Question Upgrading to 4k, what size?

[billb198121]

Everyone has always been very helpful here, and I'm continuing to search the forums for answers, but while I do, I thought I'd try to get some opinions on my specific setup.

I currently have two 24" Dells, and one 23" HP 1080 LED monitors on my desk at home. I recently upgraded to a 1080Ti, so running 4k shouldn't be a huge issue to me. I'm struggling with whether to purchase a 4k monitor, if so, 27/28" or go with 32". Others have said why not go with a 43" 4k TV for about the same price, but that just seems really huge on a desk. Here are some thoughts:

I play Prepar3d, and running it in 4k would be pretty amazing.
I also do some other gaming, but nothing too crazy.
Use Youtube TV, so the monitor would also work as a streaming TV.

I'm currently sitting about 30" away from my center screen, with the two other monitors angled . My concern is would a 32" be too big and being as close as I am sitting an issue? I really like having the three monitors, so wonder if just going to a 27/28" for center monitor would make sense.

Again I'll continue to do some research, don't ness. need specifics on which monitor, just looking for feedback if 32" is too big. Also, I've seen a lot of folks say you don't benefit from 4k until you go to 32 or higher.

Thanks all,

 

[tennis2]

I sit about 30" away (arm's reach to the screen) and I have a 32" TV that I tested with before I purchased and decided that was too big for me. Too much eye/head movement. 27" was my sweet spot. And, at that resolution/size a 27" 1440p monitor has 109ppi (pixels per inch) as compared to a 24" 1080p monitor at 92ppi. This means a 27" 1440p monitor is actually more pixel-dense than a stalwart 24" 1080p one that most people consider acceptable. To hit around that same ppi @ 4k, you're in the 43" range (102ppi).

IMO, 4k only makes sense for >32" monitors since 32" 1440p = 92ppi (same density as 24" 1080p)

Windows display scaling has improved, but I think most would agree that it's still got a way to go. If you get a monitor that's too dense, you're likely to have to use scaling which may or may not work well with various productivity software. Also, display scaling "zooms in" to the screen, making everything larger on-screen, but you also see less real-estate. You may end up seeing the same amount of window regardless of the size/resolution you go with since you're likely to target the size of objects as produced by your existing monitors. Too confusing??
Objects/text on-screen @ 100% (zero) display scaling will look the same size on a 24" 1080p as they do on a 32" 1440p as they will on a 48" 4k. The difference as you move along that list is that you're seeing more things on screen (10 objects -> 13 objects -> 20 objects). If you buy a 24" 4k monitor though, and have to use 200% scaling, you're only going to see 10 objects.

It's also difficult to find 4k monitors with 120Hz or greater refresh rates. 1440p FreeSync monitors with 144Hz panels are easy to come by. This is a more gaming-focused consideration.

more pixels = more GPU power required for intensive games = more $$$

 

[billb198121]

Thank you for your insight!

 

[Kcimor]

I guess the best thing would be to go to a store and see a 32" monitor for yourself and consider is the head movement from side to side would be too much/annoying. Tomorrow i have a sound class and the pcs there are 27" ill see if i could have bigger. I saw 32" monitors before but at the time i wasnt interested, so, i cant remember if it was too big or if it was a good size. Since its subjective its best to see for yourself, i dont even know why i didnt came to this conslusion before, instead i googled it Other people feedback is the best way to know when your not seeing for yourself