1080p vs 1440p vs 4k: Which Resolution external monitor Is Preferable?

[Renegade]

Ever since I managed to wreck my BenQ 4K monitor within a year of buying I have not been able to gather the courage to buy another one. Esp since the monitor with its broken screen is still lying around with me. Thankfully the prices of USBC monitors have come down since, but still.. the lingering pain of wasted purchase.

What I miss most about that monitor is the ease of working on multiple windows and less scrolling on websites but it was a huge ass monitor and its weight led to sagging of my honey comb paper filled IKEA work-desk in the middle.

So what are your current considerations for choosing an external monitor for your laptop (or even your desktop). Which resolution do you prefer and for which kind of task primarily. General rule of thumb was that for document and regular browsing you use 1080p (inexpensive), for gaming you pick a 1440p/QHD with 144Hz refresh rate, and for creative/coding work which requires multiple windows you get a 4K monitor (most expensive). Then there are ultrat-wide monitors which I some dislike, and would prefer a multi monitor setup.

Is QHD/2K a good balance for mixed work, without being too expensive? Or a secondary portable (1080p) monitor better for productivity? Does the choice of monitor vary depending on whether you are going to use it with Windows or a Mac OS?

 

[Darth Vader]

32" 1440p any day over a 27" 1440p . Anything below 32" is too small for me and cant afford a 4K gaming GPU, so settled with 1440p. Might upgrade my cheap 32" VA with new 32GS85Q-B in the future.

 

[Afxal]

24" 1080p suffices
27" 1440p at least
32" 1440p/4k as per budget.

 

[Ajish]

When I bought my LG 27UK650-W 4K monitor my two main considerations where gaming and media. While the gaming has reduced significantly, media has increased and I find the monitor to be acceptable. Given it doesn't have the same feel as a 4K TV but I am happy with the extra screenspace and pretty clear images.

Gaming, if and when I do, is also a very fun experience; but honestly, mostly it's just the rush of owning a 4K monitor, which used to be a distant dream once.

 

[codwapeace]

Never less than 4K is my rule for monitors. Windows is really good at scaling so even if you buy a high resolution, low size display, you can set the scaling to 150% (like I do on my 4K 27 incher) or 175% or 200% if you like. There is no reason to buy a lower resolution monitor because everything is so much sharper at higher PPI unless your primary purpose is gaming at higher refresh rate.
I have so many QHD monitors, but only 1 4k monitor. I never use the QHD ones as the primary display because everything is so much better looking at 4k scaled, especially text.

If you are using a MAC, don't even look at a QHD monitor, everything looks horrible.

 

[Futureized]

@kunnalthapa any suggestions ?

 

[imad7x]

I used a 19" 720p 60hz monitor for 10 years before upgrading to 24" 1080p 165hz. Night and day difference. Game changer.

1080p to 27" 1440p 180hz in 3 years felt like a great upgrade but especially for the size. I could sit farther back and enjoy playing/watching just as clearly.

1440p to 55" 2160p 144hz felt like 720p to 1080p but only because it was an oled TV and far bigger. I couldn't test the 144hz yet until I upgrade my GPU but clarity wise I couldn't tell too much of a difference.

For me the 1440p is a sweet spot between clarity and performance.
But for HDR Movies 4k OLED is unmatched

 

[superczar]

4k without a thought. Monitors are long term purchases

1:1 unscaled does not look good on large screens. Even if you want fhd sized text, 200% scaled (i.e looks like 1920x1080) on a 4k over 100% 1080p anyday.
In fact mac os goes the extreme route and does not even show unscaled options by default (unless you option click the resolution options)

 

[kunnalthapa]

@kunnalthapa any suggestions ?

Visible pixels are a big problem for me. I keep it simple with 90PPI minimum and 110PPI preferred, at 2ft viewing distance.

For 90PPI

1920x1080	Upto 24in
2560x1440	25-32in
4k	33-48in

For 110PPI

1920x1080	upto 20in
2560x1440	21-27in
4K	28-40in

For people spoiled by Apple Retina, prefer 140PPI or more

4K	upto 31in
8K	32-62in

Users can go with 90PPI for Media consumption and gaming (non-visual like eSports). Apart from this, looks for 110PPI only.
27in 2k is the sweet spot for price/performance with alot of options both for work & gaming.
And other things like form factor, color accuracy & additional features are dependent on users needs

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

For me for work ( coding / text), 1440p 27 is fine. It works well enough, Acer XV is a nice monitor.

But once you add games and media into it, then 32 4k is much better vs 27 1440p. There is extra space for work too, but i don't really need it and i actually run stuff windowed most of the times at different random locations to reduce oled burn-in.

My ideal would be 1440p/4k 27 ips for work and 4k32 oled for games/media but I don't have space for 2 so i use 32 4k oled only. If oled burn in was not a risk, then 32 4k alone is enough.
Not sure if i can manage with larger TVs at arm distance otherwise 32+ 4k for games would be great. 42 seemed unfeasible to me, maybe 32 ultrawide ( 38?) would be peak.

 

[bssunilreddy]

I think 1440p 32inch is larger. 27inch 1440p is the best size.

 

[OMEGA44-XT]

I will say viewing distance also matters, not just pixel density. Moving from 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p then to 48" 4K, I have used all 3 resolutions. First 2 are definitely enough for most.

I use my 48" TV almost 1.5m or 5ft away, so I am kind of hard pressed to view difference between 1440p & 4K on it, in a way good as my 7900GRE will suffice for gaming.

For monitors, IMO 27" 1440p is enough for the majority, Acer XV272U V3 is like 16-17k for a decent gaming monitor. 32" is too big for me. 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p was a visible jump for me considering the 50-60cm viewing distance.