32" 4k vs 27" 1440p

Hardware Hub Other Hardware
1

I’m looking for a new screen for work/home-office/browsing purposes.

I would love to hear your thoughts, as I cannot decide between 32" 4k panel or 27" 1440p.

I’m using windows - on desktop (gtx780 gpu) and laptop(Ryzen 5650U with iGPU). My desk is 80cm deep, my 23" 1080p screen is currently arms length away from me, meaning circa 15cm from back edge of the table.

I don’t play games anymore, work from home 3-4 days of the week as a software engineer/it analyst, my old 23,3" 1080p doesn’t suffice anymore.
I would love to have more screen estate.

Originally I though about going 27" 1440p, then I learned about 32" 4k - but I would probably need to scale it.

I’m little worried about scaling, as it’s not clear to me how it works.
E.g. if I zoom to 125%, doesn’t the image become blurry? 1px basically becomes 1,25pxs - it’s going to show either as 1 or 2 - potentially resulting in bluriness.

Performance impact?

Does the scaled 32" provide more screen estate comparing to 27"?

Is the font/crispiness really that much better, or exageratted in youtube ‘reviews’?

I’m considering P-line from Dell - P2723DE (€400) or P3223QE(€600). I kinda like dock feature of these monitors, so I could transfer video signal and charge my USB-C Laptop (hp elitebook 845g8) at the same time.

TLDR:
What would you go for? 27" 1440p vs 32" 4k, 80cm deep desk, no gaming at all, work (postman, drawing diagrams, occasional code browsing, working with texts, reading and preparing specs for developers).

2

32 1440p good refresh unless good refresh on 4k is an option

4 Likes
3

Personally I’d go for the 32" 4k option since I prefer to have the extra screen space available to jam more windows/lines of code in there.

In fact, I’m planning on switching from my 43" 4k TV to that same 32" Dell monitor in order to save some space in my desk.

4

Another vote for 27" 1440p. It’s easier for the GPU to drive and you can usually get higher refresh rates which just feels nicer.

5

Since you have that size of a monitor I would say go 32" 1440p.
The thing is 24" 1080 and 32"1440 have about the same pixel density. If you get 32" 4K the pixels will be way smaller than what you are used to right now. Especially for office work and graphs and stuff this may be an issue.
So I would say 1440p 32".

1 Like
6

I can also suggest 34" 1440p ultra wide + your current 23" stacked on top

(Set up my wife uses)
Top monitor is off in this picture

image
image1920×1080 218 KB

1 Like
7

I also use 34" 1440p ultrawide. It’s a good sweet spot between the two you’re considering and certainly can be driven by your gtx780 and iGPU. I have a 3400G box that drives this and a 24" 1080 panel without any problems.

8

I don’t mind donating/selling/binning my screen, i.e. I don’t want to choose inferior screen just to be compatible with my current one ppi-wise.

Definitely, I would probably go for 125%, maybe 150% (but that is 2160/1,5~=1440p)

Not really a fan of ultrawides. Had 2x1080p side-by-side, my neck started to hurt after a day using it. Could be better with ultrawide, I don’t like the curve nor ther visual.

Gtx780 isn’t an issue either, I will be using this on elitebook mainly, which should cause no issues at 4k60fps.

9

My point was more of your eyes are used to the pixel size and density, not really a compatibility between the screens.
I am using 32" 1440p at the moment. I really don’t want to try anything more than that when it comes to pixel density.
But people are generally fine with 27" so maybe it’s just me and my eyes…

10

Some time ago i was looking at this , I wanted a color accurate pro monitor so I ended up with a Asus proart 27" @ 1440p.
From my homework the smallest monitor you really want with 4k is 32" . 4k on a 27" monitor isn’t ideal and this seems to be the findings all over.

For my second monitor I might go for a 32" 4k gaming type monitor with high refresh .

You do not get a monitor that’s :
4k, pro grade factory color calibrated accurate AND
High refresh rate . Atleast not in my research .

But I digress …

11

Own three 32in (two 4k [144hz & 60hz] and one 1440p [165hz]). For 32in-4k you do notice the difference in text clarity, easier on the eyes. Scaling makes the text look great (Working in W10 and Ubuntu Mate). I have severe dry eye so I can’t stare for long periods, all of the aforementioned helps that.

Same with respect to 32in4k; If you want to avoid the hunchback, the ability to zoom in on the larger screen to read and reading in general… it helps that significantly, however you do replace this with side to side movement so its up to you on the comfort level.

If you are doing things that require mouse/pointer accuracy maybe the higher refresh rate is for you.

My use case is writing analysis, working through oversized Excel models that require reverse engineering because they suck. (the extra territory helps here a LOT). And noob attempts of coding on the side.

Hope this helps,

WWED

12

I went from 4x vertical 24" 16x10 monitors to a single 32" UHD monitor and it honestly has been the best choice I have ever made. When working on large projects I can quickly snap items into side by side, corners, or any combo of 1/3rds or 1/4ths vertically when I want to see lots of stuff on the screen.

image
image1918×1420 236 KB

image
image1918×1438 238 KB

I dont bother with scaling and run 100% in both windows and Linux im not a spring chicken, and the resolution is perfectly readable for me.

2 Likes
13

I had the same question too and started buying monitors (returning the ones I didn’t like).
4K @32" is not too bad, but scaling can be needed if you view it at that distance. It’s not blurry at 125% scaling, at all so you could go for that.
But what I found best suited me was 3440x1440 @32" and what I’m currently using which is a 3840x1600 38" inches LG monitor. I think it’s the best compromise between a 42" 4K display to run at 100% scaling and a 3440x1440 32" display that’s just a slightly wider 27" 1440p display.

As a rule of thumb if you stay near the 110 PPI you won’t be needing any scaling. Over that it gets weird.

P.S. The items you access by right clicking icons on the taskbar in Windows glitch out if you run 4K with 125% scaling. They just get scrollable with empty space randomly placed and there’s no way to fix that.

14

32” 4k every single time. I’m on 27” 4k and am happy with the display clarity and integer scaling works if needed down to 1080p

15

I’m partial to 27" 1440p but if you want real-estate then 4K 32" will suit your specific needs and save you running more than one display. Quite simply it gets the job done, though I would 27" with a separate vertical swivel display as the 27"rr and scaling is a better option for that one time you might decide to game. As always, go for the panel rather than the brand. You might save some dosh if you’re smart about it.

16

The 32" 4k 60Hz monitor I bought a few years back was probably the best computer purchase I’ve ever made. I use it for programming, work, surfing, etc., no gaming. My eyes aren’t so great so I scale it to 125% in Windows. In Linux scaling didn’t work for me, but I increased the default text size instead and that works great. It’s nice that it’s both tall and wide, so I can have lots of tall code or a wide spreadsheet. I inherited a second one for work and it’s incredible to have two. I like it so much I bought one for home and will probably buy a second after I build my new system in a few months.

1 Like
17

It all depends on your visual acuity. The below are my recommendations for screen sizes at different resolutions at 100% scaling at a desktop distance of about 30 inches or 75 cm. There is no point pushing more pixels than your eyes can use.

I run triple 4k at 24" for desktop work with no scaling. It’s great, for me. I have about 20/10 vision (about 3% of the population do). For gaming I would probably pick 4k at 27" for a little more immersion.

If you have 20/12 or 20/13, go with 4k at 27". 4k at 32" will appear pixely to you. 4k at 24" is too small. Skip 1440p. If people say you have good eyes for seeing things at distance, this is probably you.

If you have 20/15 vision (which about 2/3rd of people are capable of, corrected if needed), you’ll probably be happiest with 4k at 32" or 1440p at 24". 1440p at 27" will probably appear a little pixely to you. The world is built for you.

If you have 20/20 vision, 1440p at 32" will look great. 4k at 32" will appear too small, as will 1440p at 27". For 4k, go with 40". If a 1080p screen at 24" inches looks great to you, this is you. I’m a bit less familiar with this level of visual acuity, so my recommendations may be off a little.

Considering the above, if you have a choice between 4k and 1440p for what will fit on your desk, 4k is vastly better for productivity. You can easily fit multiple 1080p-ish windows on screen, which you can’t with 1440p. I’d never consider going back to 1440p personally for that reason.

1 Like
18

Gigabyte has a few good ones as does samsung. I have a g7 240hz 1440p monitor as my gaming one. Pretty lit.

19

For productivity 32" 4K by a mile. There’s no substitute for having 4x1080p quadrants on a single screen.

1 Like
20

I use 60hz 4k (10 bit IPS) for gaming (annd everything else) ant home, and for non competitive twitch shooters for me it’s fine.

It’s a great do everything panel.

If you’re focused on gaming, sure go 1440 high refreshor whatever but for work, browsing, etc. 4k is just so much nicer. I also have direct comparison to an older 10 bit 1440p panel at work and 4k is much more usable for scaling down many Remote Desktop sessions and still have them legible etc. that’s a key difference going to 4k. Ability to scale down multiple RDP sessions and still have them legible.

My next upgrade will be 4k hdr. The 120hz, high dpi, hdr panel on the MacBook Pro has ruined me.

For me, proper HDR (with hdr content) is one of those “once you experience it you can’t go back” things. I reckon it’s even more significant for video quality than 4k if I’m honest.

And unfortunately it’s impossible to convey without seeing in person.