k and rx 6800xt to run
What? You have a 6800 XT and can't run 1440p? If thats the case, then there is something very wrong with your PC. The RX 6700 XT can run every game on ultra settings with high FPS at 1440p with no issues at all. The 6700 XT is a card specifically for 1440p gaming, and your 6800 XT is even better than the 6700 XT. With a RX 6700 XT you can play all AAA titles with ultra settings on 1440p with well above 60 FPS in every game. If 1440p gaming maxed out on ultra settings is not possible with your 6800 XT, then there is something very wrong with your GPU or your PC. The 6800 XT eats 1440p for breakfast. Even the 6700 XT can handle every game on ultra on 1440p with no issues at all. RX 6700 XT gives you around 90 FPS in AC Valhalla on 1440p with ultra settings. Your 6800 XT should do even better than that. Furthermore you dont seem to understand. 27 inch with only 1080p gives you worse image / graphic quality compared to 24 inch 1080p which has a higher pixel density, also called ppi (pixels per density). Anti aliasing has nothing to do with it.
I think, that if there is a way to give 100 likes to this video, I would have done it, This is the most burn in question in my mind , and I got controlled over it after watching this. Thank you so much💖
I get angry when people say that a 4k monitor is useless. I had, until last week, an Ur550 Samsung 4k 60hz monitor. And last week my cat pissed on it. So, i bought an identical one. I had an AOC 32'' 1080 144hz before. Yes, it is VERY SMOOTHER than a 1080 60hz. But a 60hz 4k monitor is FAR SMOOTHER than a 1080 60hz. I don't know, maybe it's the quantity of lines. It was an opportunity (DAM YOU STUPID CAT) to change for a 2k 160hz. But I couldn't do it. I can't picture a PC without that apple's experience again -- I hate apple, but they know for a long time now that pixel density and big screens are a game changing. I would appreciate if you talk a little about this 60hz 4k "native" smooth experience. No one talks about it -- only about 1080 144 bla bla bla.
![Monitor Buying Guide - What You NEED to Know! [2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ptUchraop3c/mqdefault.jpg)
![Monitor Buying Guide - What You NEED to Know! [2024]](/img/tr.png)
Im impressed you managed to say “size matters quite a bit, but it also matters how you use it” while keeping a straight face
You explain things 10 times but in different ways, you must be a good and liked math teacher.
Hi is
@@Evgeniy_prostoHi is, I’m dad
@@Evgeniy_prosto Hi Are, how are you doing?
@@u_ok you are) (not bad). Why are you asking this, and you're not a native English speaker either?
@@Evgeniy_prosto how did you know??
I was just joking😁
The viewing distance matters a lot and needs to be taken into consideration definitely. It's an interesting discussion to be had. Unfortunately you do get those people who bought into some of the latest most expensive tech that feel the need to belittle others who have weaker hardware or game on a lower resolution display or whatever trying to justify their purchase and those people suck but what it comes down to is enjoying whatever you have and to be happy.
It only matters to those with myopia or some other eyesight issues. Those with healthy eyesight can tell that its 1080p even when sitting further back. Yes, sitting further back will ever so slightly make the screen less pixelated or blurry, but a higher resolution monitor will still be noticeably better even when sitting back.
Even on tiny little cellphones, you can always tell the difference between a 720p phone vs a 1440p phone even if you are holding both phones far from your face. But like I said, this is only for those with healthy eyes. Those who wear glasses probably wont be able to tell.
@@angrysocialjusticewarriordisplay scaling: I need to use 150% display skill on my 27 inch monitor.
Perhaps the 32 inch 1080P monitor, things will be big enough that I can get by with 100% scaling, which means a lot more space for me to work with.
Eye health also matters. Choose a high-pixel-density, smaller-size monitor as much possible, for any kind of non-gaming non-media daily work (professional or personal). We sit right in front of our monitor and stare at it for a huge chunk of the day. Lowest nits of brightness supported, is another spec that can be further helpful for eye health. Best to use dark mode in as many applications as possible, and at OS level. Highest ppi 4k config I see is 163 in 27 inch. It would be great to see 24 inch 4k 183 ppi in budget brands, for quality-conscious users who have already experienced (else you would keep saying there is no use of high ppi). iMac desktop screen is 23.5 inch 4.5K 218 ppi. Mac air & pro laptop screens are 227 & 254 ppi. iPhone is 460 ppi. Even these being much smaller screens. So 27 4k 163 is not "ridiculously useless". Go visit an iMac in a shop. You can see the quality/experience difference when you work daily with a lot of text, charts, images, zooming out, zooming in etc even more if your eyes need you to sit closer to screen. Of course check whether your computer can handle that 4k load of monitor.
I'm a Maths teacher and gamer too, and I strongly felt the math teacher vibe come through while you explained this - keep up the great work!
I've struggled explaining to friends why I much preferred 27" over 32" 1440p you package it all together well in the vid. Thx
Really?
What is your question?
@@Ace-bs7lpWhy do you prefer 27 inch over 32 inch? You can see more people better on 32 inch? More immersive
@@ezzyMODE I tried about 4 monitors before finally settling with 27" x 1440p. 4k resolution in all sizes was out because it would cripple frames of my $1000 gpu.. I have a 55" 4k lg oled for low fps demand games. So I tried 32" x 1440p with curved and without curve screen. Had it side by side with a 27"x 1440p.. yes, 32" was more immersive, but as I sit fairly close it looked like a lower resolution.. like the image was getting stretched. I also had to turn my head more to look at each corner of the 32" screen.. Remember you see the exact same image accept it's stretched when going from 27 to 32 at 1440p, you only see "more" when you increase the resolution. Summary: I preferred the more crisp resolution of the 27" vs. what to me was fuzzy stretched image at 32", and didn't strain my neck moving my head to see all corners of the screen. I did not find the bigger size made it "easier" to see people etc.. I believe if both bigger 32" size + 4k resolution than yes that would be true.. gotta find the sweet spot for you.. I bought and tried, because I also thought bigger = better and when finally in front of me I liked 27". Sorry for the long winded answer. cheers!
I prefer 27 or 34 inches for 1440p. Wouldn't mind a 4k 27 inch. 32 is too awkward for esport playing for me.
To me, I think a 27" 1440p monitor is the sweet spot. Good resolution with great picture without having to go 4k.
thats what im running right now. upgraded from 24 inch 1080p 144hz TN panel to a 27 inch 1440p 165hz IPS panel and its wayyy better for gaming
Also depends what you are playing if you playing racing game you will need a bigger screen since your going to be more of distance
i just got 27" and upgrading from a laptop thats probably 15" its massive too big imo
@@DoubleAAcedid you get use to it?
No, go 32in 1440, it blows 27 away.
Siting further back is healthier as well
I love those graphs with total pixel count of resolutions. I did the math ages ago, because 1k, 2k, 4k terms for resolution really annoyed me since performance scales way more than those numbers would indicate.
Appreciate how you naturally explain everything, njce to get away from the script.
I've never used a script on any video!
"As many of us know, size matters quite a bit. But it's also about how you use it." hmmmm... I've heard this before, but not in the same context tho !
I bought a 55" TV to use as a PC monitor and this thing is amazing. Previously I had a 27" monitor. Now with the TV FPS games feel like VR games just without 3D. My entire field of vision is just filled the game and nothing else. In fact I think it's better than VR because with my Oculus the FOV feels narrower. It's also my first experience with 4K and it's definitely worth it coming from 1080p especially now when DLSS is so good. Yes, a 120Hz 4K TV is worth it over a small monitor if you have a dinner table as a desk like I do.
i personally hate sitting close to any monitor as looking all the way over to mini maps and stuff really hurts my eyes
i personally sit about 60 cm from my 24inch 1080p panel and thats where its optimal for me
27' 1440p. Is simply perfection for my eyes, and the distance i sit from the screen.
Exploring the good considerations Daniel.
34 inch 3440x1440 is the sweet spot for me. I also have a 27 inch 3840x2160 next to it, but gaming on it just isn't immersive at all. Nothing beats ultrawide.
Is 34 ultra wide good for productivity (I will use it for word, excel, ppt, outlook, youtube and might be video editing) or is it too big. I think in 32 might b better. Thank you in advance (Mohamed).
Finally, one sane person in all of the internet. THANK YOU mr Owen! if u use 27 inch monitor with full hd 1080p - You are perfectly fine! Mine is situated in a stretched hand distance and i see NO pixels, and its PERFECT to me. Dont listen to anyone tell you u need QHD one, cuz they arent gonna buy you a new system to feed that beast of resolution
I have always been telling people this when purchasing monitors/TVs or just screens in general. The "pixel hunt" is not healthy. Purchasing decision should be based on what content will be consumed (movies, games, reading etc), what pixel density (ppi) the screen has, and your viewing distance AND of course, your eye sight. This is why 720p isn't necessarily bad on the Nintendo Switch since it is a tiny portable device you have it in your lap. A 720p 6.2" screen at a 40cm distance strikes a perfect balance of sharpness and performance for portable games... On phones on the other hand when you read a lot of text or watch photos or slower paced videos, 1080p does have an advantage, although 720p is "good enough".
For a monitor setup on the other hand the screen should fill up your close periphery vision. This is why a 1440p 27" screen at normal desk distance (50cm) is still a very nice gaming option (especially if you lean back a bit and play comfortably). once you go 48" 4K you need to sit further away. 1m-1.5m. If you sit at the same distance as the the 27" screen; although you might feel more immersed in the game, you will also be at a disadvantage in fast-paced games (competitive shooters or Doom Eternal as examples) and it could also potentially lead to more motion sickness. why 60"-80" screen, well it depends on your room size and viewing distance. big living room a sofa far away from the screen justifies a stupidly large screen. :)
What if I have bad eyesight, is 27" or 24" better for 1440p? Because the smaller screen has larger PPI, but if you scale it then the UI and text are still smaller than on the scaled 27" screen. I'm not really sure which might relieve eyestrain more, clearer and sharper text or larger text overall..
@@schnitzel9715 technically, the higher ppi is the better quality panel for smooth & sharp text, charts & other content. But here, i think you can manage with either of 27 or 24, by **adjusting the viewing distance**. If your eyes need you to sit quite closer and you have mostly a focused-1-application kind of work, it is safer to go for 24-1440. But if you need multiple parallel windows for your kind of work to be easy, a 27-4k can be better (split the rectangular screen space/width into 2 squares) of course this needs you to sit slightly farther.
Splitting the 16:9 normal rectangle or 21:9 ultra-wide, into 2 squares is not an ideal solution for "dual monitor" kind of work. Because many applications are designed for 16:9 and have multiple sub-sections/tabs layed out from left to right and expect more width. Example: MS Outlook - folder tree, inbox listing, email preview, calendar+meetings. Similarly you have left to right sections in photoshop or video editing software. To solve this, better buy 2 smaller physical monitors, like 24-1440.
Again, which is better for eyes, "clearer and sharper text" or "larger text overall"?? I think this can be adjusted by your viewing distance. The larger text can also look sharp if the screen is moved farther a bit.
This is a cool video. I haven't seen anybody else talk about this. Well done.
im using wide because im using all that free real estate, it doesnt matter if some games have black bars, i can use all of in multitasking, like playing an android emulator while browsing, and can watch streaming while browsing, etc, and i know also the difficulty of my gtx 1080 on it on games, but still, by adjusting settings and some, its still smooth somehow on my plate, im not even competitive also, and not to mention playing genshin that always locked at 60fps XD and yes it supports ultrawide :'D.....
I appreciate the beginning lol made me laugh
EPIC! Completely verifies my experiences, having never taken the time to really think about it.
I think it really depends on if youre gaming with kb&m or controller. most ppl playing competitive shooters on PC use kb&m and lean forward when playing while controller users are more laid back
After getting used to sitting less than 1m (3ft) a 48" CX for two years I just find normal sized monitors (27") ridiculously small. There is no going back.
I've got a 180" 1080p screen in my living room I sit 15 feet away. It's perfect. Up close the pixels are like 1/8" wide but that far away the picture is perfect
Good point ,when you watch you don't notice as much .
I just bought a 32in Samsung G7 on Black Friday for $500. My previous monitor is the Acer XF250Q (25in, 1080p, 240hz). At first I was like "well 1440p 32 in has roughly the same PPI as my current monitor so why get it?" then I thought that the bigger the monitor means I don't have to sit as close to the screen so it would be better. I was eyeballing the Sceptre C40 which is a 40in 1440p screen but people say it has significant ghosting which was a let down for me. I really wanted 40 inches lol but 32 inches is still a significant size increase over my Acer monitor. I now have a different perspective on large screens lol
Thanks for taking the time to explain this and doing it patiently. Nicely done. I've tinkered with this stuff for a while and this is about the best explanation I can point people to. 👍
Excellent video with sound and logical explanations. I’ve been testing how far or near I want my 32” 1440p monitor to be for FPS such as warzone and through testing I’ve found that having it nearer fills up my field of view and enables me to respond quicker and feels more immersive. 👍
Can you share the distance with me. I have the same monitor as you
what is that distance ? At 40cm you have around 120° FOV. Thats not close a little bit ? :)
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I've heard 48 is a bit big, but 42 is okay. Personally I've feeling its like 38-39 inch is ideal, speaking about 1440p & 4k (however not used 4k yet).
Lol "4k in 27in doesn't make sense", that cracks me up. Any normal desk situation you can easily tell the difference between 4k and 1440p with a 27in monitor from say 2 feet away which I would consider a normal desk setup. Which is why I've been using a 4k 27in for years now.
Not a bug difference to me, but i do sit further than most.
@@hhhfdsfs that's the thing it's the distance you sit and normal desk setup is around 2 feet between you and the monitor. A 720p 30in will look good if you are far enough back. But that's not normal desk sitting. And at a normal desk setup I can easily tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k
0:01 Pardon me i disagree, my gf say it doesn’t.
Other topic connected is how long we have to sit in front of the monitor. What is better for homeoffice - smaller or bigger?
I kinda want 4k because every antialiasing makes the image blurry a bit. but no AA looks jagged at 1440p/27.
i sit close to my monitor tho hmm
It matters A LOT since I got my 48 inch LG C1 Monitor I don't want to go back to anything smaller. It's a total game changer
I find anything more than 27 intches too big for me.
@@hhhfdsfs personal preference I guess, I come from 25 inches, went to 32 and now I arrived at 48. Couldn't be happier
If you ever tried playing a game with a VR headset as your display its even more immersive since it really fills up your entire FOV. I don't mean actually playing VR either, you can just wear the headset and use your keyboard and mouse. Ofc having a good VR display that's a good resolution, hz, etc is important. I do it sometimes
I went with 24 FHD (1.9K) an unbeatable value
for monitors 1080p is the #1 most common res. worldwide
esports professionals prefer this size
larger than phone, tablet, portable monitor, laptop
thin, lightweight, energy efficient
Im on 27” 1440p 165Hz 4ms but kinda thinking about 25” 1080p 240Hz 1ms for a faster screen for FPS. Just not sure if I will actually be able to see the difference and regret the quality.
It is much easier to spot people on 1440p, imo 1440p is better for fps games.
I think that would be a terrible trade-off
The pixel density would be much lower on the 25 1080p
25 1080p is pretty good, I prefer it in some fps games as it’s better then 1440p in some cases and I’m more used to 25in anyways
Explanation couldve been simpler but we get the idea
“…but it’s also about how you use it…I can’t do 48 inches on my desk…”😂
The opening line requires you to have a moustache
It all depends on what your using it for…if your more of a competitive gamer smaller is better as its less head movement and alot easier to look around and focus on certain areas, I play on a 24.5 inch and it is perfect for me
I feel the LG C2 42 inch is the sweet spot for me. It is way more comfortable than the 48-inch c1 i had before. And becasue i also watch movies and play some console gaming on it i can still sit back and enjoy that content with features like dolby vision and 4k blu rays in HDR. Its 120hz too so i am good with this until i ever build a rig that can do well above 120fps at 4k AAA gaming. Its OLED or NOLED for me!
Great arguments; i get you. Please help me with buying a monitor for my new rig. Here are my concerns
From 6 feet away, can i tweak settings and get my text on screen to look sharp - on a 27" 1440p panel or would 4K do better? I don't think going 32" would help matters - or would it?
Another important need...I'm counting on my 4080super to upscale my 720P movies so they look decent on a 27" display - from 6' away. Again, would 2560x1440p screen be better for that or 4K? Stick with 27" size?
For the time being, i'll have to use my cheezy 1080p tn desktop panel...yuk
Thank you.
The problem about too small screens is that you will not be able to sit close enough:
If you put the TV directly behind your keyboard this means your eyes will be about 50cm away.
Typically, monitors range in size from 22 to 32 inches. On that scale you will not be too far away from the screen because the distances are what they are, the distance between your chair and where you have the monitor, which is usually not very far. In this case if you opt for low resolutions it is likely that to see small things on the screen you will have to get closer and therefore you will be seeing the pixels. However at higher resolutions you would not see the pixels if you get closer, which is ideal. Therefore it is best in these cases to opt for higher resolutions such as 4k. It is no coincidence that Apple sells its equipment such as macbooks, iMacs or monitors with such a high pixel count. They know that you are not going to be far away from the screen and the ideal is to see everything as sharp as possible. A different thing is if you are going to play games. There, sharpness is not so important. So in reality is that you are almost never going to buy a 50 inch monitor and stand 2 meters away or more, in which case you would also see everything very sharp.
It does make a difference for temporal AA which modern games tend to use. At 1440p there's definitely going to be more clarity, maybe not for all games but still. I don't really agree with the distance part unless you're playing on your console from the couch vs playing on a desk. If im browsing the web, i often keep at a close distance to the monitor but when im gaming i usually kick back and prefer to have the monitor as far back of my desk as possible. Now just because say i decided to lean onwards as opposed to sitting back while gaming, that doesn't mean the clarity of the image will somehow be better. Unless i was a 70 year old grandma, i wouldn't put the monitor distance as a such defining factor for whether i by a 24 inch 1080p vs 27 inch 1440p.I would only have that discussion at 4k , still depending if it's about pc or console gaming.
The better spec to look at is ppi of the screen as this takes size into account.
Can we use 4K on 55" TV screen instead of monitor, if yes whats the procedure of it? can we hear gaming sound from TV as well or we should need to buy speakers?
You have to be looking really close at your monitor to see individual pixels on a 24" 1080p screen.
I'm sitting 16" inches from my 27" 1080p display and I don't see individual pixels.
You must have really bad eyesight then 😂 I have 14/20 vision while wearing glasses and I can perfectly see the pixelation on my 21.5" 1080p screen while sitting about 23 inches away. It's very noticeable when looking at text and small interface icons, and not so much in games.
thats a hell true, i have played a game at resolution 1600:1200 or something bc my GPU can't hold my original resolution for a clean play but then i wanted to lay down on my bed to play on a pad and i find out that from a long distance like about 2m the looks very well, so yeah distance makes a different! have great day and if u have problem with resolution on your game coz your GPU aint that good lower the spec and sit in long distance from your screen and should be good, have a good day
Having used my Samsung UE40C6540SKXXU TV for the last 10 years as my main PC monitor, I could never use a smaller monitor. It is listed as 1080p but works flawlessly at 1440p. It was quite a high spec TV in 2011 with dlna as the main feature I wanted, it is able to play all my networks media files without having to turn on my main PC. Just ordered my new monitor for my all AMD 4k PC build, a 50" Samsung QE50QN90AATXXU Qled monitor, 4k @ 120hz, 1500nits brightness etc. So nearly all the benefits of OLED without the screen burn possible issues.
Size does matter what 1080p on a 27"? What's wrong there? Iol I'm thinking 🤔 on a 34" ultra wide as the aspect ratio is more immersive to my viewing. Hopefully Black Friday or Cyber Monday will come to my aid..
You are so right. FOV is the main aspect and the quality of the display. But i have to ask. How much FOV you prefer for an FPS or TPS game ? I find by lots of research, that cinema like FOV is 40°. I wanna buy a 32 monitor, but i can get around 50-60° FOV, cause im using MIC and keyboard for FPS games and i cant get further away (70-80cm). Isnt that too much ? too big FOV for FPS games ? Pixel density doesnt matter.:) I will by a G65 1440p monitor.
What screen size do you recommend for coders and programmers. Is 14" size too small if you are running two windows at simultaniously? as in in one window you are running a meeting or a tutorial video and in other window you are running a code editor? is it okay to use 14" laptop for such use case without any external screen? or we should with 15 or 16"?
always go for external monitor, to avoid neck & back issues, you will get them eventually if you keep on using only laptop screen. If you don't have much money now, try getting the smallest FHD resolution monitor possible. If you have good budget, check coding/programming monitors, i've seen Benq & others make some.
14/15/16 laptop screen doesn't matter for you who needs multiple applications open parallelly. Dividing the rectangle width will give you narrow square-ish or vertical windows, usually useless. Ideally you need 2 full/normal 16:9 rectangles. So get an external monitor.
i have a 32 inch monitor and i think its too big and i have problems with the games textures loading, i think its the size it might not be able to load in things quickly or i need a better resolution one.
Is it 1080 or 1440
@@nolyfe4814 its 1080 i understand the problem now
@@Agririch8522what has your monitor size to do with loading in game textures? Lol
@@kpg10 idk 🤣
So smart way of thinking and explaining!! It makes people that disagree so ridicule!!
27" is perfect for me. So as 34/35" which i treat as same viewing distance, comfort and usability as a 27" but just with extra peripheral vision or bezelless second monitor
My glasses make everything small and curved, so I can't even be satisfied with monitor size
the closer i get the worse the effect gets 0_0
god I feel so weird when I take my glasses off and my phone is suddenly so nice and big, and so much straighter!
curse you genes! tho wearing contacts fixes it, they are a pain and one ruined my eyes a bit. I gotta get surgery but i don't want a needle poked trough my eyes as i watch
Times have changed, oled screens can be gotten a lot smaller!
I keep reading 42" is the sweet spot, but after this video I'm going with the 48". When he compared the two screen sizes to sitting 6" closer from one to the other, that works as I will wall mount it and have a deep desk which I can also move a few inches closer / farther as needed. Well done, thanks.
bet you returned it, for gaming mnitors are better
I laughed when you said "having 27 inch at 1080p, you just have to be an idiot!" since I'm watching this on a 32 inch screen at 1080p lol. Like you, lean back when using the controller on the PC and PS4 so that's how I justify it to myself :D I do prefer having the bigger screen now, even with a lower res and will probably go for another 32 inch in future, being 4k or 1440p.
In other words you dont even know what a clear image looks like lol. It also proves how humans can get used to literally anything after time. If 27 inch 1080p looks bad, i can only image what 32 inch monitor at 1080p looks like. It must look hideous, lmao. I mean i can see individual pixels on my 24 inch when i pay attention and sit too close. 1080p on 32 inch, i dont even wanna know the ppi (pixels per inch). Well i was so curious i just looked it up now lol. 1080p on 32 inch has around 70 ppi. When compared to 1080p on 24 inch with a usual 93 ppi, giving you way better visuals. 24 inch is the maximum for 1080p if you ask me. Anything above 24 inch with only 1080p is an actual downgrade and just not good quality. But hey if it works for you, that's all that matters ;)
@@sebastianwehler3218 I have a Gigabyte M28U now ;)
@@Daniel-or3vf Nice, that one has a nice high ppi. Much love and God bless.
it really is not bad at all considering you will also need to buy a more expensive gpu suited for the more expensive 1440p monitor so in my opinion its better to have a 27 inch monitor with 1080p resolution and a gpu that can run that with a cheaper price. computer hardwares are just too damn expensive, i need a new shoe and a new phone lol.
PPD: px per degree is the unit that matters
that is the video I have been looking for to verify my theory because I feel comfortable with 24 inch screen but bigger than that is not good at all while sitting on the desk
Monitor size matters in relation to distance and eyesight and preferred windows scaling setting.
How does screen pollution tie into an ideal viewing distance? Is being closer to a smaller screen vs farther from a larger screen worse on your eyes?
inverse square law will apply, so closer = more eyestrain (at same brightness)
I've ditched my 27-inch monitor and only use a 13-inch monitor. It's excellent.
Im sure this was a joke, but if you really ditched 27 inch 1080p Full HD for 13 inch 1080p Full HD, then you certainly have sharper graphics now. Smaller but sharper and better visual. Just as smaller 1440p monitors give you better graphics than bigger 1440p monitors. 24 inch QHD 1440p gives you clearer and better graphics compared to QHD 1440p on a 27 inch and above. The bigger you go, the worse the graphics get. High ppi is important, but most people dont even take ppi into consideration when buying a monitor. Bigger is not always better.
@@sebastianwehler3218 It's not a joke. I had a macbook retina connected via usb-c to a Dell S2718D monitor. I just use the macbook now connected up to a 13-inch 4k monitor on a monitor stand. Now I'm going to sell the macbook and the monitor, and I'm only going to have a samsung book2 360, so I can turn the keyboard backwards, put it on the monitor stand and use it in the correct posture when I'm at my desk. When I need to go out, I use it in notebook mode.
@@hobysta 13 inch 4K monitor? That sounds crisp, lol. Small but crisp haha.
@@sebastianwehler3218diminishing returns
I have a 28in 4k and I would like to move to a 32in, or even a 40in 3840x2160 display if it fits on my desk or if it can be mounted to the wall. I would like to fill more my field of view and a bigger monitor. I moslty mix music and play some games.
Excellent Daniel. Now I have a Q: when will you ever use your UW again? All the more so since it is so easy to create a UW custom resolution on your LG OLED (and it could even be better at 3840 x 1620 !). So when will you use the actual UW again? Just curious...
I use it for productivity when I don't want to leave the OLED on the same image for too long like a video editing program. It also fits my camera behind it easier for filming my greenscreen style videos. But I dont use it for gaming anymore unless I'm using it specifically to test 3440x1440.
Hey Daniel, you've commented on viewing distance, monitor size, and viewing distance. My question is slightly unnrelated to those, but I am wondering how you feel about the HDR experience for gaming, in general? I have an HDR alienware monitor, and every game seems to require calibration, settings changes, blah blah. Sometimes I just appreciate SDR for what it's worth. Thoughts?
I'm not Daniel but I can share my view on HDR: I don't find it useful, frankly - all it does it just make bright objects way brighter so that I thought about using sunglasses many times. I have 20/20 eyesight and still think it could be bad for the eyes
HDR definitely looks very good, better than SDR. But, so does 4k. And motion looks better at 240hz. So essentially, wait and save for the ASUS monitor coming to it next year and buy a 4090 LOL.
And yes, on hdr peak 1000 with default 75 contrast, it’s too bright for me. I turn down the contrast to solve it.
4k 32 inch would be ideal for me if i had a pc that good
I have an 28 inch 4k screen. For me its the sweet spot, because i like playing RTS games.
I use a LG 48C1 but play on 1440p windowed mode resizing it to 32". At a distance of 36" from the screen it doesn't actually look bad because at full screen with 48" with 1440p it really looks bad.
What's the depth of your desk?
Me relaxing 3 feet from my 75 inch tv watching this.
i know i want a 1440p monitor, but i can't decide 27" or 32", can I get some opinions?
Take 27
It looks fine on both, 32" will be more cinematic and immersive but you'll need a deeper desk.
With a 32 inch monitor you have to sit further away and you will also get worse visuals compared to 27 inch with higher pixel density. I recommend 27 inch, it will also give you better visuals due to higher ppi (pixels per inch) which most people never take into consideration when buying gaming monitors. Graphics-wise, 32 inch 1440p will look worse than 27 inch 1440p. Like the person before me already said, with 32 inch you need to sit further away. May be more immersive with a bigger screen but also worse visuals compared to 1440p at smaller sizes. 27 inch is perfect for 1440p if you ask me. Personally i prefer 1440p at 24 inch. Gives you even a sharper image, but one downside to 1440p 24 inch is that the text in windows also gets smaller.
@@sebastianwehler3218 yea I don’t want to repeat my last mistake. I bought a 27in 1080p monitor with 165hz I find myself trying to get closer cause it feels like I have trouble seeing. I don’t have this issue on my brothers monitor and his seems better although smaller. I’ll be getting 1440p 27in then.
I'm with 32" 1440p 75 Hz but am strongly considering switching to 27" 1440p 240 Hz.
1080p on my 60 inch plasma looks the same as 4k on my 32 inch from 4-5 feet away
You're over simplifying it imo. If we have a 32" 4k monitor and sit close to it, we can have more effective real estate to open more windows or with one window we can fit more into that window - it's not all about gaming!..
The reason I'm agonizing about this is where I live my choices are limited and I'm looking for a colour accurate monitor that has a refresh rate greater than 60hz. I had set 32" as my target but the best option available, feature wise, is 27" (grrr!). Currently I have a 27" 1080 panel that is fine, so while the obvious boost in sharpness would be great, I'm thinking that to realize the extra real estate, I will have to sit closer to the monitor. You get it?
That's what she said!
Man that first 10 seconds those 😂😂
Another thing about monitor size-to-distance and field of view calculation (and considerations to focus areas which can be a problem on ultrawides having UI elements out of central vision if you keep them close) is the fact that your eyes will focus at a different distance for hours. This means mechanically on your eyes there is a different stress. You probably don't want to have a screen too close to your near focus distance. There probably is an "optimal" neutral distance for eye focus over a long period of time where the muscles in your eyeballs don't work as hard to bend your optics stack to get your view in focus.
everything you have just explained is why it's perfect for my 2560x1080x34 for me ultra-wide hd my distance works awesome even with the 1500 curve the next is a 1440 but the same.
I was going for a LG OLED but I settled with a 27" IPS 2560x1440 165Hz for $350 and a monitor arm for now. This way I can move it closer while playing Battlefield 2042 and move it back while working or browsing. I'll check the market again in a few years and see what gives, LG is comming out with a 42" panel 2022 but I actually would prefer a 32". Or maybe MicroLED will be out from Samsung but those are most likely gonna be too big screens :D
I personally use a 32" lg hdr 10+ 60hz (yes it's not a monitor but has gaming mode whit18 ms response time tested, and the HDR is gorgeus not like 90% monitor), aniway i stay usually about 70cm or almost 2 mt when i play whit a controller or watching a movie.....try doing that whit a 27 you can''t fill your field of view unless you stay at 30cm from the screen....and believe me you can't see any pixel....try one time a 32" for pc and you can't come back, as you sad is immersive!!!!
Actually i probably going to buy a 43 oled just for movie and game....
Cx OLED 48", best experience for me so far
is 15.6 inch good for gaming?
4K 27'' shows the most beautiful picture quality overall and is usable for competitive games as well.
Bro totally forgot to talk about the price factor 😂
I used to game at 4k on a 24” screen, then I moved to 4k on a 32” and it looks worse but it’s still pretty good
Did you change how far back you sit?
24 inch for 1080p is perfect, 34 inch fr 2kuw is perfect,29 inch for 2560x1080 is perfect
I have 21 inch monitor with AMD rx 5600 XT, AMD Ryzen 5 2600, 16 gb ram 2666mhz. I am not sure if buying a Full HD 23-24.5 inch144/165hz monitor would downgrade my gaming experience in terms of fps... So my question is, should I buy 144/165hz monitor or not?
In simple terms, the bigger the monitor is, or the higher the monitor's resolution, the more GPU power you need. In other words, you will indeed lose FPS using a bigger screen. Furthermore, if you have a 21 inch 1080p monitor, then your current monitor has much higher PPI, giving you a better visual (graphics-wise), compared to a 24 inch 1080p monitor. It would indeed be a downgrade with a slightly worse visual. Unless your current 21 inch monitor is not 1080p Full HD and instead less? Then it would be a little upgrade to switch to 24 inch 1080p Full HD. But if you switched from 21 inch 1080p to 24 inch 1080p, it would be a definite downgrade visual-wise. PPI (pixel per inch) is important if you ask me. Most people dont even take PPI into consideration when buying a gaming monitor. For instance, a 24 inch 1080p Full HD monitor has better pixel density = more pixels per inch (PPI), compared to a 27 inch 1080p Full HD with around the same PPI = worse image. Bigger is not always better.
27 inch 1080p monitors are even worse than 24 inch 1080p, because 1080p is stretched even further = bigger individual pixels on your screen, that can even be seen if you sit too close. Bigger is not always better. Im currently actually looking for a QHD 1440p gaming monitor that is not bigger than 24 inch. These type of monitors are very rare though. The standard for 1440p is 27 inch. Not many 24 or less inch monitors out there with QHD 1440p. Only downside is that the text gets smaller, which seems to bother some people i read.
Summary: Switching from 21 inch 1080p Full HD to 24 inch 1080p Full HD is a downgrade visually. 21 inch 1080p would have a much better image quality compared to 24 inch 1080p. But if your current 21 inch monitor is not 1080p Full HD, then switching to a 24 inch 1080p Full HD would be an upgrade if you ask me, but make sure you dont sit too close. I have a 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming monitor and my desk is not optimal, meaning i sit quite near, where i can actually see individual pixels if i pay attention. The norm for a 24 inch monitor is to sit away from it around 70-90 centimeters. Dont know how many inches that would translate to, im german lol, and too lazy to look it up right now. Hope that could help you.
PS: No matter what you do, never buy a 1080p Full HD gaming monitor that is bigger than 24 inches. 24 inch is the maximum for 1080p Full HD if you ask me. Anything bigger than that will look worse. If you want a 27 inch monitor you have to go with QHD 1440p. But then of course more GPU power is required, the bigger you go. I currently only have a RX 5500 XT which is only mid range GPU but specifically for 1080p gaming, it manages a mix of ultra and high settings in most games. Your RX 5600 XT can handle 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming but not always on max settings, and yes your FPS will go down if you go Full HD 24 inch. Also with a RX 5600 XT i highly doubt you can ever reach 144 / 165 hz, at least not on ultra or high, not even on medium settings in many AAA titles. With my RX 5500 XT i get 69 FPS on ultra settings in RE2, RE3, RE7, RE8, FF7R, SOTTR, and Uncharted with FSR on using a 24 inch 1080p Full HD gaming monitor. And these games are not the most demanding. Your GPU is only a tiny bit better than mine, around 5-7%, to give you some numbers. So you will never even come close to 144hz / 165hz with your current RX 5600 XT. Its too weak to give you that many FPS on ultra settings in 1080p Full HD. But maybe you dont play demanding games.
Im currently eyeing the RX 6700 XT. I will most likely buy it this or next week. Best bang for your buck. Its a card for 1440p gaming and it handles every AAA game with no issues at all. Its a real beast and currently the cheapest compared to nvidia gpu's in the same range, but im an AMD fanboy anyway, lol. Cheers.
(continued) Also your current RAM 2666mhz might not give you the same FPS results as mine with 3200mhz, even though your GPU is 5-7% faster than mine. Higher RAM also plays an important role.
@@sebastianwehler3218 And what do you think, is it better to buy a processor instead? AMd Ryzen 5 5600x or AMd Ryzen 7 5700x? Thanks for the lengthy reply.
@@AgoraphobicNews Well im not that much of an expert, but if you ask me, ugrading your CPU wouldnt give you that much of a boost. Its not like your Ryzen 2600 is bottlenecking your GPU heavily. In some more demanding games yes it bottlenecks you to some degree. But ugrading your CPU wouldnt give you that many more FPS. After all, the RX 5600 XT is just a somewhat higher mid range card for 1080p gaming. Can't expect crazy high FPS with that GPU in AAA titles and you wont be able to play all games on ultra settings. The 5600 XT is too weak, just as my RX 5500 XT is too weak. Your GPU is only a good 5% faster than mine.
It also depends on what games you play and what your goals are? Are you playing competetive games where you want to achieve as many FPS as possible or do you play more story related games where ultra high FPS are not that important? Whats your current FPS in games? Either way, without getting a new more powerful GPU, your FPS wont go up. Ugrading your CPU would give you only a little boost and only in "some" games.
But to answer your initital question, if you ugrade to higher resolution monitor or bigger screen in terms of inches, it will downgrade your playing experience and you will need an even more powerful GPU. And if you do get a new more powerful GPU, then your Ryzen 2600 will definitely and heavily bottleneck you in 1080p. Not so much in 1440p but the Ryzen 2600 CPU is too weak for higher cards than 5600 XT, the one you have. That one is the limit to be paired with a Ryzen 2600 if you ask me. For intance the RX 6700 XT paired with Ryzen 2600x (my current CPU) has more than 30% bottleneck. You lose a good 30 - 50 FPS.
Like i said upgrading your CPU wouldnt be that much of a good choice, the tiny boost it will give you wouldnt be worth the price. The culprit is your GPU, its mid range only and only for 1080p gaming and also not all AAA titles on ultra settings. If you want to keep your current gaming experience and FPS, dont upgrade to a bigger resolution monitor or bigger monitor in size, it will require more GPU power and downgrade your current FPS even more.
Bigger screen / Bigger resolution = more GPU power needed with the exact same graphic settings, because a bigger monitor or bigger resolution has more pixels that need to be rendered = more GPU load. Much love, cheers.
I have a 27 inch 1080 monitor when I keep my monitor far away it's fine
Just for reference: nearly all pro gamers (FPS) still use 24 inch screens...
I have 27inch factech chimera which 1080p 165hz and I think it is enough we use anti aliasing like fxaa In games anyway 1440p and 4k are just too hard for my i5 10600k and rx 6800xt to run
Lol
@@hhhfdsfs what is soo funny ? Maybe the funny part is you don't have a 6800xt
What? You have a 6800 XT and can't run 1440p? If thats the case, then there is something very wrong with your PC. The RX 6700 XT can run every game on ultra settings with high FPS at 1440p with no issues at all. The 6700 XT is a card specifically for 1440p gaming, and your 6800 XT is even better than the 6700 XT. With a RX 6700 XT you can play all AAA titles with ultra settings on 1440p with well above 60 FPS in every game. If 1440p gaming maxed out on ultra settings is not possible with your 6800 XT, then there is something very wrong with your GPU or your PC. The 6800 XT eats 1440p for breakfast. Even the 6700 XT can handle every game on ultra on 1440p with no issues at all. RX 6700 XT gives you around 90 FPS in AC Valhalla on 1440p with ultra settings. Your 6800 XT should do even better than that.
Furthermore you dont seem to understand. 27 inch with only 1080p gives you worse image / graphic quality compared to 24 inch 1080p which has a higher pixel density, also called ppi (pixels per density). Anti aliasing has nothing to do with it.
Good video 👍
I think, that if there is a way to give 100 likes to this video, I would have done it, This is the most burn in question in my mind , and I got controlled over it after watching this. Thank you so much💖
24" its perfect for Shooters i think 27" its a little big but 24" 1440p its rare
27" 1080p 1m away happy owner
I get angry when people say that a 4k monitor is useless. I had, until last week, an Ur550 Samsung 4k 60hz monitor. And last week my cat pissed on it. So, i bought an identical one. I had an AOC 32'' 1080 144hz before. Yes, it is VERY SMOOTHER than a 1080 60hz. But a 60hz 4k monitor is FAR SMOOTHER than a 1080 60hz. I don't know, maybe it's the quantity of lines. It was an opportunity (DAM YOU STUPID CAT) to change for a 2k 160hz. But I couldn't do it. I can't picture a PC without that apple's experience again -- I hate apple, but they know for a long time now that pixel density and big screens are a game changing. I would appreciate if you talk a little about this 60hz 4k "native" smooth experience. No one talks about it -- only about 1080 144 bla bla bla.
Even your cat had an opinion about your 4k monitor! ;)
Was that an intentional joke at the start? I don't see anyone mentioning it? Is it just me?