Dilemma regarding monitor purchase.

john1911 · Friday at 5:44 AM

Hey folks,
Hope everyone is doing great.

I'm looking for a monitor but am currently confused about size/resolution/ultrawide. I have used 27" 2560x1440 monitor in the past and have found the screen space lacking most of the times as I need multiple windows open most of the times. Most of the times I need 3 windows open, a web-browser, a PDF reader and a word document open side by side and in 27" 1440p monitor, it leaves very less width per window. This setup was perfect for opening 2 windows side by side.

Now I'm in the market for a monitor and am pretty confused at it. If nothing, I will get a 27" 1440p but want to explore my options before deciding. I think 32" 4k will be too big and 29" widescreen ones won't have enough height so that can be an issue, although I'm not sure about it. Is there a way I can see how much content is fitting on a 2560x1080 monitor? I think I can put 3 windows side by side but am worried about the vertical screen space.

My budget is around 17.5k, can exceed a bit but not much. High refresh rate (and other gaming features) is not required, colour accuracy should be good (IPS Panel preferred).

Thanks.

(As seen in this comparison, heigh of ultrawide is noticeably less which might be an issue.)

Heisen · Friday at 7:35 AM

john1911 said:
I have used 27" 2560x1440 monitor in the past

At what scaling?

Scaling plays a big role here, if you buy a high resolution monitor thinking that it will give more screen space that is not necessarily the case, for example when we compare 1080p to 1440p, the 1440p gives you 33% more screen space than 1080p, when both monitors are set to the typical 100% scaling.

If you buy a 27inch 1440p monitor depending upon how far you sit and how good your eyesight is, you will set your scaling, either to 100% or 125%. You might find the text is too small at 100% scaling for long working hours.

If you set 125% scaling on 1440p monitor, everything will become slightly bigger, but your effective resolution in terms of screen space now becomes 2048x1152 (2560/1.25 = 2048 and 1440/1.25 = 1152)

Now notice the 2048x1152 is basically the same space as 1920x1080, only few pixels more.

If you really need the screen space, you might be able to get 3 1080p monitors set them side by side and you will get effective resolution of 5760x1080. Now this will become ultra ultra wide so to mitigate that issue slightly you can get 3 22inch monitors instead of 24inch. The only small issue with this is setup is the vertical screen space, you won't be able to view a A4 page fully without scrolling. If you are okay with doing one scroll per page than it is fine.

If you are sure that you will use 100% scaling with 27 inch 1440p monitor, then 2 of those side by side can be good option, 3 is even better but will get expensive. Two 1440p monitor side by side will give you effective resolution of 5120x1440, in this resolution you will be able to fit a A4 page if 100% scaling is used. The horizontal resolution is less than the previous setup and also you will get line in the center (unless you put one monitor on the side and one in the center), in this you will typically place 2 windows on one monitor and 1 window on the other monitor. I personally don't like this uneven distribution.

If you get 4k 32 inch monitor everything will be too small at 100% scaling, most probably you will have to use 150%, if you are not sitting really close to the monitor. At 150% scaling your effective screen space resolution will be 2560x1440p, yup 4k resolution at 150% scaling gives you the same screen space as 1440p monitor at 100% scaling.

YeAhx · Friday at 7:37 AM

Why not have 2 monitor setup? main one horizontal and a vertical on the side. If you are getting widescreen and want to make do with just one monitor then get as big size as you get. Now I don't know much about widescreen monitors (simply haven't used one) but maybe if its big enough you won't have issue with 3 different windows open. It might not be in your desired budget.

Seriously your best bet would be to just have 2 monitors in your orientation of choice. Check out this LG monitor that can also be swiveled to vertical position

https://www.amazon.in/LG-IPS-sRGB-Height-Adjust-Display/dp/B0BRQT57RC

john1911 · Friday at 10:29 AM

Heisen said:
At what scaling?

At 125%

Thanks for your post, it is really informative.

YeAhx said:
Why not have 2 monitor setup? main one horizontal and a vertical on the side. If you are getting widescreen and want to make do with just one monitor then get as big size as you get. Now I don't know much about widescreen monitors (simply haven't used one) but maybe if its big enough you won't have issue with 3 different windows open. It might not be in your desired budget.

Seriously your best bet would be to just have 2 monitors in your orientation of choice. Check out this LG monitor that can also be swiveled to vertical position

https://www.amazon.in/LG-IPS-sRGB-Height-Adjust-Display/dp/B0BRQT57RC

I am constantly thinking about 2 monitor setup, a second 24" in vertical orientation with main 27" 1440p would have been perfect IMO but there is not much space and the current living arrangements are temporary.

Tracer_Bullet · Friday at 12:19 PM

Unless you don't have space physically, 34 ultrawide probably would be best - its basically same ppi as 27 but with more width - isnt that what you want ?
It would be hassle free vs 2 monitor setup. Not sure if its available at that cost. I think taxes are higher for 34 vs 32, so maybe 32 could be cheaper ?

Also 32 4k is not too big, its very nice i am using it and came from 27 1440p. Cheapest option in amazon on quick look is at 23k but it has very bad colors. There are other options between 25k and 30k.
1080 ultrawide (2560 x 1080) has less pixels vs 27 1440p - i wouldnt touch it.

john1911 · Friday at 12:32 PM

Tracer_Bullet said:
Unless you don't have space physically, 34 ultrawide probably would be best - its basically same ppi as 27 but with more width - isnt that what you want ?
It would be hassle free vs 2 monitor setup. Not sure if its available at that cost. I think taxes are higher for 34 vs 32, so maybe 32 could be cheaper ?

Also 32 4k is not too big, its very nice i am using it and came from 27 1440p. Cheapest option in amazon on quick look is at 23k but it has very bad colors. There are other options between 25k and 30k.
1080 ultrawide (2560 x 1080) has less pixels vs 27 1440p - i wouldnt touch it.

Thanks, 34" ultrawide is like a dream come true, it would exactly fit my needs except for budget.

Kaching999 · Friday at 2:40 PM

This was the cheapest 34" 1440p ultrawide I could find:
https://www.computronicsmultivision...hcns7tua21fWWsmRnxQiuZ78QCAae3lsBjj--jg0TVFRs

All the other options seem to be 30k or more

roadrash99 · Friday at 4:18 PM

I have a 29 inch 2560x1080 monitor (LG). I can answer any specific questions you have about this.

Overall I am happy with the 2 years of use but I'm looking to upgrade to a 32 inch 4k/1440p in the future, mostly for the vertical space. This is basically the same height as a 24 inch monitor, which is OK but only by a small margin.

john1911 · Saturday at 9:05 AM

Kaching999 said:
This was the cheapest 34" 1440p ultrawide I could find:
https://www.computronicsmultivision...hcns7tua21fWWsmRnxQiuZ78QCAae3lsBjj--jg0TVFRs

All the other options seem to be 30k or more

Yup, 34" ultrawide costs a lot. I think I will go with a 27" 1440p display.

roadrash99 said:
I have a 29 inch 2560x1080 monitor (LG). I can answer any specific questions you have about this.

Overall I am happy with the 2 years of use but I'm looking to upgrade to a 32 inch 4k/1440p in the future, mostly for the vertical space. This is basically the same height as a 24 inch monitor, which is OK but only by a small margin.

Thanks for the help. Are you able to read a full A4 page typed in around 12 font size in MS Word without having to scroll?

edept · Saturday at 12:57 PM

john1911 said:
Are you able to read a full A4 page typed in around 12 font size in MS Word without having to scroll?

As mentioned by Heisen above, with a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels, at 100% scaling, you won't be able to read a full A4 page without having to scroll.

In LibreOffice Writer, I can see a full A4 page at 1440p (with desktop scaling at 100%, and LibreOffice zoom factor up to 110%). However, even on a 32 inch monitor, I think it would be too small to use comfortably for a long duration. So appropriate scaling would seem to be necessary, and accommodating a complete A4 page might not be a good criteria for the selection.

roadrash99 · Saturday at 2:14 PM

john1911 said:
Thanks for the help. Are you able to read a full A4 page typed in around 12 font size in MS Word without having to scroll?

It's readable but it's small. I would personally advice you to go for a 32inch 1440 monitor. For office work and video consumption the Acer EB321HQUD and EB321HQUC are good. D has the height adjustable stand and speakers, otherwise they are the same. I have the C version of it and it's good enough for non-gaming use. Also the cheapest such monitor at 17-18k.

Heisen · 2024-07-07T11:58:01+0530

john1911 · 2024-07-07T12:47:44+0530

Thanks you guy for such informative comments.

edept said:
As mentioned by Heisen above, with a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels, at 100% scaling, you won't be able to read a full A4 page without having to scroll.

In LibreOffice Writer, I can see a full A4 page at 1440p (with desktop scaling at 100%, and LibreOffice zoom factor up to 110%). However, even on a 32 inch monitor, I think it would be too small to use comfortably for a long duration. So appropriate scaling would seem to be necessary, and accommodating a complete A4 page might not be a good criteria for the selection.

Yes, I realize it. Keeping 'accommodating a full A4 page' criteria is pretty lame.

roadrash99 said:
It's readable but it's small. I would personally advice you to go for a 32inch 1440 monitor. For office work and video consumption the Acer EB321HQUD and EB321HQUC are good. D has the height adjustable stand and speakers, otherwise they are the same. I have the C version of it and it's good enough for non-gaming use. Also the cheapest such monitor at 17-18k.

I used to keep 27" 1440p at 125% scaling because 100% felt too small and as mentioned by @Heisen, 1440p at 125% is basically 1080p only in terms of 'screen real-estate'.
So if I get 32" 1440p monitor, I won't have to keep the scaling at 125%. It will most likely be at 100% and I will have around 36% more 'screen real-estate'. Is this correct?

I don't think sharpness will be an issue, half of my work load is looking at images.
32" at 1440p will have PPI of 91
27" 1440p will have PPI of 108
27" 1440p at 100% scaling looks too sharp (or small, although both are different things

)

roadrash99 · 2024-07-07T12:55:25+0530

john1911 said:
I used to keep 27" 1440p at 125% scaling because 100% felt too small and as mentioned by @Heisen, 1440p at 125% is basically 1080p only in terms of 'screen real-estate'.
So if I get 32" 1440p monitor, I won't have to keep the scaling at 125%. It will most likely be at 100% and I will have around 36% more 'screen real-estate'. Is this correct?

Yes I keep my 32" 1440p monitor at 100%. 32" 1440p has same PPI as 24" 1080p. You must have seen 24" 1080p monitors as they are so common in offices. If you think that PPI is too low then you can try 32" 4k.

john1911 · 2024-07-07T13:20:20+0530

roadrash99 said:
Yes I keep my 32" 1440p monitor at 100%. 32" 1440p has same PPI as 24" 1080p. You must have seen 24" 1080p monitors as they are so common in offices. If you think that PPI is too low then you can try 32" 4k.

Nice. So I think a 32" 1440p should do.

Actually I'm currently using a 24" 1080p monitor at 110% (I keep monitor a bit far away and 100% scaling felt small, although I just now shifted to 100% to check and it is feeling okay). I tend to sit quite far (~ 65 cms) from the monitor.

Is it okay to use unconventional scaling settings like 110% - 115% etc. instead of usual 100% - 125% - 150% ?

YeAhx · 2024-07-07T13:42:00+0530

Something to note: You can set custom scaling values like 110% or 130% as well. Now how crisp it will be might be something to figure out. There's also things like making text bigger or cleartype text tuner application (comes default with windows) which can help to make text clearer without you know making everything too big. If you want only texts to be larger while still maintaining clean look this has to be the perfect solution.
Relevant article here

The only place it might cause an issue is where an application or a game doesn't want to abide by windows rules and they set their own scaling. For which you will have to set DPI scaling setting through its property tab and force is that way (or use that software which makes it so everything is set to high dpi scaling by default, I'm forgetting what its called but I remember someone mentioning it somewhere on the internet).

Heisen · 2024-07-07T14:55:36+0530

john1911 said:
So if I get 32" 1440p monitor, I won't have to keep the scaling at 125%. It will most likely be at 100% and I will have around 36% more 'screen real-estate'. Is this correct?

Yes, on 32inch 1440p you can use 100% scaling. You have to sit at 1 arm distance, + few inches. The sharpness however will look exactly the same as 24inch 1080p monitor, but you will have extra 33% screen real-estate.

To fix the sharpness if needed (I personally think, it helps with reading for longer hours), 32inch 4k monitor is the way to go, you have to use 150% scaling (windows recommended), it will be same screen real-estate as 32inch 1440p @ 100% scaling, but it will be crazy sharp.

The last tweaking parameter with 32inch 4k monitor is 125% scaling, this will give you even more real-estate just the text will little bit smaller but still sharper than 24inch 1080p monitor.

I recommend just get the 32inch 4k monitor, which gives you a good compromise option of scaling at 125% if you are unhappy with 150% scaling.

john1911 said:
Is it okay to use unconventional scaling settings like 110% - 115% etc. instead of usual 100% - 125% - 150% ?

I heard these values are little taxing on the system, because they don't have the optimizations which 125% 150% 175% 200% have. I could be wrong though. I prefer to avoid these uneven things.

john1911 said:
Yes, I realize it. Keeping 'accommodating a full A4 page' criteria is pretty lame.

It is lame because it is hard to achieve on landscape monitor, this is the reason why 16:10 monitors exists and is also used by apple a lot, it offers tremendous benefits, just tilt your current monitor to portrait mode and open a pdf, you see how every thing is just there and you just have to scan it with your eyes, just like a normal A4 physical sheet. You can open two A4 sheets side by side giving a sense of a double page book.

But it could be just me who is obsessed by this. Maybe normal people don't need it.