I've used 24 inch 1080p monitors for about a decade and it looks absolutely fine when you're used to it. I got to take a look at a 1440p monitor once and it kinda ruined 1080p for me for a while but luckily the mind forgets 😁 Thanks to technologies like DLSS and FSR getting high fps on 1440p and 4K monitors is quite achievable these days so it might be time to upgrade soon.
I have a 22inch 1080P monitor and wish it was 1440P... I specially like FPS simulators and a lot of fights are at a good range and I'm just glued close to the screen trying to see which crappy pixels move in the screen to start shooting at them, it's far from crystal clear😁 Anyway nothing like high ppi screens like on phones, they look like crystal😮😎 Also I hate Vaseline in my eyes, so DLSS and FSR for me is pointless since even on the highest quality it looks pretty bad for a output of only 1080P making 0 improvement at all for my old crap GPU in terms of performance while they seem to be amazing the higher the resolution output as the rendering resolution will also be higher.
it doesn't matter 1440p and 480p is the same in retina distance. Try to invest more in higher refresh rate monitor. If you're too reluctant to throw your cash out, just buy a oled panel.
@@guily6669 FSR 1.0 is pretty crap most of the time but DLSS is actually really good in most titles. Probably not worth it on 1080p in most games but for example in Warzone even at 1080p DLSS improves visibility and sharpness greatly over native res and the blurry filmic anti-aliasing they force you to use if you don't want to see jagged edges flickering all over your screen.
@@Remu- I actually disable AA on all games that allow cause I don't even stand the blur that comes with it, I really like things super sharp, hell my monitor sharpness is set to 100%, but it's not too over blown cause the LCD settings of it don't allow it. On the games where DLSS give extra sharpness compared to the original Res is nice, but most get softer like AA and all FSR games I tried at my 1080P display I didn't like a single one, they all looked like anything lower than 1080P which defeats the whole purpose...
@@guily6669 Damn that's kinda crazy. I could never play without AA. Especially in games where you need to see far. Without AA you can't see people moving because everything is moving on your screen.
For everything monitors related, out of all the possible informational content out their regarding them, be it youtube reviewers, blogs or reddit posts, i trust this guy the most! Hands down the most inforative channel for monitors atleast.
@@henrivm3559 As a former calibrator and someone who has seen every monitor and tv type I see all kinds of bullshite videos saying this and that. The OP saying he is the best makes me comment.
@@henrivm3559 Yeah but compliment someone who knows what they are talking about at least. It must be a young person thing like saying congrats you came 3rd in a marathon. To me that is a loser but these days give them a medal and pretend they aren't 3rd rate. Wrong is wrong and loser is loser but yeah woke kids these days 🤦.
Since this is focused on gaming, I want to point out that even ignoring the FPS drop, games are not actually the most demanding in terms of needing high PPI. Video games graphics consist of a lot of smooth gradients (think a wall with a texture on it) and blurred areas, without too many hard edges, and most objects will occupy more than a few pixels on the screen. Because of that, they are more tolerant to a lower resolution and will still look ok if there are good anti-aliasing applied. What actually will benefit the most from a high PPI display is ironically things like very text-heavy applications, like coding / web browsing / productivity tools, because the dense information conveyed by texts or complicated UI rely on the small fonts' edges being drawn correctly without being blurred or aliased. Speaking on the FPS drop though, I think with the advent on super-sampling techniques like DLSS, it may start to become a more moot point in near future. DLSS and friends cannot magically make an upsampled 4K (e.g. from 1080p) image looks like native 4K, but it will still definitely look much better than just the 1080p image itself. Given that the performance cost of DLSS is relatively low, we may start seeing a lot of bang for the buck in upgrading your monitor's resolution without losing too much frame rate. But it's definitely true that high refresh rate monitors will usually have lower resolution though.
Somebody show me a 32" 8K monitor! or a 40" 10K Super Ultra Wide 99%DCI-P3, 4000:1 contrast, 2000nits, VESA DisplayHDR 1000, 240Hz Thunderbolt4, 3×HDMI2.1, 3×USB4 Type C Somebody show me a graphics card with 32GB GDDR7 VRAM put a combination of piezoelectric solid state fans and water cooling on it.
Great job on the spreadsheet! With the distance calculation and the way you did your formulas, I was able to easily modify it for my question about smaller displays. Thanks!!!
Got a 27" 4k monitor 6 years ago, can't use anything with less resolution now. Insane text clarity for someone who spends the entire day looking at text, also had some impressive health side-effects for me, I almost don't need to take painkillers for migraine/headache after a long day working in front of my PC, before it was a daily thing.
Same here. If you spend your life looking at a screen, "retina level" resolution is a must. I have a 4K DELL U2718Q. Bigger screen and I'd need a 6K / 8K resolution.
I feel that way about my 24" 4K monitor (Asus MG24UQ), I can't stand the lower DPI of other monitors now. As a software dev reading text all day is so much easier on the eyes with that level of clarity.
what were you like 10 inch from the monitor? I mean you're right for text and work 4k is king.. When it comes to gaming however.. it's not much worth it, a very little visual improvement and a big performance drop, often you're forced to compensate with dlss or similar which have their own downsides. Or of course, you can just buy new graphics card every 2 years, thats a way to solve performance issues, if the game is optimized well that is
i thought the same after using a bunch of different 4K monitors (back then the XG27UGR, M32U, 27GP950 and now 27GR93U) i went back to 1440p. it looked awful but a week later i was completely used to it again.
I’m accidentally gonna upgrade to 4K from 1440p later on today. I was looking into getting an Asus pg279q but instead I’m getting the pg27aq which is the 4K version of this monitor. Oh well I guess I hope my graphics card can handle it :,)
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, and probably not the last. But I just wanted to mention the incredible quality of your videos. You put so much effort into these videos, and the editing and time really pays off. Breaks my heart to see this channel at 30k subs but I've been with you since 10k and I'll be with you all the way to 1mill subs and more!! Keep up the grind, it's really going to pay off man. Have a good day!
Text rendering for SURE benefits from an overkill on resolution beyond just "can i see the pixels". Because text layout engines for display purposes will align the glyphs either on pixel edges or on third-pixel edges horizontally, and on pixel edges vertically, and this can distort the kerning and the overall cadence of the text significantly. By getting more alignment resolution, you can get a more natural, easier to read flow of text, more similar to print. Though i would say text rendering needs to be rethought; we have resolutions high enough and gammas consistent enough to where we can just lay out text pixel grid independently and just take a little resulting blurriness as a penalty, for better text flow. Ultimately all people see things a little differently, we should be given more of a choice. But currently, not even text rendering method is consistent between different software running on the same operating system! Windows software could use DirectWrite, GDI+, or any number of frameworks with different text shaping opinions, and yes i actually find it scandalous that Microsoft isn't about to make their own frameworks of different eras behave the same, they apparently just seal the legacy behaviour in. There's also really several different copies of ClearType tuning value sets which work or don't depending on software, fun! I had used MacType in the past to similar effect, but found it flaky and burdensome back in the day. I might redeploy it again. 4k is definitely well outside the budget for me, as attractive as it is for text rendering. I would say that working with text also benefits a lot from high refresh rate (120Hz, not necessarily higher) and from consistent transitions where neither black-to-white nor white-to-black has more stickiness than the other, particularly when you scroll a lot, working with large amounts of text.
@@kiillabytez Truetype was developed for two purposes, low resolution monochrome displays, and for high resolution monochrome print. The practices from the display rendering being carried forward into the modern era are part of the issue. Non pixel aligned rendering has its own issues due to gamma mismatch. Saying "not rocket science" is peak Dunning-Kruger.
@@SianaGearz Last time Windows ran on monochrome was windows 3.0 What are you smoking? True-type is used on CURRENT OSs. Remember, it's 2024. Fact checking is but a keystroke away.
I was still using a 24" monitor I've been using for over 11 years. I bought my first high def monitor last week and I LOVE it. I had no idea what a difference a monitor makes, I didn't have a lot to spend so got the cheaper monitor that people were saying was good. I bought the Gigabyte M32Q 2K
you probably had an CCFL backlight monitor* ,the problem wasn't that it wasn't a bad model...it just aged, same thing happened to one of my monitors after daily use for 11 years. * -> "Like most fluorescent lights, as the fluorescent tubes age, their output usually diminishes slowly"
yes, i upgraded to a philips 4k monitor with a 6700 xt and love it! i don't play many games anymore and stream more video than anything else. so turning down (slightly) settings for game play to keep the fps between 55-60 was an easy choice. the monitor is only 60 hertz so i'm happy with the $700 upgrade.
Yeah I have 1440p 24" inch monitor too and I'm pretty happy with it still even though its like 5 years old and only 60 hertz. I think 1080p just looks like shit without some really good AA, and the amount of power you need to drive 4k just isn't worth it, imo.
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa it'll take a bit to get used to but you'll find that most people can't go back to a smaller screen. now i had a pixio 27" for a few years(1440p) and loved it. then switching to a 28" 4k was nothing. switching res is worse than switching size. if you do both it'll take a while to adjust!
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa i came from 15 inch 320x240, to 17 inch 1024x768, to 24 inch 1920x1080, i have place for 35 inch monitor to see movies at 1.5 meters. Where can i find the calculator : distance / ppd ?
Sponsor mention without going away from the main point of the whole video was just genious. I typically fast forward those but here it contained desired content, just genious!
If you plan on playing games where reaction speed is a factor you also need to consider the monitors input delay in addition to the refresh rate. 1080p monitors not only have the fastest refresh rates they also have the least input delay, so i think it's safe to say that 1080p monitors will stick around for awhile yet. 1440p monitors are getting there but if you want a 1440p monitor with low input delay and a high refresh rate it's going to cost you as you will be buying from the higher end. I don't think there's any 4k or any ultra wide monitor on the market that a serious esports professional would consider using since the input delay will be higher and the refresh rates lower. They are obviously great when you want to create an immersive experience but they will disadvantage you on the leaderboards. People are not playing games seriously on 4k TVs for a reason.
It's not just refresh rate of the screen, but also the pixels. For most people, any monitor will be below the perceptible difference in input lag unless you're actually a competitive gamer
Yeah, its not about fps or g2g times or refresh rate. Resolution and note ALSO monitor size has a huge effect on input lag, 1440p and/or 32 inches vs 1080p and/or 24 inches the difference is really big. This is why pros still run 24-27 inch 1080p monitors. I had to go back to 27 inch 1080p monitor after trying various monitors over 28 inches and 1440p resolution.
I upgraded recently from a MSI 24 inch 1080p 144hz screen to a Dell 27 Inch 1440p 165hz screen, and I cant go back to Full HD anymore, while the difference in number from 1080 lines to 1440 lines is somewhat small, the pixel count is 77% larger, and the image quality is miles better.
Great job with the video! I completely agree, the actual numbers that matter are the PPD (pixels per degree). Pixels per inch (PPI) is not a useful measure, but it is given by manufacturers as they don't care to tell us at what distance we should use the screens. PPI is a device-specific measure, but PPD is what gives you the visual acuity. So, I checked my devices. For my phone, I measured a viewing distance of about 13" . As it has a screen that is 2.7" by 5.75" at 411 PPI, I calculated that I'm using it with 90 PPD. Definitely "retina quality" as I don't see any pixelation. For my 13" laptop, viewing it at at an average distance of 22", I get 107 PPD since the laptop has a stupidly high quality, 3000x2000 screen. I had a Mac before with a 60 PPD and as expected, I didn't find any pixelation on that laptop either. For desktop monitors, I have one 32" 1440p at work and one 32" 1080p at home. For both, I sit at 32" away. This works great for me because I can have two letter sized documents one above the other on my desk w/o hitting the monitor, plus some room to spare so I don't have to sit glued to the desk. The 32" monitors were chosen so that I can have two Word documents side by side on the screen. So... with this geometry, the 1440p gives me 56 PPD (basically a borderline retina display quality) whereas the 1080p only 42 PPD. Yes, I definitely see some pixelation on the 1080p, but when I'm at home I usually recline further back from the 1080p so the PPD increases (at the expense of the reduction of the field of vision). I have 20/20 vision at short distance and I cannot see any pixelation on a 1440p, 32" monitor if I sit at 32" away (as expected). If you're a teen with eagle eyes, you might, if you have better than 20/20 vision. So for me, a 1440p monitor with a 32" diagonal viewed at 32" away is enough as it provides a good enough field of vison of about 46 degrees with 56 PPD. Instead of spending a lot more on a 4K monitor, I would rather get a 1440p with a high refresh rate. Now, if you play racing games and first person shooters and want a more immersive experience by increasing the field of vision to something like 60 degrees, a wider screen monitor that keeps the same PPD is better (not necessarily a 4K, but an ultrawide 3440x1440). You do not need 4K for peripheral vision, as human vision acuity is not good enough past 20 deg to see any difference between 2K and 4K or even 1080p. I play Civilization 6 and rarely some chill city building games and for those, the field of vision is not important at all (I don't have to react quickly to fast changing details in the peripheral vision).
Everybody uses their monitor at different distances. That's why a device-specific measure is more useful. A few problems I can think of: 1. It is easier to compare with different monitors since people usually use their monitor at a certain preferred distance. Like phones would tell you the screen size, not a degree size at a certain arm length. 2. Screens are not spherical so it is ambiguous to define PPD for every monitor. 3. If they use PPD then naturally they would inflate the "recommended viewing distance" to increase the PPD number to make it seem sharper than it actually is. 4. To combat this, they would have to list the viewing distance so that you could compare with your own. At this point you might as well use DPI since you probably are already familiar with how far you personally are going to view the monitor from.
Not saying I disagree with anything you said but everytime someone says something along the lines of "the human x/y/z can't tell a difference between this or that" it always comes back to bite them in the ass
PPD would depend on each person's viewing distance so you need to calculate it yourself. For example, I think I sit much closer than 32" for my desk monitor. I also have a 32" monitor but in 4K (138 PPI), and maybe because of the closer viewing distance I actually find it a little blurry compared to my laptop (a 14" MacBook Pro with 254 PPI). Part of it also depends on what your eyes are used to. It's not like I can explicitly see individual pixels on a 32" 4K monitor, but if you are used to a higher pixel density, switching back and forth can make the image just feels a tad bit blurry.
One thing to note is that TAA - which is a common modern anti-aliasing solution these days makes lower resolutions look even worse as it affects the entire image quality not just aliasing and it is very reliant on pixels. At lower resolutions it will smear stuff together just to prevent jaggies from appearing. Make sure in your tests this option is disabled, if their is no anti-aliasing type option or off that means the game forces it and should be discounted from testing. Just a quick tip
unfortunately, its absolutely mandatory for good image quality in almost every DX12 game, because transparency effects depend on it. turning off TAA usually results in modern games, in turning everything into a dithered mass of triangles.
Thats why I prefer 4K and no antialiasing (or mild AA settings). It looks better, more crisp and not blurred, than aggressive AA settings in lower resolution. Difference in resolution especially noticeable on thin lines (like wires) and mesh-like textures.
4k is great for productivity tasks though. For gaming, you can just use the scaling option almost all modern games provide or even just use 1080p, as it's exactly 4 pixels of the monitor for every pixel of the image. However, in my experience, upscaling gives a big quality improvement with almost no performance hit.
@@challenger516 depends on a distance between you and monitor. I play on Xbox Series S (1080p/1440p) on 4K TV, the distance is like 2.5-3 meters and it looks fine.
Personally I prefer refresh rate more than resolution in gaming, and I am very happy with my 1440p display. Also work runs pretty smooth on it, and I never felt the urge to swap to 4k sharper text. At last costs for energy are rising, and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days.
imo 1440p looks just as good as 4k in most situations anyway and the performance gains are huge when you downgrade. I feel like high refresh rate 1440p is just the sweet spot right now
Have u gamed on a 4k monitor tho? It looks so much better not only for gaming but for regular computer tasks, watching UA-cam videos, netflix etc. U can just use DLSS performance and u get same performance as 1440p if u really have to and it will still look better than 1440p native
Excellent explanation and proof of what is useful and how we should decide on the basis of what we really need. Not just "bigger numbers = better". But I see that most only decide on basis of highest refresh rate, not picture quality.
My concern is that while vector graphics (like text) can scale freely, and many modern games are made for 4K, lots of legacy content was designed for 72dpi. When viewing those kinds of content, something's got to upscale the image in an elegant way.
This is a truly well produced and informative video. I now have a thorough understanding of the give and take implications to be considered when selecting monitors. Very well done and highly recommended.
I've been dailying a 27" 144hz 1080p monitor for 3 years now. When I got it I thought the sharpness of it was amazing. Now... not so much. A few days ago I bought a 32" curved 1440p 144hz monitor for my sim racing rig, and even that isn't as sharp as I thought it would be. But, I still went for it because if I'd gone for a 4K monitor I'd have had to upgrade my PC as well and that would've completely blown my budget. So, in conclusion, I completely agree with your conclusion.
Really informative spreadsheet to help me decide whether to get a 4k 27" or a 4k 32" inch. Knowing that the 4K 32" is comparable to Apple Retina resolution pretty much decided for me.
I think their "retina" definition has changed or they're considering a different distance for the PPD calculation for desktop monitors, where they seem to aim for ~220 PPI LG Ultrafine "true" 4K at 21.5" - 219 PPI Apple 27" 5K display - 218 PPI Too bad about the discontinued 21.5" LG, the 24" 4K is 189 PPI and I could tell some difference vs the 218 PPI (I owned both) You could easily notice a BIG difference even with the 24" 189 PPI vs 32"
Actually i'm thinking in that way like small screen size high resolution 🤔 and I see your reply. Tell me 24 inch 1440p 75hz is good enough for 40~45cm viewing distance?
I have dual 4k 32" monitors at work (Windows 10). There are issues with certain apps that are designed for 1080p (ie, they don't scale relative to the 4k screen). I've had blackouts playing videos. You would think 4k is fully supported, but it's not. It's still in the early adopter phase.
I’ve noticed same issue when it comes to TV as with monitors. The tech is developing faster than developers and the industries can keep up. Most tv stations broadcast still in 720p and we have 8k and 16k right around the corner.
My favourite is 1440p 27" currently. The problem I have with 4k right now is that you will have to use windows scaling to read and use stuff. This feature is still nowhere near a perfect state. Especially as many websites for example and even windows itself can't handle scaling and will either not scale everything or will scale it and make it blurry. Until this is fixed I will stick to native resolutions in windows and for 27", 1440p is perfect.
A very good point here, in a couple of years when almost all programs and windows itself are more scaling ready and graphics card are more powerful to drive 4k graphics, then will indeed 4k monitors be mainstream and recommended.
Very true and important point that is often not considered by many people. For my desk 27 seems large as I am sitting close to the monitor, so I still use FHD 23.8 screen.
Would dual 1440p 27'' Monitors be recommended for gaming or would you suggest: primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
@@Mangotunde Depends how you want to use the PC. If your second monitor is 1080p and your main is 1440p you will notice that all elements on the screen will be differently scaled when you move stuff from one monitor to the other. But you would only need one 1440p monitor for better quality for gaming. 2 identical monitors are just more consistent but not needed.
@@Mangotunde That is what I have. Mainlt because I could not be bothered buying 2 1440p monitors when I only use 1 for games. 1080p one is secondary for secondary tasks like web surfing and youtube
Honestly, I've never had a content creator who gave me a damn good reason to watch an ad. Your segway into the ad while leaving us to compare monitors at the 3:50 mark was genius. Kudos.
Thanks for this video, it informative. More people need to understand the differences between resolution and display size. Pixel density is the metric you should consider when choosing a display. Your video does a good job explaining this for people who haven't considered the relationship between screen size and viewing distance. I think 1440P is the sweet spot resolution wise on a 27 inch display. I'm sure a 4K 27 inch monitor looks super sharp but, you will be paying the price in performance to drive all those pixels. Display scaling for 4K displays comes into play as well. I don't think Windows or MacOS really do a great job with display scaling. MacOS only really works well at 110'ish PPI or at 220 PPI. If your pixel density is somewhere in between, say 150 PPI, your experience is going to be less than ideal.
hey man, ive been playing games on a 4k monitor and it doesnt give much performance,it has 60hz. Should i buy a 1080p monitor with much more hz and for better performance?
I actually prefer the pixel density of 1080p on 27' panels. It has a lot to do with UI scaling. A lot of small text in programs cannot be scaled and even on a 23 inch 1080p display its difficult to comfortably read without pulling your head closer to the display. The 27 inch display at 1080p makes it a lot easier to read, having a 4K 27inch display is absolutely horrendous when you are trying to read 10 point font in programs that have no scaling options for higher resolutions.
How though? The text may be larger but it's more fuzzy and less sharp. I have a 24in 1080p va monitor 60hz and just bought a 27in 1080p va monitor 165hz to replace it. I put them side by side and its very obvious that at 1080p 27inches you lose quite a lot of clarity. At least at 24 inches the image is very clear and the finder details are distinguishable. The same can't be said with the 27in.
If you play any pixel heavy games like MOBAS, then the pixel density is much more important and 1080p on a 27 inch would drive u insane. It all depends on your computer needs.
lol BS. Also a dumb reason, in windows you can select between 100-200% scaling. There are very few applications and games which don't scale, and the one or two I've run into (all older games) would not make it worth the fidelity sacrifice in 99.9999% of the rest of usage.
As someone who plays exclusively at 4k 60fps since may 2013 and 4k 144fps since 2017, I cant go back to 1440p and 1080p. The visual difference is very extreme to the trained eye. I would personally go 21,5 1080p, 24 1440p and 27 4k. The PPI is extremely important with AA and shimmering.
People who say 27 is too small for 4k and there is not much difference drank the kool-aid,i would gladly buy an updated version of the dell 28 8k if they released one.
@@Kevin-fl7mj i use a 27" 4K monitor and i can still see the pixels if i get just 10cm closer to my normal position, to me 4K with bigger screen starts to lose it’s magic because i’ll start seeing the pixels again, i have a 55" 4K TV and i can tell it looks nowhere as crisp as 27" 4K, it looks almost like my 1080p 24", to me i feel like 27" 4K really is the sweet spot for that resolution because of the ”looking trough a window rather than a screen” feeling it gives. Even like 2 years after buying it i still often catch myself stopping mid game just to appreciate how good it looks. And i can agree to the first comment above that i absolutely can’t go back to 1440p, even less 1080p, as i will instantly notice the pixels and lose that magical window like effect. Now sure i could probably still notice the difference between a 4K 27" and let’s say 8K 27", but in my opinion the price difference would be way too big for the very small difference i’d notice, so imo for peak quality gaming, 4K 27" is the perfect spot, if you have the money for it and the hardware to support it. Nonetheless i’d wish anyone if not able to afford it could at take a look at it from a gaming store or a friend who has it just for the experience, as it is really worth trying and experiencing, really shows you how crazy far technology has come to and makes you appreciate what quality we are able to reproduce nowadays on an electronic square with moving images.
@@pandora8835 Spot on! You described perfectly what i mean when i tell people what high PPI actually does to immersion,same applies when you listen to HI-FI audio gear and just listen to the music,not the gear.
I personally like the Asus VG27AQ, mostly because it is an 1440p resoulution with 165 hz, and IPS panel. It also supports G-Sync and amd freesync with 0.4 ms latency. And it doesnt have an anoying monitor stand that fills half the table, its a simple square that takes about 30x30 centimeters. It is also available with TN panel(VG27BQ) instead of IPS panel(VG27BQ). Sure 4k would look even better but the price difference is just ridiculous. Just for reference I can buy 4 asus VG27AQ for the price of 1 4k 165hz monitor. It is just insane... The only minus I would say about the VG27AQ and VG27BQ is that the power supply is not built-in the monitor and therefore the cable is a bit anoying on that part, mostly because of the power supply being on the cable and not in the screen. Hope this helps anyone, I did a lot of research before choosing my ideal monitor, and for the price this is just the best monitor on the market as of 2021-2022.
Just yesterday I bought that same Asus VG27AQ, to replace my previous LG 27” 1080P 75Hz, the difference has been abysmal, I am still in shock with the level of detail and sharpness that I have gained in both office tasks and games, and the level of exquisite fluidity for 165hz, I will never be able to return to 1080p again. Very happy!
The main drawback I see with a big screen is having to sit further back to see everything, and lying in the hope that your old programs have options to greatly increase text size. For resolutions of 1440p of roughly the same standard 16-9 ratio, A 24 inch monitor translates roughly to 122ppi, A 27 inch monitor to 108ppi, a 32inch to 91ppi. I can see the pixels on this old 16 inch 1366x768p capable laptop, which translates to just 97ppi. The gain in switching to a desktop with a 27 inch monitor at 1440p would surely be fairly minimal sitting at the same distance as before, and a 32 not worth it (although sitting as close to s 32 as you would a laptop isn't going to be ideal anyway). 24 inch monitors with a 1440p resolution seem very hard to come by, but would surely be best for close up media editing (assuming all monitors compared had a similar pixel type,text clarity and colour accuracy). In the end it's not going to matter that much as long as you sit at an appropriate distance
If you're using this advice, don't forget to account for your distance from the monitor! At my desk, I sit about 80cm from my monitors, which lets me see both of them without having to move my head. At this distance, 1440p is pretty much perfect for me.
Great video, I learned a lot! I wanted to bring up what "the human eye can actually see", as it seems to change every couple of years. I remember when around the 2010s, the general rule was that the human eye "could no notice" anything above 80-90 fps, while nowadays, 120fps is a minimum to aim at when going "serious" while gaming. This is not a critique to your video, just that it surprised me how this numbers drift up with every new generation of products. Same thing with ms/response, but that would be the same story.
I'm running a 49 inch ultrawide (Sansung CGH90), but it's essentially 2 1080P monitors glued together. Very few resolution issues at all, only every now and then I noticed a definition issue. I value performance over quality. There is no perceivable sort of perceptible lag using this rather than trying to drive a 4k
I must have bad eyes because I am looking at my 1080P monitor and I do not see individual pixels when sitting at a normal viewing distance. Good news on that is that I can pay less money than other people and still be happy with what I have.
People think that because the item had a big price tag it makes them cooler and better than everything else 1080p is a great display and many many more sizes like 32 inches all for a cheaper price and the same amount of fun.
@@Techforlife280 idk man, ppl seem to be really thrilled about 4k resolutions. I remember years back also doubting the upgrade from 60 to 144hz and now I would rather use my freaking phone than be forced to sit infront of a 60hz panel
@@Techforlife280 you mean the resolution right? or do you rly say u can't tell 60 vs 144hz? ye we will see, I ordered yesterday a 2k monitor since I'll prob wait with 4k for the next gen graphic cards. I've a 4070 super but even that seems to barely pull 4k well in the majority of games If the 2k will be a noticable difference then for sure I will invest in the future into 4k
I have used a 23" 1080p TN monitor for over 10 years now. I've been looking for an upgrade for a while, but monitors are quite expensive. While building PCs/setups for others I've had the chance to try different screens and found out how much my eyesight affects things. 27" 1440p is the sweetspot for most people, but it requires me to strain my eyes or sit closer than I would like. I thought about going for a 27" 1080p IPS panel for a while until I saw one in person. Even I could tell how bad it looked. Needless to say, I am glad that 31.5" 1440p monitors seem quite popular. A 55" 4K screen would be nice, but very expensive and probably the end for my RX480.
One important thing is maybe not mentioned here is the right PPI of the screen to use it without scaling the UI for particular appliance, because for some people it is very important if they use screens for work. For myself I found 93 PPI to be perfect so it is basically 24 inch 1080p and 32 (31.5?) inch 1440p. I was using for about a year 27 inch 1440p and I was not happy - everything was a bit too small (PPI about 109) and it was very annoying for me. Right now I have mentioned 32 inch 1440p and it is so much better. I use my 3 screens for programming purposes (2 additional 1080p) (all now have 93 PPI) and it is perfect in Windows and Linux. I don't have to scale anything. Ergonomics are great. Also I can run a game without any problems. I would not buy screen with higher PPI even if it looks better. Maybe for graphic designers and movie makers those are much better, but for me - the standard is the best. Like I wrote - the ergonomics are the best at least for what I'm doing.
I'm with you on this. I recently replaced my 24" 1080P monitor with a 27" 1440P one, and even though I appreciate the additional crispness of the 1440P, The default UI scaling does make everything feel uncomfortably small on 27 inches. If I had to choose again, I would probably go for 32" 1440P as well. 4K on anything smaller than 40 inches just sounds silly to me. (For work anyway)
Well its no surprise that QHD took the crown from FHD, as most semi-modern mediocre/mainstream setups can drive them and the much sharper image and more screenspace as QHD usually comes in 27" and up, makes a big difference, but doesnt cost to much performance and even upper class QHD Monitors are quite affordable for most. I'm driving a RTX3080 Aorus Master 12GB btw and this one powers a Dell S2721DGFA@165Hz, perfect combo for pretty much everything. :)
Ehhhh. Not at the FPS I want. No reasonably priced GPU is going to hit 240 fps on anything but 1080p. 1080p is still the highest gaming resolution im willing to go.
@@Wylie288 On the contrary, I'd consider 240FPS overkill for any game. Anything over 60FPS is more than enough for the average gamer, imo. I recently upgraded from a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor to a 27" 1440p 170hz monitor and the difference in quality is insane. I'm still getting 90+ FPS in AAA games with my 3070 Laptop GPU on average.
Habe deinen Kanal vorhin erst gefunden, bis jetzt schon ein paar Videos zu Monitoren angeschaut und muss sagen dass ich absolut beeindruckt bin 💯 Weiter so :)
315 views, not in the market for a monitor, and a channel ive never heard of before. wonder why i clicked, but i dont regret it lol Edit: big surprise, its great
I like high resolutions just like everybody but the problem is that I find 27'' monitors too big for competitive shooters. That's why I'll stay on 24'' monitors forever. A 24'' 1440p 240Hz OLED would be the endgame monitor for me.
4k monitor makes sense only if you have hardware from 4070ti/74k monitor makes sense only if you have hardware from 4070ti/7900 xt + i7 p7 of the latest generations. Before that, 1440p is more than enough (at least on a 27-28-inch monitor), the picture quality is sufficient not to "cut" the eyes on the pixels.900 xt + i7 p7 of the latest generations. Before that, 1440p is more than enough (at least on a 27-28-inch monitor), the picture quality is sufficient not to "cut" the eyes on the pixels.
1080 on a 24 inch is optimal for a simple table setup, and action games. 1080 on a 27 inch is for some other use case that I have no clue of, but probably involves a longer distance from the screen. If your games use a lot of small text, like strategy games, the higher resolutions can reduce eye fatigue. Just remember that to use the monitor to the fullest you have to also spend on hardware 🤷♂
@@gediminasmorkys3589 Immersion, people prefer bigger monitors for games that are casual based or immersive based. Smaller monitors tend to be better for competitive players or people who focus on FPS. I have a 240hz 1080p/27 inch. But I have a 5kd on Warzone, I play Tarkov with a 20kd+, etc. I play competitively, but I also like a bigger monitor so when I play games I feel more immersed. I hate seeing a tiny image, even if it's competitive advantageed. Shroud uses a 27 inch 240hz, 1440p. He plays competitively, but he also plays a lot of casual games, such as WoW, Lost Ark, Survival Games etc.
I am really hoping for the so called "5k2k" monitors to come with better refresh rates, preferably at 40-43 inch size. Those would be great for work, but I also don't want to downgrade. After using 144Hz, moving even mouse or windows on 60Hz looks bad. In the meantime if I can't wait it's nice to see that a 32 inch 4k should be pretty good. My current 32 inch 1440p was a great upgrade when I changed from 24 inch 1080p, but it doesn't look very sharp. Thanks for the calculator, that was useful.
@@Xilent1 For nearly 5 years I used an AOC AG322QCX, a VA monitor which was pretty good for my use (I only discovered what smearing is after I read several explanations and demo videos). Was happy with the blacks. Not up to todays standards of course. It also started to draw artifacts for a while after a cold start, this got a lot worse in last days of December, so I changed it to an M32U now. Blacks are back to being grays now unfortunatelty, but I try not to think about it, it's not a bad monitor... Monitors are hard to choose, a lot harder than other hardware I think. Also there's no stores around me where I could look at the current offering, no pixel warranty, no calibration services... I wanted to change my monitor but also didn't want to risk it, just had to now that the old monitor passed away. I hope this one lives a long life, was expensive enough, but maybe I will have an even higher resolution monitor in my lifetime :)
4K sucks on 27“. Used it for a while and it’s just annoying. Game performance is way worse than in 1440p, UI scaling is garbage, especially in older programs it’s buggy or just not possible.
Really nice video! I already knew all these concepts, but you presented them in such a way that kept me captivated and interested, whilst confirming my own understanding.
I recently went for a 1080p ultra widescreen 30 inch display. It basically has the same pixel density and height of a 24 inch monitor but with extra real estate on the sides. I'm running this out of my laptop and decided I would rather have widescreen 1080p than a 27 inch 1440p monitor which would require a noticeable hit to my FPS while gaming. Now that I've seen games in widescreen it would be hard going back lol
@@Luke-ih1oc if I don’t know I can’t miss it lol. I’m sure 1440p would be nice, but I’m limited by my laptop. If I had a desktop I could swap out upgrades but I have to work with my limitations. Although I could probably run 1440 I decided that I would prefer having the ultra wide monitor to the extra crisp monitor. I did adjust my setup a bit, I mounted my monitor on the wall so I could pull my desk out a few inches to increase the perceived sharpness of the 1080, and so far I’ve been more than happy with it so I’m content.
Just a few days ago I bought a new monitor and my train of thought was exactly the same - 4k hits performance like a truck and 1080p is no good for big monitors so 2k looked like a reasonable compromise. As for the size, initially I wanted to buy 27" but the model I chose had a really good discount on 32" version so it was even cheaper than 27" so I bought it and didn't regret it - it looks great. However, my table is 80cm deep so I sit approximately 80-85cm away from monitor, for 50-60cm tables 32" is definetely not an option I would say even 27" probably is to big for them.
i've got a 32" tv that i'm using as second monitor and it is huge for my desk. it is also 1080p, so it feels like i can see every single rgb in each pixel.
I bought a 1440p 24" monitor couple of months ago, and it's a huge upgrade over the old and crappy 1050p (yes, 1050p, 1680x1050 to be exact) 22" monitor I used to have. I can barely see the pixels on it. My second monitor is a 5:4 1024p 19" monitor, and the pixels are very noticeable, but it does the job as a secondary monitor.
@@tylerclayton6081 actually I have bought 4090 already and right now it is capable enough for 4k gaming, sure. But that might not be the case in 2-3 years. For example, in Cyberpunk 2077 on maximum settings my fps vary within 100-140 range on 1440p and on 4k it would probably be 25-35% lower which is just enough for comfortable gaming but totally not futureproof.
From my experience, you see a difference, but only a slight difference on homogenous, gradient pictures, like in games, photos or movies. You see a significant difference on high contrast, sharp edged stuff. And that is best represented by black text on white background. Yes, hidpi monitors are the most beneficial for simple, plain old text editing, pretty regular office stuff. And it actually matters. Me, I have a significantly higher reading speed and a significantly increased throughput of text with less fatigue with my 4k monitor.
4:34 = This is exactly the reason why all reputable reviewers point out that a 1080p/FullHD monitor is only really recommended up to a max size of 24". If the monitor is to be larger then it should be at least a 1440p/2K monitor... in that respect that is also no new knowledge. Therefore, from a technical point of view, this comparison to the 27" 1080p monitor is also quite unfair because such a 1080p monitor can only lose in such a comparison, it has no chance. I`m currently using a 24" 1080/FullHD 165Hz/0.8ms IPS AMD FreeSync Premium monitor by "iiyama" together with an AMD RX6700XT 12GBVRAM graphics card + activated "AMD SmartAccess Memory" and in-game graphics look very good and even with high in-game graphics settings this system offers high FPS and for me that is the decisive advantage, that`s why I bought such a monitor. On my system for instance "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt" in the Next-Gen Update version "v 4.00" + two Hotfix Updates from December 2022 runs with an average of 168 FPS with a mixture of "High" and "High+" in-game graphics settings without any issues and fans of this game know exactly what I'm talking about (keyword: sometimes significant performance issues). For my normal PC jobs, 24" is more than enough, especially when I use the monitor upright for word processing in LibreOffice.
This is great information as I was curious about this. I have been using 1440p monitors for years and was very happy with those. I did just buy an Alienware AW3821DW (IPS 38" 3840x1600) as I wanted vertical space along with horizontal space. it was a great deal on sale for $899.99 IMO and won't impact performance of my system as much as 4K would. The Alienware AW3423DWF is supposed to be the greatest thing currently, but there is no additionally vertical height and I cannot handle the screen "pixel refresh prompt every 4hrs" to prevent burn-in (ridiculous and kills usability). I might have waited for the ASUS PG38UQ (IPS 4K 38" but oh well) this probably is the REAL sweet spot for usability IMO (productivity and gaming).
For two monitors (for gaming), would you suggest: Primary and Secondary 1440p 27'' @ 144Hz/165Hz or Primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
I originally bought a 27inch1440p75hz monitor. Then 3 years ago I started really getting into competitive gaming and bough a 27inch1080p144hz monitor as my new main one. I have an RTX 2070, so so in a lot of the newer games 144fps wouldnt be achievable at 1440p. Generally I think you are a bit over-dramatising how bad 1080p looks on a 27in monitor. I'm tend to sit pretty close to my monitor, and while I can certainly see individual pixels if I try, it's not exactly something that I notice when gaming. 1440p undoubtedly looks better for gaming, but to me the main reason I would consider upgrading my 1080p panel are other applications. Stuff like having two browser tabs side by side is great on a 1440p screen, because there is plenty of pixels for both, but on the 1080p screen websites are going to start to struggle.
Basically 4k is a significant upgrade over 1440p, and is the point of diminishing returns. However, being able to build a reasonably priced pc that can actually put out that many frames at 4k is a whole other ballgame. That's why I have one 1440p monitor that will be moved to as a secondary, when I can get a gpu that can get me 120 fps at 4k for a reasonable price (no, anything above 1k for a a whole pc build is not reasonable to me), then I will invest in a high refresh rate 4k monitor. Long way to go before an affordable gpu like that appears, but I'm perfectly fine with 1440p until that time comes (2-3 gpu generations in the future perhaps)
I replied to a comment thread and i mentioned this. I think monitors, software and GPU cards need to support a few additional resolutions. 1620p AKA 3K 1800p AKA QHD+ 5K (either 4800×2700 or 5120×2880 plus some aspect ratio variants based off those two screen widths)
So you see the problem s not only are you watching a 1080 p monitor... your also watching this on UA-cam it does look noticably better, but a 1080p display is more than good enough
The sweet spots are: 24" with 1080p (90~ ppi) 32" with 1440p (90~ ppi) 27" with 1440p (110~ ppi) I'd like to add that ppi for monitor and smart phones aren't the same since we watch smartphone close to our face, while monitors stays a far distance away. The minimum recomended ppi for monitors to have a good experience and image sharpness is 90ppi. I currently use a 80ppi monitor and it is a bit blocky but I am used to it. If you dont know whats ppi is just know that the higher it is the more the screen will look sharp/premium. Side Note: Ever wondered why 32" with 4k is so expensive? Its because it has ppi of 140~, thats a lot for a Tv which you'll watch from a far distance away.
This was a very useful video, I really appreciate the thought and effort put into it. I really think I need a 4K monitor for my eventual return to video editing, but right now I pretty much just game so I think 1440p is a far better fit for my RTX 3060 GPU.
My average distance from the monitor is 70cm. With that, the perfect monitor would be 24" 1440, not just because of the PPD but for the fact that 27" is too much for me, after all I mainly play FPS games and I had 24" monitors for over 15 years. Right after this video, I went to search for some monitors with these details, only to find out they literally don't exist. I was devastated. I don't understand why this isn't an option in today's tech world...
KIds today think 1080p is ancient technology. Thats totally fine with me. Ive been using 1080 for a decade now, never have i ever felt i needed more. The human eye will only tell the difference if you make it notice it, but if youre a casual gamer, playing at 4k dont mean shi*.. Just enjoy the game, not the damn monitor lol
Your demonstration/comparison was very concise and clear. I'm about to buy a new monitor...your video really helped me to prioritize value/price vs. specs. . Thanks!
I started with 21.5” 1080p then moved to 30” 1600p and loved it. The screen real estate was so engaging but still looked blurry. Now I’m on 27” 4K and it’s amazing, I was concerned about text and menus being small but 150% Windows 11 scaling is perfect. I can easily tell the clarity difference in games, and DLSS makes 4K gaming achievable. I still think I can detect the pixels but 8K 27” has a while to go lol.
If it's still blurry, adjust the blue light, black light, and the sharpness. My games look better on my 1080p monitor than my 4K smart TV. Also helps that it runs at 120fps now as well. Beautiful.
I have two 27 inch monitors - one for games 1440p 165Hz and the second one for work 4K 60Hz. Since I use the 4K one without scaling, in 1440p things started looking a little on the big side, although I think that's a good combination :D
I'm thinking of buying a 4k monitor but I don't know if 28 inches is the correct size, everyone says 32 inches because 28 would show a lack of density, I hope you can help me
@@lacantinadelgamer If anything, smaller screen would be the more dense one. I'd say it depends, if you sit very close, I'd get the 28 inch one. If it's your only monitor and you sit a bit further from it, get the 32 inch one.
The comparison isn't all that fair when you have a 5x more expensive 4k vs the 1080p. Don't buy the wrong resolution? For the 4k monitor price you can buy the 1080p monitor plus a good complete system. Now if they were close, like 10-20% off in price difference between them, it would be a fair title to say "don't buy the wrong reslution" because what's 250 euro and what's 300e
Great information, thank you! I‘ll be buying a new one in the next few months because mine is just outdated. If I had to guess, I‘d say it’s at least close to 10 years old. It still runs fine, but my old eyes get tired quickly. I have found that a lightbar is amazing. I recently go a Yeelight Pro, it’s really useful. Don’t know if you‘ve done any reviews on those. Thanks again, I just subscribed to your channel. We could use more quality UA-camrs like you. No bullshit and high quality information!
Just make sure your computer can handle the change, it not only need to be able to do 4 at a higher framerate but it also needs to stay stable while doing so, even my 4070ti has issues with my 4k
Thank you for this video. Could you please suggest a decent 24" 1440p at least 144 Hz, IPS gaming monitor? As it would be the best screen size and resolution for me without over spending.
I got 2 24" 1080p monitors. One is 144hz, the orher is 75hz. They both serve my needs and look amazing. Id say theyre probably half a metre away from me when I'm sitting at my desk. The jump to 1440p is quite big in Canada, but if i ever have to update one of my monitors, id obviously get rid of my 75hz monitor and buy a 1440p to use as my gaming monitor 😅
You have to think about your applications when choosing a monitor resolution. 4K may be great for youtube and gaming, but a ton of other apps will be unreasonably small and often you can’t adjust them either at all, or enough to make them readable. 1440p can have the same problem. It is better to use a 1080p monitor for the best possible compatibility for the vast majority of people.
Thanks. Even though I'll buy my new PC only in 5-6 months it's really useful to have at least some basic knowledge (although I am a bit more torn between wide 1440 and faster refresh 1440, as I don't care about competitive games)
@@Dark_HumourYT yeah but might as well wait for oled then. A 2k 27inch ips panel is the sweet spot for now i think till 4k 27 inch oled become affordable.
@@Dark_HumourYT "Future proof" is such an overused buzzword. It was a thing when I first got into hardware back in 2016, still a thing today that just means "get the best and most expensive". It barely works in regards to your PC hardware when the mid-range works just as good nearly a decade later, and budget would still be viable in the same time frame, the expensive option you'd still be replacing around the same time. When it comes to your monitor, 4k is moreso "past proofing" since modern games on modern hardware have never been able to perform 4k as good as 1440p, never as good as 1080p. But years later on better hardware, you can play past games on 4k and actually make use of the 144hz if you happened to actually afford that amount. 1440p is a good sweetspot with no compromises, and if I really need to burn that difference between 2k and 4k, I'd might as well spend it elsewhere
@@Dark_HumourYT well tbh there's no such thing as future proof. Just buy a damn 4k 27in in the future. it's gonna cost left few years down the road anyways
@@dougieartstudios3930 I don’t like the use of future proof because hardware surpasses the the “best hardware” very fast. But monitors are different to gpus and CPUs etc. 4K is gonna be great for a few years easily, mainly because 1080p it’s still fine. So it’s not really future proofing, more just “respectable hardware for a good period of time”
Im here to get some recommendations of changing monitor form 1080 to 1440 or 4k in 2024. Btw, wtf was that 9:58. My setting is 12400 3080 and 32G 3200 RAM. I can just only run around 330 fps in low image quality😢. -It is time to change my pc to 9800X3D and 5090-
I'm using 23.8 inch 2k monitor and approximately 65 centimeters away from me netting 58 PPD with Vega stand and top of the monitor standing just a little bit above at my horizontal eye level. That way with my blue light filtered prescripted glasses, I achieve as optimum as possible to retina display with minimal chances of eye strain on long sessions and I try to give breaks every 20 minutes.
Actually in my case a 4k display was cheaper than a 1440p one bc it's a display for creativity and not gaming, wheras 1440p's are all "gaming" with low response times and hogh refresh rates
For two 1080p monitors, if you place a 24" at 50cm, you'll need to place a 27" at 57cm (13% further). So 27" is not that bad if you already find using 24" 1080p fine. (13% btw is from comparing the distance at which both displays will be 60 PPD, 27" is 107cm and 23.8" is 94.3cm.) Also, what if I want to sit further from the screen? I find 50cm exhausting, and if I'm happy with 24" 1080p, then 27" 1080p is better for me because it will be the same resolution and FOV at a further distance.
1080p is *_more than enough_* if you don't directly compare _(especially if you're in the 21-24" range, works fine for 27" as well if you're not actively looking for pixels)._ If you're a gamer: go for 144hz~ or higher refresh rate and 1ms or lower response time. High pixel count on a monitor is like good graphics in a game...if that's the main selling point, you'll regret buying it after getting accustomed to the visuals _(also if your pc can't handle them, enjoy the lag)._
"Don’t Buy the Wrong Resolution" This is so very true. Your decision on resolution will dictate so many things. I feel the first thing one should consider is their desk size and how far the display will be positioned from the viewer. From there I feel one can decide what's appropriate for them with regard to resolution vs desired frame rate. For example, in my personal situation, I couldn't have a 32" monitor due to the deepness of my desk. My monitor would be sitting closer to me. The 27" was ideal for my desk size and distance. And for that monitor size/distance, I felt 1440p the ideal resolution. From there, I decided I had the budget for extras, such as HDR, 240 Hz, G-Sync, etc.
I couldn't even have 27" monitors lol My 3 23" monitors allready take up a lot of space and for productivity it is better to have a few small monitors then one large one you have to split up I think resolution and just pushing more pixels is honestly kinda overrated
Really, really good explanation. Thanks!i On a sidenote: you should try the difference between 1080p and 4K on a >= 32" screen. I got a 43" and for screens that big, 4K is a must (1080p just gives you blocky image). In fact, on a screen that big, 4K seems like 1080p on
Thanks for info. I knew it sortoff from experience without thinking about it. But now it makes sense. I have a small screen laptop with 1080p and it looks perfect. I've tried 27inch with 1080p and it was disgusting. It's like back to my first pc which was horrible
i ordered a 1080p monitor a few years ago, but there were some problems with the delivery. so i put some pressure on the store and they geve me the same monitor but the 1440p version of the monitor! best day of my life.
I have a 23,4" 1080p 120 Hz monitor since 2010. There is no problem with the pixels from a normal distance! The picture is perfect! They telling you to buy expensive tech. In this size the 1080p is good enough!
Thought that was a pretty good video. 4K looks fantastic but for gaming 144Hz screen refresh rate and of course the GPU/CPU to drive games to that sort of FPS is more important for overall experience. It's still either impossible or ridiculously expensive to buy a 27" 4K screen, a GPU and a CPU that can run a high production value game at reliably 100+ FPS. A medium high end rig can do this on a good 27" 1440p 144Hz monitor easily however - at a reasonable price. 1440p seems to remain the sweet spot. If you're happy to play at 30-50 FPS, OK, maybe go for 4K. When a top quality sub-$700 144Hz 4K 27/29" monitor materialises time to check again if new GPUs and CPUs are actually available that are capable of driving it for less than the price of a small family car. Right now there isn't and they can't. Until then I'm sticking at 1440p.
Wouldn’t say it’s impossible but expensive yes, i’m going to probably go the 4K 144hz route this time around except with a 32 inch monitor, and do a full rebuild. There are alternative options though, when I built my $4000 build in 2019 with a i9-9900K and Strix 2080ti I just did no interest financing on all the parts, that’s an easy way to just pay it all off over a few months or a year. I’ll probably be doing the same now with a 13900K and a 4090, just going to wait for PCIe gen 5 NVMe drives first and ATX 3.0 psu’s.
Very simple, for gaming buy only 1080p monitors. Only if you are super rich, you buy higher then that. Gpu's are super expensive now. You have to get a morgage to buy a gpu in 10 years.
I have an 144Hz 1440p 27" IPS monitor. I think its a big upgrade to a 24" 1080p. 92vs 109 ppi are really noticeable. I think I've made the right choice because the monitor was only 300€. I really like your video. Its very helpful. There is a small mistake: I think you are talking about UHD and not 4K. 4K is 4096x2304. UHD is 3840x2160. ---- Ich habe ein 1440p 144Hz IPS 27". Ich bin super zufrieden damit. Das Bild ist deutlich klarer als bei mein alten 1080p 24". Zudem läuft der mit alten Grafikkarten auch in 144Hz und das Teil kostete bloß 300€. Super hilfreiches Video. Vielleich in 1-2 Jahren wechsel ich zum UHD. Eins muss ich anmerken: Ich denke du meintest UHD Monitore und keine 4K Monitore. 4K sind nämlich 4096x2304 und UHD 3840x2160.
UHD is also called 4k. The other 4k your are talking (also called DCI 4k which is 4096x2160)) about has something to do with cinema, which uses a slightly wider format. When talking about monitors and TV's 4k is UHH.
PPI as you mention is the real crucial number, but whilst 60cm distance to screen is probably more normal for typing/editing, don't forgot about input device. Not every PC gamer uses KBM, I often play games using a controller and tend to kick back around 1m from my screen so a 24 1080p looks fine, especially in reasonably fast moving games where absolute details doesn't matter as much. The other issue with 1440p is they don't scale with anything else, at least with 4k it's a direct factor of 1080p and you can just scale accordingly, so if you're playing a single player game, watching a movie or doing editing you can use native 4k but if you need frames you can adjust settings to 1080p.
This video is so helpful, thanks! I was worried I’d made a mistake buying a 32” 1440p instead of a 4k. But I actually sit about 120cm away from the screen on a couch, playing ps5 mostly, so the PPD calculator was reassuring.
Ive been wanting to go up to a 32" IPS (maybe curved) from my 27" TN but every year goes by and I can never find the will to justify spending 3-600 just for a bit more size and better colors when my dell s2716dg is still going strong. I honestly wish I could move up to 4k but my 3070 doesnt really have the horse power for that and I dont have loads of cash laying around to buy a monitor just for cinematic/single player games.
![Monitor Buying Guide - What You NEED to Know! [2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ptUchraop3c/mqdefault.jpg)
I've used 24 inch 1080p monitors for about a decade and it looks absolutely fine when you're used to it. I got to take a look at a 1440p monitor once and it kinda ruined 1080p for me for a while but luckily the mind forgets 😁
Thanks to technologies like DLSS and FSR getting high fps on 1440p and 4K monitors is quite achievable these days so it might be time to upgrade soon.
I have a 22inch 1080P monitor and wish it was 1440P... I specially like FPS simulators and a lot of fights are at a good range and I'm just glued close to the screen trying to see which crappy pixels move in the screen to start shooting at them, it's far from crystal clear😁
Anyway nothing like high ppi screens like on phones, they look like crystal😮😎
Also I hate Vaseline in my eyes, so DLSS and FSR for me is pointless since even on the highest quality it looks pretty bad for a output of only 1080P making 0 improvement at all for my old crap GPU in terms of performance while they seem to be amazing the higher the resolution output as the rendering resolution will also be higher.
it doesn't matter 1440p and 480p is the same in retina distance. Try to invest more in higher refresh rate monitor. If you're too reluctant to throw your cash out, just buy a oled panel.
@@guily6669 FSR 1.0 is pretty crap most of the time but DLSS is actually really good in most titles. Probably not worth it on 1080p in most games but for example in Warzone even at 1080p DLSS improves visibility and sharpness greatly over native res and the blurry filmic anti-aliasing they force you to use if you don't want to see jagged edges flickering all over your screen.
@@Remu- I actually disable AA on all games that allow cause I don't even stand the blur that comes with it, I really like things super sharp, hell my monitor sharpness is set to 100%, but it's not too over blown cause the LCD settings of it don't allow it.
On the games where DLSS give extra sharpness compared to the original Res is nice, but most get softer like AA and all FSR games I tried at my 1080P display I didn't like a single one, they all looked like anything lower than 1080P which defeats the whole purpose...
@@guily6669 Damn that's kinda crazy. I could never play without AA. Especially in games where you need to see far. Without AA you can't see people moving because everything is moving on your screen.
For everything monitors related, out of all the possible informational content out their regarding them, be it youtube reviewers, blogs or reddit posts, i trust this guy the most! Hands down the most inforative channel for monitors atleast.
Really, never heard of Hardware unboxed, RTings, PCmonitors or TFT Central. Give me a break 🤦.
@@theoldpcgamer77 He’s just complimenting the dude 😒
@@henrivm3559
As a former calibrator and someone who has seen every monitor and tv type I see all kinds of bullshite videos saying this and that. The OP saying he is the best makes me comment.
@@theoldpcgamer77 some people just wanna be nice
@@henrivm3559
Yeah but compliment someone who knows what they are talking about at least. It must be a young person thing like saying congrats you came 3rd in a marathon. To me that is a loser but these days give them a medal and pretend they aren't 3rd rate. Wrong is wrong and loser is loser but yeah woke kids these days 🤦.
in my opinion:
24" 1080p
27" 1440p
32" 2160p
what about 25"?
24 is way too small
i asked for 25”
@@nickomon14 porbably 1440 or 1080 anyways why you even ask 1440 will be better on 25 but 1080 wont be so bad
1440p is a blurry mess on laptops. It will give you headache on 24 inch monitor because of the large pixels. 4k on 24 inch and 8k on 27 inch monitors.
Since this is focused on gaming, I want to point out that even ignoring the FPS drop, games are not actually the most demanding in terms of needing high PPI. Video games graphics consist of a lot of smooth gradients (think a wall with a texture on it) and blurred areas, without too many hard edges, and most objects will occupy more than a few pixels on the screen. Because of that, they are more tolerant to a lower resolution and will still look ok if there are good anti-aliasing applied. What actually will benefit the most from a high PPI display is ironically things like very text-heavy applications, like coding / web browsing / productivity tools, because the dense information conveyed by texts or complicated UI rely on the small fonts' edges being drawn correctly without being blurred or aliased.
Speaking on the FPS drop though, I think with the advent on super-sampling techniques like DLSS, it may start to become a more moot point in near future. DLSS and friends cannot magically make an upsampled 4K (e.g. from 1080p) image looks like native 4K, but it will still definitely look much better than just the 1080p image itself. Given that the performance cost of DLSS is relatively low, we may start seeing a lot of bang for the buck in upgrading your monitor's resolution without losing too much frame rate.
But it's definitely true that high refresh rate monitors will usually have lower resolution though.
Somebody show me a 32" 8K monitor! or a 40" 10K Super Ultra Wide 99%DCI-P3, 4000:1 contrast, 2000nits, VESA DisplayHDR 1000, 240Hz Thunderbolt4, 3×HDMI2.1, 3×USB4 Type C
Somebody show me a graphics card with 32GB GDDR7 VRAM put a combination of piezoelectric solid state fans and water cooling on it.
@@SpaceCaseZ06 why?
@@SpaceCaseZ06Jesus GDDR7 I still can't get 6X vram from AMD😭
@@SpaceCaseZ06The 32 GB GDDR7 is coming this January with 5090😂
Great job on the spreadsheet! With the distance calculation and the way you did your formulas, I was able to easily modify it for my question about smaller displays. Thanks!!!
Got a 27" 4k monitor 6 years ago, can't use anything with less resolution now. Insane text clarity for someone who spends the entire day looking at text, also had some impressive health side-effects for me, I almost don't need to take painkillers for migraine/headache after a long day working in front of my PC, before it was a daily thing.
Same here. If you spend your life looking at a screen, "retina level" resolution is a must. I have a 4K DELL U2718Q. Bigger screen and I'd need a 6K / 8K resolution.
I feel that way about my 24" 4K monitor (Asus MG24UQ), I can't stand the lower DPI of other monitors now. As a software dev reading text all day is so much easier on the eyes with that level of clarity.
what were you like 10 inch from the monitor? I mean you're right for text and work 4k is king.. When it comes to gaming however.. it's not much worth it, a very little visual improvement and a big performance drop, often you're forced to compensate with dlss or similar which have their own downsides. Or of course, you can just buy new graphics card every 2 years, thats a way to solve performance issues, if the game is optimized well that is
i thought the same after using a bunch of different 4K monitors (back then the XG27UGR, M32U, 27GP950 and now 27GR93U)
i went back to 1440p. it looked awful but a week later i was completely used to it again.
I’m accidentally gonna upgrade to 4K from 1440p later on today. I was looking into getting an Asus pg279q but instead I’m getting the pg27aq which is the 4K version of this monitor. Oh well I guess I hope my graphics card can handle it :,)
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, and probably not the last. But I just wanted to mention the incredible quality of your videos. You put so much effort into these videos, and the editing and time really pays off. Breaks my heart to see this channel at 30k subs but I've been with you since 10k and I'll be with you all the way to 1mill subs and more!!
Keep up the grind, it's really going to pay off man. Have a good day!
Thanks man! Really appreciate it 🙂
@@techlessYT I feel like most creators on youtube focus on less in depth reviews but they make many more of them.
@@adrs8235 yeah, it's so heartwarming to see quality over quantity content when it's generally hard to find these days.
Text rendering for SURE benefits from an overkill on resolution beyond just "can i see the pixels". Because text layout engines for display purposes will align the glyphs either on pixel edges or on third-pixel edges horizontally, and on pixel edges vertically, and this can distort the kerning and the overall cadence of the text significantly. By getting more alignment resolution, you can get a more natural, easier to read flow of text, more similar to print.
Though i would say text rendering needs to be rethought; we have resolutions high enough and gammas consistent enough to where we can just lay out text pixel grid independently and just take a little resulting blurriness as a penalty, for better text flow. Ultimately all people see things a little differently, we should be given more of a choice. But currently, not even text rendering method is consistent between different software running on the same operating system! Windows software could use DirectWrite, GDI+, or any number of frameworks with different text shaping opinions, and yes i actually find it scandalous that Microsoft isn't about to make their own frameworks of different eras behave the same, they apparently just seal the legacy behaviour in. There's also really several different copies of ClearType tuning value sets which work or don't depending on software, fun!
I had used MacType in the past to similar effect, but found it flaky and burdensome back in the day. I might redeploy it again.
4k is definitely well outside the budget for me, as attractive as it is for text rendering.
I would say that working with text also benefits a lot from high refresh rate (120Hz, not necessarily higher) and from consistent transitions where neither black-to-white nor white-to-black has more stickiness than the other, particularly when you scroll a lot, working with large amounts of text.
Thank you for this analysis, I am reading it a few times.
Just use True-Type fonts. It's not rocket science.
@@kiillabytez Truetype was developed for two purposes, low resolution monochrome displays, and for high resolution monochrome print. The practices from the display rendering being carried forward into the modern era are part of the issue.
Non pixel aligned rendering has its own issues due to gamma mismatch.
Saying "not rocket science" is peak Dunning-Kruger.
@@SianaGearz Last time Windows ran on monochrome was windows 3.0 What are you smoking? True-type is used on CURRENT OSs. Remember, it's 2024. Fact checking is but a keystroke away.
Great overview. Thank you. I will be segueing to a 27" 1440p screen from my current 24: 1080p thanks to this video.
I was still using a 24" monitor I've been using for over 11 years. I bought my first high def monitor last week and I LOVE it. I had no idea what a difference a monitor makes, I didn't have a lot to spend so got the cheaper monitor that people were saying was good. I bought the Gigabyte M32Q 2K
you probably had an CCFL backlight monitor* ,the problem wasn't that it wasn't a bad model...it just aged, same thing happened to one of my monitors after daily use for 11 years.
* -> "Like most fluorescent lights, as the fluorescent tubes age, their output usually diminishes slowly"
yes, i upgraded to a philips 4k monitor with a 6700 xt and love it! i don't play many games anymore and stream more video than anything else. so turning down (slightly) settings for game play to keep the fps between 55-60 was an easy choice. the monitor is only 60 hertz so i'm happy with the $700 upgrade.
Yeah I have 1440p 24" inch monitor too and I'm pretty happy with it still even though its like 5 years old and only 60 hertz. I think 1080p just looks like shit without some really good AA, and the amount of power you need to drive 4k just isn't worth it, imo.
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa it'll take a bit to get used to but you'll find that most people can't go back to a smaller screen. now i had a pixio 27" for a few years(1440p) and loved it. then switching to a 28" 4k was nothing. switching res is worse than switching size. if you do both it'll take a while to adjust!
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa i came from 15 inch 320x240, to 17 inch 1024x768, to 24 inch 1920x1080, i have place for 35 inch monitor to see movies at 1.5 meters. Where can i find the calculator : distance / ppd ?
Sponsor mention without going away from the main point of the whole video was just genious. I typically fast forward those but here it contained desired content, just genious!
What do you mean genious?
If you plan on playing games where reaction speed is a factor you also need to consider the monitors input delay in addition to the refresh rate. 1080p monitors not only have the fastest refresh rates they also have the least input delay, so i think it's safe to say that 1080p monitors will stick around for awhile yet. 1440p monitors are getting there but if you want a 1440p monitor with low input delay and a high refresh rate it's going to cost you as you will be buying from the higher end.
I don't think there's any 4k or any ultra wide monitor on the market that a serious esports professional would consider using since the input delay will be higher and the refresh rates lower. They are obviously great when you want to create an immersive experience but they will disadvantage you on the leaderboards. People are not playing games seriously on 4k TVs for a reason.
It's not just refresh rate of the screen, but also the pixels.
For most people, any monitor will be below the perceptible difference in input lag unless you're actually a competitive gamer
Yeah, its not about fps or g2g times or refresh rate. Resolution and note ALSO monitor size has a huge effect on input lag, 1440p and/or 32 inches vs 1080p and/or 24 inches the difference is really big. This is why pros still run 24-27 inch 1080p monitors. I had to go back to 27 inch 1080p monitor after trying various monitors over 28 inches and 1440p resolution.
By that logic then would 720p run even faster?
I have a 4K 250Hz monitor. It's OLED and its great for competitive games.
I upgraded recently from a MSI 24 inch 1080p 144hz screen to a Dell 27 Inch 1440p 165hz screen, and I cant go back to Full HD anymore, while the difference in number from 1080 lines to 1440 lines is somewhat small, the pixel count is 77% larger, and the image quality is miles better.
Great job with the video!
I completely agree, the actual numbers that matter are the PPD (pixels per degree). Pixels per inch (PPI) is not a useful measure, but it is given by manufacturers as they don't care to tell us at what distance we should use the screens. PPI is a device-specific measure, but PPD is what gives you the visual acuity.
So, I checked my devices. For my phone, I measured a viewing distance of about 13" . As it has a screen that is 2.7" by 5.75" at 411 PPI, I calculated that I'm using it with 90 PPD. Definitely "retina quality" as I don't see any pixelation. For my 13" laptop, viewing it at at an average distance of 22", I get 107 PPD since the laptop has a stupidly high quality, 3000x2000 screen. I had a Mac before with a 60 PPD and as expected, I didn't find any pixelation on that laptop either. For desktop monitors, I have one 32" 1440p at work and one 32" 1080p at home. For both, I sit at 32" away. This works great for me because I can have two letter sized documents one above the other on my desk w/o hitting the monitor, plus some room to spare so I don't have to sit glued to the desk. The 32" monitors were chosen so that I can have two Word documents side by side on the screen. So... with this geometry, the 1440p gives me 56 PPD (basically a borderline retina display quality) whereas the 1080p only 42 PPD. Yes, I definitely see some pixelation on the 1080p, but when I'm at home I usually recline further back from the 1080p so the PPD increases (at the expense of the reduction of the field of vision). I have 20/20 vision at short distance and I cannot see any pixelation on a 1440p, 32" monitor if I sit at 32" away (as expected). If you're a teen with eagle eyes, you might, if you have better than 20/20 vision.
So for me, a 1440p monitor with a 32" diagonal viewed at 32" away is enough as it provides a good enough field of vison of about 46 degrees with 56 PPD. Instead of spending a lot more on a 4K monitor, I would rather get a 1440p with a high refresh rate. Now, if you play racing games and first person shooters and want a more immersive experience by increasing the field of vision to something like 60 degrees, a wider screen monitor that keeps the same PPD is better (not necessarily a 4K, but an ultrawide 3440x1440). You do not need 4K for peripheral vision, as human vision acuity is not good enough past 20 deg to see any difference between 2K and 4K or even 1080p. I play Civilization 6 and rarely some chill city building games and for those, the field of vision is not important at all (I don't have to react quickly to fast changing details in the peripheral vision).
thank you. this was a really informative read. better than what most youtubers put out.
PPI is just as useful. You just need to understand what distances are best for each value.
Everybody uses their monitor at different distances. That's why a device-specific measure is more useful. A few problems I can think of:
1. It is easier to compare with different monitors since people usually use their monitor at a certain preferred distance. Like phones would tell you the screen size, not a degree size at a certain arm length.
2. Screens are not spherical so it is ambiguous to define PPD for every monitor.
3. If they use PPD then naturally they would inflate the "recommended viewing distance" to increase the PPD number to make it seem sharper than it actually is.
4. To combat this, they would have to list the viewing distance so that you could compare with your own. At this point you might as well use DPI since you probably are already familiar with how far you personally are going to view the monitor from.
Not saying I disagree with anything you said but everytime someone says something along the lines of "the human x/y/z can't tell a difference between this or that" it always comes back to bite them in the ass
PPD would depend on each person's viewing distance so you need to calculate it yourself. For example, I think I sit much closer than 32" for my desk monitor. I also have a 32" monitor but in 4K (138 PPI), and maybe because of the closer viewing distance I actually find it a little blurry compared to my laptop (a 14" MacBook Pro with 254 PPI).
Part of it also depends on what your eyes are used to. It's not like I can explicitly see individual pixels on a 32" 4K monitor, but if you are used to a higher pixel density, switching back and forth can make the image just feels a tad bit blurry.
One thing to note is that TAA - which is a common modern anti-aliasing solution these days makes lower resolutions look even worse as it affects the entire image quality not just aliasing and it is very reliant on pixels. At lower resolutions it will smear stuff together just to prevent jaggies from appearing.
Make sure in your tests this option is disabled, if their is no anti-aliasing type option or off that means the game forces it and should be discounted from testing. Just a quick tip
I hate TAA so much
Me too. I personally prefer no AA in games and hate it when it’s not an option.
TAA's pretty bad. DLSS2 is the first AA I didn't hate.
unfortunately, its absolutely mandatory for good image quality in almost every DX12 game, because transparency effects depend on it. turning off TAA usually results in modern games, in turning everything into a dithered mass of triangles.
Thats why I prefer 4K and no antialiasing (or mild AA settings). It looks better, more crisp and not blurred, than aggressive AA settings in lower resolution. Difference in resolution especially noticeable on thin lines (like wires) and mesh-like textures.
4k is great for productivity tasks though. For gaming, you can just use the scaling option almost all modern games provide or even just use 1080p, as it's exactly 4 pixels of the monitor for every pixel of the image. However, in my experience, upscaling gives a big quality improvement with almost no performance hit.
27" 2500х1600 is much better than any size 4k
@@ollivgv Why?
@@ezakustam1440p 27 inch is also perfect for productivity.
Using 1080p resolution on a 4K monitor will look like crap. If you can't afford a 4K monitor and a good gaming setup, just stick with 1080p or 1440p.
@@challenger516 depends on a distance between you and monitor. I play on Xbox Series S (1080p/1440p) on 4K TV, the distance is like 2.5-3 meters and it looks fine.
Personally I prefer refresh rate more than resolution in gaming, and I am very happy with my 1440p display. Also work runs pretty smooth on it, and I never felt the urge to swap to 4k sharper text. At last costs for energy are rising, and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days.
imo 1440p looks just as good as 4k in most situations anyway and the performance gains are huge when you downgrade. I feel like high refresh rate 1440p is just the sweet spot right now
Have u gamed on a 4k monitor tho? It looks so much better not only for gaming but for regular computer tasks, watching UA-cam videos, netflix etc. U can just use DLSS performance and u get same performance as 1440p if u really have to and it will still look better than 1440p native
_"...and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days."_
So you just can't afford a modern monitor.
720p moniter users 🪦
*monitor
And where would anyone even find a 1280x720 monitor?
@@GrainGrownThe dark side of the Internet is a way to Many abilities some would consider unnatural
+people who bought one when they were new
@@tomaszzalewski4541 So what monitor(s) do you have?
@@GrainGrown 480i 💀.
@@GrainGrown 480i is the video mode used for standard-definition digital video in certain countries.
Excellent explanation and proof of what is useful and how we should decide on the basis of what we really need. Not just "bigger numbers = better".
But I see that most only decide on basis of highest refresh rate, not picture quality.
My concern is that while vector graphics (like text) can scale freely, and many modern games are made for 4K, lots of legacy content was designed for 72dpi. When viewing those kinds of content, something's got to upscale the image in an elegant way.
That's why it's literally impossible to play any Source game in 8k, though that's not an issue for a long time.
This is a truly well produced and informative video. I now have a thorough understanding of the give and take implications to be considered when selecting monitors. Very well done and highly recommended.
I've been dailying a 27" 144hz 1080p monitor for 3 years now. When I got it I thought the sharpness of it was amazing. Now... not so much. A few days ago I bought a 32" curved 1440p 144hz monitor for my sim racing rig, and even that isn't as sharp as I thought it would be. But, I still went for it because if I'd gone for a 4K monitor I'd have had to upgrade my PC as well and that would've completely blown my budget. So, in conclusion, I completely agree with your conclusion.
I see the Optimum Tech inspiration in both your editing style, lighting choice, script and content. Love it! We need more youtubers like you guys:)
lol that's what i was thinking as soon as I clicked on the video
Really informative spreadsheet to help me decide whether to get a 4k 27" or a 4k 32" inch. Knowing that the 4K 32" is comparable to Apple Retina resolution pretty much decided for me.
I think their "retina" definition has changed or they're considering a different distance for the PPD calculation for desktop monitors, where they seem to aim for ~220 PPI
LG Ultrafine "true" 4K at 21.5" - 219 PPI
Apple 27" 5K display - 218 PPI
Too bad about the discontinued 21.5" LG, the 24" 4K is 189 PPI and I could tell some difference vs the 218 PPI (I owned both)
You could easily notice a BIG difference even with the 24" 189 PPI vs 32"
Actually i'm thinking in that way like small screen size high resolution 🤔 and I see your reply.
Tell me 24 inch 1440p 75hz is good enough for 40~45cm viewing distance?
I have dual 4k 32" monitors at work (Windows 10). There are issues with certain apps that are designed for 1080p (ie, they don't scale relative to the 4k screen). I've had blackouts playing videos. You would think 4k is fully supported, but it's not. It's still in the early adopter phase.
I’ve noticed same issue when it comes to TV as with monitors. The tech is developing faster than developers and the industries can keep up. Most tv stations broadcast still in 720p and we have 8k and 16k right around the corner.
I got a LG 4k tv
My favourite is 1440p 27" currently. The problem I have with 4k right now is that you will have to use windows scaling to read and use stuff. This feature is still nowhere near a perfect state. Especially as many websites for example and even windows itself can't handle scaling and will either not scale everything or will scale it and make it blurry. Until this is fixed I will stick to native resolutions in windows and for 27", 1440p is perfect.
A very good point here, in a couple of years when almost all programs and windows itself are more scaling ready and graphics card are more powerful to drive 4k graphics, then will indeed 4k monitors be mainstream and recommended.
Very true and important point that is often not considered by many people. For my desk 27 seems large as I am sitting close to the monitor, so I still use FHD 23.8 screen.
Would dual 1440p 27'' Monitors be recommended for gaming or would you suggest: primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
@@Mangotunde Depends how you want to use the PC. If your second monitor is 1080p and your main is 1440p you will notice that all elements on the screen will be differently scaled when you move stuff from one monitor to the other. But you would only need one 1440p monitor for better quality for gaming. 2 identical monitors are just more consistent but not needed.
@@Mangotunde That is what I have. Mainlt because I could not be bothered buying 2 1440p monitors when I only use 1 for games.
1080p one is secondary for secondary tasks like web surfing and youtube
Honestly, I've never had a content creator who gave me a damn good reason to watch an ad. Your segway into the ad while leaving us to compare monitors at the 3:50 mark was genius. Kudos.
I'm waiting for the arrival of 24" 1440p gaming monitors
Kinda surprised they don't already exist. Sacrifice screen size for sharper resolution. It'll definitely fill a niche.
А смысл, если оннеся его на 5-10см от глаз 27 будут смотреться одинаково?
Same here 😥😥
Same!
my dell s2417dg 1440 is 24 inches?
Thanks for this video, it informative. More people need to understand the differences between resolution and display size. Pixel density is the metric you should consider when choosing a display. Your video does a good job explaining this for people who haven't considered the relationship between screen size and viewing distance. I think 1440P is the sweet spot resolution wise on a 27 inch display. I'm sure a 4K 27 inch monitor looks super sharp but, you will be paying the price in performance to drive all those pixels. Display scaling for 4K displays comes into play as well. I don't think Windows or MacOS really do a great job with display scaling. MacOS only really works well at 110'ish PPI or at 220 PPI. If your pixel density is somewhere in between, say 150 PPI, your experience is going to be less than ideal.
Windows display scales well enough. Haven't had a problem with that on my 4k 27inch monitor, but others may disagree
hey man, ive been playing games on a 4k monitor and it doesnt give much performance,it has 60hz. Should i buy a 1080p monitor with much more hz and for better performance?
@@texfusomewhere I read that 2k 144hz > 4k 60hz
only macos scaling is shitty. On windows, scaling is fine as a normal user (normal being not a graphics designer or sth)
I actually prefer the pixel density of 1080p on 27' panels. It has a lot to do with UI scaling. A lot of small text in programs cannot be scaled and even on a 23 inch 1080p display its difficult to comfortably read without pulling your head closer to the display. The 27 inch display at 1080p makes it a lot easier to read, having a 4K 27inch display is absolutely horrendous when you are trying to read 10 point font in programs that have no scaling options for higher resolutions.
Which programs? I guess you could always run 1080p when you use that programs and the switch to 4k otherwise
How though? The text may be larger but it's more fuzzy and less sharp. I have a 24in 1080p va monitor 60hz and just bought a 27in 1080p va monitor 165hz to replace it. I put them side by side and its very obvious that at 1080p 27inches you lose quite a lot of clarity. At least at 24 inches the image is very clear and the finder details are distinguishable. The same can't be said with the 27in.
If you play any pixel heavy games like MOBAS, then the pixel density is much more important and 1080p on a 27 inch would drive u insane. It all depends on your computer needs.
What do you think about 32" in a 1080p monitor 240hz, for gaming??
lol BS. Also a dumb reason, in windows you can select between 100-200% scaling. There are very few applications and games which don't scale, and the one or two I've run into (all older games) would not make it worth the fidelity sacrifice in 99.9999% of the rest of usage.
As someone who plays exclusively at 4k 60fps since may 2013 and 4k 144fps since 2017, I cant go back to 1440p and 1080p. The visual difference is very extreme to the trained eye. I would personally go 21,5 1080p, 24 1440p and 27 4k. The PPI is extremely important with AA and shimmering.
People who say 27 is too small for 4k and there is not much difference drank the kool-aid,i would gladly buy an updated version of the dell 28 8k if they released one.
@@Kevin-fl7mj i use a 27" 4K monitor and i can still see the pixels if i get just 10cm closer to my normal position, to me 4K with bigger screen starts to lose it’s magic because i’ll start seeing the pixels again, i have a 55" 4K TV and i can tell it looks nowhere as crisp as 27" 4K, it looks almost like my 1080p 24", to me i feel like 27" 4K really is the sweet spot for that resolution because of the ”looking trough a window rather than a screen” feeling it gives. Even like 2 years after buying it i still often catch myself stopping mid game just to appreciate how good it looks. And i can agree to the first comment above that i absolutely can’t go back to 1440p, even less 1080p, as i will instantly notice the pixels and lose that magical window like effect. Now sure i could probably still notice the difference between a 4K 27" and let’s say 8K 27", but in my opinion the price difference would be way too big for the very small difference i’d notice, so imo for peak quality gaming, 4K 27" is the perfect spot, if you have the money for it and the hardware to support it. Nonetheless i’d wish anyone if not able to afford it could at take a look at it from a gaming store or a friend who has it just for the experience, as it is really worth trying and experiencing, really shows you how crazy far technology has come to and makes you appreciate what quality we are able to reproduce nowadays on an electronic square with moving images.
@@pandora8835 Spot on! You described perfectly what i mean when i tell people what high PPI actually does to immersion,same applies when you listen to HI-FI audio gear and just listen to the music,not the gear.
That's why we are poor bruh!
I personally like the Asus VG27AQ, mostly because it is an 1440p resoulution with 165 hz, and IPS panel. It also supports G-Sync and amd freesync with 0.4 ms latency. And it doesnt have an anoying monitor stand that fills half the table, its a simple square that takes about 30x30 centimeters. It is also available with TN panel(VG27BQ) instead of IPS panel(VG27BQ). Sure 4k would look even better but the price difference is just ridiculous. Just for reference I can buy 4 asus VG27AQ for the price of 1 4k 165hz monitor. It is just insane... The only minus I would say about the VG27AQ and VG27BQ is that the power supply is not built-in the monitor and therefore the cable is a bit anoying on that part, mostly because of the power supply being on the cable and not in the screen. Hope this helps anyone, I did a lot of research before choosing my ideal monitor, and for the price this is just the best monitor on the market as of 2021-2022.
Just yesterday I bought that same Asus VG27AQ, to replace my previous LG 27” 1080P 75Hz, the difference has been abysmal, I am still in shock with the level of detail and sharpness that I have gained in both office tasks and games, and the level of exquisite fluidity for 165hz, I will never be able to return to 1080p again. Very happy!
Absolutely love German reviewers because they are extremely thorough. Great vid , subbed.
The main drawback I see with a big screen is having to sit further back to see everything, and lying in the hope that your old programs have options to greatly increase text size. For resolutions of 1440p of roughly the same standard 16-9 ratio, A 24 inch monitor translates roughly to 122ppi, A 27 inch monitor to 108ppi, a 32inch to 91ppi. I can see the pixels on this old 16 inch 1366x768p capable laptop, which translates to just 97ppi. The gain in switching to a desktop with a 27 inch monitor at 1440p would surely be fairly minimal sitting at the same distance as before, and a 32 not worth it (although sitting as close to s 32 as you would a laptop isn't going to be ideal anyway). 24 inch monitors with a 1440p resolution seem very hard to come by, but would surely be best for close up media editing (assuming all monitors compared had a similar pixel type,text clarity and colour accuracy). In the end it's not going to matter that much as long as you sit at an appropriate distance
I actually find it better to see the individual pixels to a certain degree, it makes pixel peeping easier
@FutaCatto which one would you recommend?
If you're using this advice, don't forget to account for your distance from the monitor! At my desk, I sit about 80cm from my monitors, which lets me see both of them without having to move my head. At this distance, 1440p is pretty much perfect for me.
yes, I really suffered when using lg 4k monitor, my eyes are straining .
Great video, I learned a lot!
I wanted to bring up what "the human eye can actually see", as it seems to change every couple of years. I remember when around the 2010s, the general rule was that the human eye "could no notice" anything above 80-90 fps, while nowadays, 120fps is a minimum to aim at when going "serious" while gaming. This is not a critique to your video, just that it surprised me how this numbers drift up with every new generation of products. Same thing with ms/response, but that would be the same story.
ua-cam.com/video/Q1cmhZs1P54/v-deo.html
I'm running a 49 inch ultrawide (Sansung CGH90), but it's essentially 2 1080P monitors glued together. Very few resolution issues at all, only every now and then I noticed a definition issue. I value performance over quality. There is no perceivable sort of perceptible lag using this rather than trying to drive a 4k
I have the Samsung CRG9 and its essentially the same thing.
I must have bad eyes because I am looking at my 1080P monitor and I do not see individual pixels when sitting at a normal viewing distance. Good news on that is that I can pay less money than other people and still be happy with what I have.
And at the end of the day, Thats what matters! 🤑
People think that because the item had a big price tag it makes them cooler and better than everything else 1080p is a great display and many many more sizes like 32 inches all for a cheaper price and the same amount of fun.
@@Techforlife280 idk man, ppl seem to be really thrilled about 4k resolutions. I remember years back also doubting the upgrade from 60 to 144hz and now I would rather use my freaking phone than be forced to sit infront of a 60hz panel
@@Bankai90lol don’t be sensitive I know for goddamn sure u Caint tell a dam difference
@@Techforlife280 you mean the resolution right? or do you rly say u can't tell 60 vs 144hz?
ye we will see, I ordered yesterday a 2k monitor since I'll prob wait with 4k for the next gen graphic cards. I've a 4070 super but even that seems to barely pull 4k well in the majority of games
If the 2k will be a noticable difference then for sure I will invest in the future into 4k
I’m looking for a monitor and your channel is like a treasure trove of high quality monitor related videos. I love it!
I have used a 23" 1080p TN monitor for over 10 years now. I've been looking for an upgrade for a while, but monitors are quite expensive.
While building PCs/setups for others I've had the chance to try different screens and found out how much my eyesight affects things. 27" 1440p is the sweetspot for most people, but it requires me to strain my eyes or sit closer than I would like. I thought about going for a 27" 1080p IPS panel for a while until I saw one in person. Even I could tell how bad it looked.
Needless to say, I am glad that 31.5" 1440p monitors seem quite popular. A 55" 4K screen would be nice, but very expensive and probably the end for my RX480.
One important thing is maybe not mentioned here is the right PPI of the screen to use it without scaling the UI for particular appliance, because for some people it is very important if they use screens for work. For myself I found 93 PPI to be perfect so it is basically 24 inch 1080p and 32 (31.5?) inch 1440p. I was using for about a year 27 inch 1440p and I was not happy - everything was a bit too small (PPI about 109) and it was very annoying for me. Right now I have mentioned 32 inch 1440p and it is so much better. I use my 3 screens for programming purposes (2 additional 1080p) (all now have 93 PPI) and it is perfect in Windows and Linux. I don't have to scale anything. Ergonomics are great. Also I can run a game without any problems. I would not buy screen with higher PPI even if it looks better. Maybe for graphic designers and movie makers those are much better, but for me - the standard is the best. Like I wrote - the ergonomics are the best at least for what I'm doing.
I'm with you on this. I recently replaced my 24" 1080P monitor with a 27" 1440P one, and even though I appreciate the additional crispness of the 1440P, The default UI scaling does make everything feel uncomfortably small on 27 inches. If I had to choose again, I would probably go for 32" 1440P as well. 4K on anything smaller than 40 inches just sounds silly to me. (For work anyway)
It depends on screen size and distance. Deciding purely on ppi is funky unless you set a distance.
Your 93ppi wouldn't do any good at 2m for example
Perfect, very explanatory... Only thing missing is including an ultrawide display, well done 💪👍
Well its no surprise that QHD took the crown from FHD, as most semi-modern mediocre/mainstream setups can drive them and the much sharper image and more screenspace as QHD usually comes in 27" and up, makes a big difference, but doesnt cost to much performance and even upper class QHD Monitors are quite affordable for most.
I'm driving a RTX3080 Aorus Master 12GB btw and this one powers a Dell S2721DGFA@165Hz, perfect combo for pretty much everything. :)
Ehhhh. Not at the FPS I want. No reasonably priced GPU is going to hit 240 fps on anything but 1080p. 1080p is still the highest gaming resolution im willing to go.
@@Wylie288 On the contrary, I'd consider 240FPS overkill for any game. Anything over 60FPS is more than enough for the average gamer, imo. I recently upgraded from a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor to a 27" 1440p 170hz monitor and the difference in quality is insane. I'm still getting 90+ FPS in AAA games with my 3070 Laptop GPU on average.
The best gaming experience for sure is going to be playing on your 50 inch 4k hdr tv
@@Wylie288 If you're saying this then you never experienced a monitor even semi long term over 1080P.
I have the same monitor, its honestly really nice, tho i run a 3090 TI Ftw3 Ultra
Habe deinen Kanal vorhin erst gefunden, bis jetzt schon ein paar Videos zu Monitoren angeschaut und muss sagen dass ich absolut beeindruckt bin 💯 Weiter so :)
315 views, not in the market for a monitor, and a channel ive never heard of before. wonder why i clicked, but i dont regret it lol
Edit: big surprise, its great
well, the 315 views is because this vid just dropped, hardly surprising.
This guy is the best on monitors
I like high resolutions just like everybody but the problem is that I find 27'' monitors too big for competitive shooters. That's why I'll stay on 24'' monitors forever. A 24'' 1440p 240Hz OLED would be the endgame monitor for me.
the dream monitor
144 or 165hz is more than enough for me
sadly 1440p 24 inch is hard to find, the ones out so far is 75hz
I wish 16:10 aspect ratio monitors were more common.
Lmfaoo just to get bodied by adults on a 50 inch tv
4k monitor makes sense only if you have hardware from 4070ti/74k monitor makes sense only if you have hardware from 4070ti/7900 xt + i7 p7 of the latest generations. Before that, 1440p is more than enough (at least on a 27-28-inch monitor), the picture quality is sufficient not to "cut" the eyes on the pixels.900 xt + i7 p7 of the latest generations. Before that, 1440p is more than enough (at least on a 27-28-inch monitor), the picture quality is sufficient not to "cut" the eyes on the pixels.
1080 on a 24 inch is optimal for a simple table setup, and action games.
1080 on a 27 inch is for some other use case that I have no clue of, but probably involves a longer distance from the screen.
If your games use a lot of small text, like strategy games, the higher resolutions can reduce eye fatigue.
Just remember that to use the monitor to the fullest you have to also spend on hardware 🤷♂
27 inch+ is easily for casual games or niche games like WoW/Black Desert, etc.
@@eleesium8407 But why?
@@gediminasmorkys3589 Immersion, people prefer bigger monitors for games that are casual based or immersive based. Smaller monitors tend to be better for competitive players or people who focus on FPS.
I have a 240hz 1080p/27 inch. But I have a 5kd on Warzone, I play Tarkov with a 20kd+, etc. I play competitively, but I also like a bigger monitor so when I play games I feel more immersed. I hate seeing a tiny image, even if it's competitive advantageed.
Shroud uses a 27 inch 240hz, 1440p. He plays competitively, but he also plays a lot of casual games, such as WoW, Lost Ark, Survival Games etc.
@@eleesium8407 But it's just a bigger screen with lower resolution. Not very immersive 🤷♂️
I am really hoping for the so called "5k2k" monitors to come with better refresh rates, preferably at 40-43 inch size. Those would be great for work, but I also don't want to downgrade. After using 144Hz, moving even mouse or windows on 60Hz looks bad.
In the meantime if I can't wait it's nice to see that a 32 inch 4k should be pretty good. My current 32 inch 1440p was a great upgrade when I changed from 24 inch 1080p, but it doesn't look very sharp. Thanks for the calculator, that was useful.
Whats the 32' 1440p monitor you use? In the market for that exact size and resolution
I have a monitor acer 27 inch 1080p 144hz will the games look good?
@@Xilent1 For nearly 5 years I used an AOC AG322QCX, a VA monitor which was pretty good for my use (I only discovered what smearing is after I read several explanations and demo videos). Was happy with the blacks. Not up to todays standards of course. It also started to draw artifacts for a while after a cold start, this got a lot worse in last days of December, so I changed it to an M32U now. Blacks are back to being grays now unfortunatelty, but I try not to think about it, it's not a bad monitor...
Monitors are hard to choose, a lot harder than other hardware I think. Also there's no stores around me where I could look at the current offering, no pixel warranty, no calibration services... I wanted to change my monitor but also didn't want to risk it, just had to now that the old monitor passed away.
I hope this one lives a long life, was expensive enough, but maybe I will have an even higher resolution monitor in my lifetime :)
@@bencze465 How is your M32U?
4K sucks on 27“. Used it for a while and it’s just annoying. Game performance is way worse than in 1440p, UI scaling is garbage, especially in older programs it’s buggy or just not possible.
Really nice video! I already knew all these concepts, but you presented them in such a way that kept me captivated and interested, whilst confirming my own understanding.
I recently went for a 1080p ultra widescreen 30 inch display. It basically has the same pixel density and height of a 24 inch monitor but with extra real estate on the sides. I'm running this out of my laptop and decided I would rather have widescreen 1080p than a 27 inch 1440p monitor which would require a noticeable hit to my FPS while gaming. Now that I've seen games in widescreen it would be hard going back lol
So it's fucking shit them
Not only fps, but pc would be more hot and hot = more loud
@@JohnnyTravoltanot worth it imo when 1080p it's self looks genuinely fine to most casual people
Have you tried 1440p yet? Holy shit, I didn’t know what I was missing. It still blows me away several years later
@@Luke-ih1oc if I don’t know I can’t miss it lol. I’m sure 1440p would be nice, but I’m limited by my laptop. If I had a desktop I could swap out upgrades but I have to work with my limitations. Although I could probably run 1440 I decided that I would prefer having the ultra wide monitor to the extra crisp monitor. I did adjust my setup a bit, I mounted my monitor on the wall so I could pull my desk out a few inches to increase the perceived sharpness of the 1080, and so far I’ve been more than happy with it so I’m content.
Just a few days ago I bought a new monitor and my train of thought was exactly the same - 4k hits performance like a truck and 1080p is no good for big monitors so 2k looked like a reasonable compromise. As for the size, initially I wanted to buy 27" but the model I chose had a really good discount on 32" version so it was even cheaper than 27" so I bought it and didn't regret it - it looks great. However, my table is 80cm deep so I sit approximately 80-85cm away from monitor, for 50-60cm tables 32" is definetely not an option I would say even 27" probably is to big for them.
i've got a 32" tv that i'm using as second monitor and it is huge for my desk. it is also 1080p, so it feels like i can see every single rgb in each pixel.
1440p is 2.5k, not 2k. Jfyi
I bought a 1440p 24" monitor couple of months ago, and it's a huge upgrade over the old and crappy 1050p (yes, 1050p, 1680x1050 to be exact) 22" monitor I used to have. I can barely see the pixels on it. My second monitor is a 5:4 1024p 19" monitor, and the pixels are very noticeable, but it does the job as a secondary monitor.
Just buy the 3090 or 4090 they can do 4k high fps
@@tylerclayton6081 actually I have bought 4090 already and right now it is capable enough for 4k gaming, sure. But that might not be the case in 2-3 years. For example, in Cyberpunk 2077 on maximum settings my fps vary within 100-140 range on 1440p and on 4k it would probably be 25-35% lower which is just enough for comfortable gaming but totally not futureproof.
From my experience, you see a difference, but only a slight difference on homogenous, gradient pictures, like in games, photos or movies.
You see a significant difference on high contrast, sharp edged stuff. And that is best represented by black text on white background. Yes, hidpi monitors are the most beneficial for simple, plain old text editing, pretty regular office stuff. And it actually matters. Me, I have a significantly higher reading speed and a significantly increased throughput of text with less fatigue with my 4k monitor.
that's good to know. btw what is your monitor's screen size, refresh rate, and your estimated viewing distance from the screen?
@@Kizerlk07 27", 4k, 60Hz on office stuff, 90Hz on gaming, 60-70cm.
4:34 = This is exactly the reason why all reputable reviewers point out that a 1080p/FullHD monitor is only really recommended up to a max size of 24". If the monitor is to be larger then it should be at least a 1440p/2K monitor... in that respect that is also no new knowledge. Therefore, from a technical point of view, this comparison to the 27" 1080p monitor is also quite unfair because such a 1080p monitor can only lose in such a comparison, it has no chance.
I`m currently using a 24" 1080/FullHD 165Hz/0.8ms IPS AMD FreeSync Premium monitor by "iiyama" together with an AMD RX6700XT 12GBVRAM graphics card + activated "AMD SmartAccess Memory" and in-game graphics look very good and even with high in-game graphics settings this system offers high FPS and for me that is the decisive advantage, that`s why I bought such a monitor.
On my system for instance "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt" in the Next-Gen Update version "v 4.00" + two Hotfix Updates from December 2022 runs with an average of 168 FPS with a mixture of "High" and "High+" in-game graphics settings without any issues and fans of this game know exactly what I'm talking about (keyword: sometimes significant performance issues).
For my normal PC jobs, 24" is more than enough, especially when I use the monitor upright for word processing in LibreOffice.
This is great information as I was curious about this. I have been using 1440p monitors for years and was very happy with those. I did just buy an Alienware AW3821DW (IPS 38" 3840x1600) as I wanted vertical space along with horizontal space. it was a great deal on sale for $899.99 IMO and won't impact performance of my system as much as 4K would. The Alienware AW3423DWF is supposed to be the greatest thing currently, but there is no additionally vertical height and I cannot handle the screen "pixel refresh prompt every 4hrs" to prevent burn-in (ridiculous and kills usability). I might have waited for the ASUS PG38UQ (IPS 4K 38" but oh well) this probably is the REAL sweet spot for usability IMO (productivity and gaming).
For two monitors (for gaming), would you suggest: Primary and Secondary 1440p 27'' @ 144Hz/165Hz
or
Primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
I originally bought a 27inch1440p75hz monitor. Then 3 years ago I started really getting into competitive gaming and bough a 27inch1080p144hz monitor as my new main one. I have an RTX 2070, so so in a lot of the newer games 144fps wouldnt be achievable at 1440p.
Generally I think you are a bit over-dramatising how bad 1080p looks on a 27in monitor. I'm tend to sit pretty close to my monitor, and while I can certainly see individual pixels if I try, it's not exactly something that I notice when gaming.
1440p undoubtedly looks better for gaming, but to me the main reason I would consider upgrading my 1080p panel are other applications. Stuff like having two browser tabs side by side is great on a 1440p screen, because there is plenty of pixels for both, but on the 1080p screen websites are going to start to struggle.
Basically 4k is a significant upgrade over 1440p, and is the point of diminishing returns. However, being able to build a reasonably priced pc that can actually put out that many frames at 4k is a whole other ballgame. That's why I have one 1440p monitor that will be moved to as a secondary, when I can get a gpu that can get me 120 fps at 4k for a reasonable price (no, anything above 1k for a a whole pc build is not reasonable to me), then I will invest in a high refresh rate 4k monitor. Long way to go before an affordable gpu like that appears, but I'm perfectly fine with 1440p until that time comes (2-3 gpu generations in the future perhaps)
That's where AI upscaling comes it and makes it possible to enjoy 4K 60FPS on a mid/high-tier card.
I replied to a comment thread and i mentioned this.
I think monitors, software and GPU cards need to support a few additional resolutions.
1620p AKA 3K
1800p AKA QHD+
5K (either 4800×2700 or 5120×2880 plus some aspect ratio variants based off those two screen widths)
Watched this entire video and can't tell a difference between these monitors. Guess I'll stick with my 27" 1080p. 😉
🧠 power must be at zero the only way to tell the difference is in person you see it at the screen rate you have
So you see the problem s not only are you watching a 1080 p monitor... your also watching this on UA-cam it does look noticably better, but a 1080p display is more than good enough
The sweet spots are:
24" with 1080p (90~ ppi)
32" with 1440p (90~ ppi)
27" with 1440p (110~ ppi)
I'd like to add that ppi for monitor and smart phones aren't the same since we watch smartphone close to our face, while monitors stays a far distance away. The minimum recomended ppi for monitors to have a good experience and image sharpness is 90ppi. I currently use a 80ppi monitor and it is a bit blocky but I am used to it. If you dont know whats ppi is just know that the higher it is the more the screen will look sharp/premium.
Side Note: Ever wondered why 32" with 4k is so expensive? Its because it has ppi of 140~, thats a lot for a Tv which you'll watch from a far distance away.
I have a 32 inch 4K monitor I use daily. The distance is 60 cm from the screen. I don't know what you mean with "from a far distance away".
@@valiceman8015 why man 🤣🤣 you'll have eye problems like nearsightedness soon if you continue that
This was a very useful video, I really appreciate the thought and effort put into it. I really think I need a 4K monitor for my eventual return to video editing, but right now I pretty much just game so I think 1440p is a far better fit for my RTX 3060 GPU.
na a 4k / 144hz monitor and 4090 is a better fit for your gaming prefrences
@@timtresch4848 4090 is such a beast for 4k gaming but damn have to sell a testicle for that price lmao
@@Bdot888 more like a kidney
@@timtresch4848 well obviously but you do realize things cost money right
@@Wemmie your retarded if you didnt catch the joke
My average distance from the monitor is 70cm. With that, the perfect monitor would be 24" 1440, not just because of the PPD but for the fact that 27" is too much for me, after all I mainly play FPS games and I had 24" monitors for over 15 years. Right after this video, I went to search for some monitors with these details, only to find out they literally don't exist. I was devastated. I don't understand why this isn't an option in today's tech world...
They do exist, there’s a ton of options in today’s market. What’s your country?
KIds today think 1080p is ancient technology. Thats totally fine with me. Ive been using 1080 for a decade now, never have i ever felt i needed more. The human eye will only tell the difference if you make it notice it, but if youre a casual gamer, playing at 4k dont mean shi*.. Just enjoy the game, not the damn monitor lol
Your demonstration/comparison was very concise and clear. I'm about to buy a new monitor...your video really helped me to prioritize value/price vs. specs. . Thanks!
I started with 21.5” 1080p then moved to 30” 1600p and loved it. The screen real estate was so engaging but still looked blurry. Now I’m on 27” 4K and it’s amazing, I was concerned about text and menus being small but 150% Windows 11 scaling is perfect. I can easily tell the clarity difference in games, and DLSS makes 4K gaming achievable. I still think I can detect the pixels but 8K 27” has a while to go lol.
If it's still blurry, adjust the blue light, black light, and the sharpness. My games look better on my 1080p monitor than my 4K smart TV.
Also helps that it runs at 120fps now as well. Beautiful.
What GPU do you run?
@@ImLehwz EVGA RTX 3090
@@Briluvr How’s the fps?
@@ImLehwz Games without DLSS I can expect max settings and 90-120fps. With DLSS I'm typically 110-120 except Cyberpunk I'm having around 100
This channel never disappoint. Just what i need in comparisons
"And the other one has a Fok display!" 😂
I have two 27 inch monitors - one for games 1440p 165Hz and the second one for work 4K 60Hz. Since I use the 4K one without scaling, in 1440p things started looking a little on the big side, although I think that's a good combination :D
I use the exact same combo and love it. For more fast paced or too demanding games the 1440p 165hz and for the rest the 4k one.
I'm thinking of buying a 4k monitor but I don't know if 28 inches is the correct size, everyone says 32 inches because 28 would show a lack of density, I hope you can help me
@@lacantinadelgamer If anything, smaller screen would be the more dense one. I'd say it depends, if you sit very close, I'd get the 28 inch one. If it's your only monitor and you sit a bit further from it, get the 32 inch one.
@@Ubersmieszek I am 27 to 32 inches away from the monitor
@@lacantinadelgamer I think I'd get the larger one in this case.
The comparison isn't all that fair when you have a 5x more expensive 4k vs the 1080p.
Don't buy the wrong resolution?
For the 4k monitor price you can buy the 1080p monitor plus a good complete system.
Now if they were close, like 10-20% off in price difference between them, it would be a fair title to say "don't buy the wrong reslution" because what's 250 euro and what's 300e
Great information, thank you! I‘ll be buying a new one in the next few months because mine is just outdated. If I had to guess, I‘d say it’s at least close to 10 years old. It still runs fine, but my old eyes get tired quickly. I have found that a lightbar is amazing. I recently go a Yeelight Pro, it’s really useful. Don’t know if you‘ve done any reviews on those. Thanks again, I just subscribed to your channel. We could use more quality UA-camrs like you. No bullshit and high quality information!
Just make sure your computer can handle the change, it not only need to be able to do 4 at a higher framerate but it also needs to stay stable while doing so, even my 4070ti has issues with my 4k
Thank you for this video. Could you please suggest a decent 24" 1440p at least 144 Hz, IPS gaming monitor? As it would be the best screen size and resolution for me without over spending.
Yes thus or a 27" would ve perfect for competitive gaming foe the ps5 from what I have seen
I got 2 24" 1080p monitors. One is 144hz, the orher is 75hz. They both serve my needs and look amazing. Id say theyre probably half a metre away from me when I'm sitting at my desk. The jump to 1440p is quite big in Canada, but if i ever have to update one of my monitors, id obviously get rid of my 75hz monitor and buy a 1440p to use as my gaming monitor 😅
You have to think about your applications when choosing a monitor resolution. 4K may be great for youtube and gaming, but a ton of other apps will be unreasonably small and often you can’t adjust them either at all, or enough to make them readable. 1440p can have the same problem.
It is better to use a 1080p monitor for the best possible compatibility for the vast majority of people.
This makes no sense at all bro lol
@@levi8781 Playing competitive games on smooth fps with budget PC is must but i will consider 1440p someday.
Finally some worthy material about resolutions including ppi and viewing distance. Thank you for your work
Thanks. Even though I'll buy my new PC only in 5-6 months it's really useful to have at least some basic knowledge (although I am a bit more torn between wide 1440 and faster refresh 1440, as I don't care about competitive games)
1440 high refresh definitely wide screens atleast for me is a gimmick and 144hz just feels so smooth going back to 60hz hurts my soul
2K 27 inches is the sweet spot, games aren't really optimized for 4K
But getting a 27 inch 4K could future proof plus youve got pretty decent downscaling options on both nvidia and amd
@@Dark_HumourYT yeah but might as well wait for oled then. A 2k 27inch ips panel is the sweet spot for now i think till 4k 27 inch oled become affordable.
@@Dark_HumourYT "Future proof" is such an overused buzzword. It was a thing when I first got into hardware back in 2016, still a thing today that just means "get the best and most expensive". It barely works in regards to your PC hardware when the mid-range works just as good nearly a decade later, and budget would still be viable in the same time frame, the expensive option you'd still be replacing around the same time.
When it comes to your monitor, 4k is moreso "past proofing" since modern games on modern hardware have never been able to perform 4k as good as 1440p, never as good as 1080p. But years later on better hardware, you can play past games on 4k and actually make use of the 144hz if you happened to actually afford that amount. 1440p is a good sweetspot with no compromises, and if I really need to burn that difference between 2k and 4k, I'd might as well spend it elsewhere
@@Dark_HumourYT well tbh there's no such thing as future proof. Just buy a damn 4k 27in in the future. it's gonna cost left few years down the road anyways
@@dougieartstudios3930 I don’t like the use of future proof because hardware surpasses the the “best hardware” very fast. But monitors are different to gpus and CPUs etc. 4K is gonna be great for a few years easily, mainly because 1080p it’s still fine. So it’s not really future proofing, more just “respectable hardware for a good period of time”
Im here to get some recommendations of changing monitor form 1080 to 1440 or 4k in 2024. Btw, wtf was that 9:58. My setting is 12400 3080 and 32G 3200 RAM. I can just only run around 330 fps in low image quality😢. -It is time to change my pc to 9800X3D and 5090-
27“ 1440p ist der sweet Spot meiner Meinung nach.
Und super Video! 👍🏽
Danke 🙂
ngl, his pronunciation of "4K" at 1:09 sounded like "...f***ing monitor"
I'm using 23.8 inch 2k monitor and approximately 65 centimeters away from me netting 58 PPD with Vega stand and top of the monitor standing just a little bit above at my horizontal eye level. That way with my blue light filtered prescripted glasses, I achieve as optimum as possible to retina display with minimal chances of eye strain on long sessions and I try to give breaks every 20 minutes.
That's very nice to read from you bro 🙂👍
Actually in my case a 4k display was cheaper than a 1440p one bc it's a display for creativity and not gaming, wheras 1440p's are all "gaming" with low response times and hogh refresh rates
For two 1080p monitors, if you place a 24" at 50cm, you'll need to place a 27" at 57cm (13% further).
So 27" is not that bad if you already find using 24" 1080p fine.
(13% btw is from comparing the distance at which both displays will be 60 PPD, 27" is 107cm and 23.8" is 94.3cm.)
Also, what if I want to sit further from the screen? I find 50cm exhausting, and if I'm happy with 24" 1080p, then 27" 1080p is better for me because it will be the same resolution and FOV at a further distance.
1080p is *_more than enough_* if you don't directly compare _(especially if you're in the 21-24" range, works fine for 27" as well if you're not actively looking for pixels)._
If you're a gamer: go for 144hz~ or higher refresh rate and 1ms or lower response time.
High pixel count on a monitor is like good graphics in a game...if that's the main selling point, you'll regret buying it after getting accustomed to the visuals _(also if your pc can't handle them, enjoy the lag)._
Amazing comparison. Exactly what I was looking for☺️
"Don’t Buy the Wrong Resolution"
This is so very true. Your decision on resolution will dictate so many things. I feel the first thing one should consider is their desk size and how far the display will be positioned from the viewer. From there I feel one can decide what's appropriate for them with regard to resolution vs desired frame rate.
For example, in my personal situation, I couldn't have a 32" monitor due to the deepness of my desk. My monitor would be sitting closer to me. The 27" was ideal for my desk size and distance. And for that monitor size/distance, I felt 1440p the ideal resolution. From there, I decided I had the budget for extras, such as HDR, 240 Hz, G-Sync, etc.
I couldn't even have 27" monitors lol
My 3 23" monitors allready take up a lot of space and for productivity it is better to have a few small monitors then one large one you have to split up
I think resolution and just pushing more pixels is honestly kinda overrated
Great video. Very informative and straight forward. I rarely post comments but this video deserved it
Really, really good explanation. Thanks!i
On a sidenote: you should try the difference between 1080p and 4K on a >= 32" screen. I got a 43" and for screens that big, 4K is a must (1080p just gives you blocky image). In fact, on a screen that big, 4K seems like 1080p on
Thanks for info. I knew it sortoff from experience without thinking about it. But now it makes sense. I have a small screen laptop with 1080p and it looks perfect. I've tried 27inch with 1080p and it was disgusting. It's like back to my first pc which was horrible
Stop lying, it's not that bad.
i ordered a 1080p monitor a few years ago, but there were some problems with the delivery. so i put some pressure on the store and they geve me the same monitor but the 1440p version of the monitor! best day of my life.
I have a 23,4" 1080p 120 Hz monitor since 2010. There is no problem with the pixels from a normal distance! The picture is perfect! They telling you to buy expensive tech. In this size the 1080p is good enough!
Thought that was a pretty good video. 4K looks fantastic but for gaming 144Hz screen refresh rate and of course the GPU/CPU to drive games to that sort of FPS is more important for overall experience. It's still either impossible or ridiculously expensive to buy a 27" 4K screen, a GPU and a CPU that can run a high production value game at reliably 100+ FPS. A medium high end rig can do this on a good 27" 1440p 144Hz monitor easily however - at a reasonable price. 1440p seems to remain the sweet spot. If you're happy to play at 30-50 FPS, OK, maybe go for 4K. When a top quality sub-$700 144Hz 4K 27/29" monitor materialises time to check again if new GPUs and CPUs are actually available that are capable of driving it for less than the price of a small family car. Right now there isn't and they can't. Until then I'm sticking at 1440p.
Wouldn’t say it’s impossible but expensive yes, i’m going to probably go the 4K 144hz route this time around except with a 32 inch monitor, and do a full rebuild. There are alternative options though, when I built my $4000 build in 2019 with a i9-9900K and Strix 2080ti I just did no interest financing on all the parts, that’s an easy way to just pay it all off over a few months or a year. I’ll probably be doing the same now with a 13900K and a 4090, just going to wait for PCIe gen 5 NVMe drives first and ATX 3.0 psu’s.
Very simple, for gaming buy only 1080p monitors.
Only if you are super rich, you buy higher then that.
Gpu's are super expensive now. You have to get a morgage to buy a gpu in 10 years.
I have an 144Hz 1440p 27" IPS monitor. I think its a big upgrade to a 24" 1080p. 92vs 109 ppi are really noticeable. I think I've made the right choice because the monitor was only 300€.
I really like your video. Its very helpful. There is a small mistake: I think you are talking about UHD and not 4K. 4K is 4096x2304. UHD is 3840x2160.
----
Ich habe ein 1440p 144Hz IPS 27". Ich bin super zufrieden damit. Das Bild ist deutlich klarer als bei mein alten 1080p 24". Zudem läuft der mit alten Grafikkarten auch in 144Hz und das Teil kostete bloß 300€.
Super hilfreiches Video. Vielleich in 1-2 Jahren wechsel ich zum UHD. Eins muss ich anmerken: Ich denke du meintest UHD Monitore und keine 4K Monitore. 4K sind nämlich 4096x2304 und UHD 3840x2160.
UHD is also called 4k.
The other 4k your are talking (also called DCI 4k which is 4096x2160)) about has something to do with cinema, which uses a slightly wider format.
When talking about monitors and TV's 4k is UHH.
24 inch 1440p is the best resolution monitor period.
No
No. You just ignorant.
24 inch 4k is ultimate
24 inch 1080p is the best resolution monitor period.
PPI as you mention is the real crucial number, but whilst 60cm distance to screen is probably more normal for typing/editing, don't forgot about input device. Not every PC gamer uses KBM, I often play games using a controller and tend to kick back around 1m from my screen so a 24 1080p looks fine, especially in reasonably fast moving games where absolute details doesn't matter as much.
The other issue with 1440p is they don't scale with anything else, at least with 4k it's a direct factor of 1080p and you can just scale accordingly, so if you're playing a single player game, watching a movie or doing editing you can use native 4k but if you need frames you can adjust settings to 1080p.
1440p is the sweatspot. 4k too expensive and 1080p just poor quality.
Nope 1080p is not poor quality You gotta go back on full hd monitor It certainly has good quality on games and movies.
1080p is not poor kid its Nostalgic like crt dude How can you trash talk full hd
This video is so helpful, thanks! I was worried I’d made a mistake buying a 32” 1440p instead of a 4k. But I actually sit about 120cm away from the screen on a couch, playing ps5 mostly, so the PPD calculator was reassuring.
Me watching this on a 720p monitor 😐
Ive been wanting to go up to a 32" IPS (maybe curved) from my 27" TN but every year goes by and I can never find the will to justify spending 3-600 just for a bit more size and better colors when my dell s2716dg is still going strong. I honestly wish I could move up to 4k but my 3070 doesnt really have the horse power for that and I dont have loads of cash laying around to buy a monitor just for cinematic/single player games.
2716dg gang
@@gatorkea its a classic!
I recently bought the AW3432DW and felt like it was not enough of an upgrade to the dell imo, so I returned it.