Which to choose

>>105726313 (OP)
Don't go above 1920x1080 on 32".

>>105726313 (OP)
The larger you go the higher the resolution will have to be to not see the individual pixels.

>>105726313 (OP)
This 27 is real nice.

27'' 1440p is the ideal spot

posting this on a 32'' 1440p and I can see the pixels, would probably need 4k to be viable, also 32'' monitors basically require curved screen which is a huge minus

>>105726435
Retard take

27" 1440p or 5K
32" 1692p or 6K

future monitors will just be 1'' by 1'' microled panels that you can simply snap together to make whatever size monitor you want without affect the pixel density

>>105726313 (OP)
32" if it was 5K or higher, otherwise 27" 4K.

>>105726566
I disagree about curved screens being a huge minus, as it is incredibly comfy with a two monitor setup. 1920x1080 is where I would stop @32", but I am old.

>>105726748
curved is fine for gaming/movies, but terrible for for productivity imo

>1080p 32''
yikes

>>105726671
>microled
Right now it was the WORST pixel density of all the options available.
And unless they can solve the pick-and-place assembly problem for it, I don't think it'll be more than a curiosity you'll see in rich mansion theater rooms like a wine chiller or jacuzzi.

QNED/QDEL/QD-EL on the other hand has the potential be something, just a month ago we got this update:
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1747302914
>Samsung Display’s latest EL-QD prototypes include a 400-nit high-brightness version and a 264 PPI high-resolution version. The high-brightness model improves on last year’s prototype (250 nits) by more than 50%, achieving the highest luminance among all EL-QD prototypes disclosed to date.

>The 400-nit panel is 18.2 inches with 3200x1800 pixels, 86% Rec.2020 and all inkjet-printed. It delivers 50% higher brightness than last year’s prototype. The new 264ppi panel is 6.55 inches with 960x1440 pixels, 300 nits brightness, 79% Rec.2020, and again all inkjet-printed. It improves on last year's 202ppi panel.

>>105726690
32" 5K has a 92 scaled dpi which is low for 2025. 27" 4K required fractional (shit) scaling to make it usable.

For 27" you need 5K, for 32" 6K.

>>105726313 (OP)
4k on 32" is the golden ratio and is optimal unless you have a tiny desk and are forced to sit close to the display.

>>105726847
>For 27" you need 5K, for 32" 6K.
Time to hurry up and keep waiting...

Crazy to see dipshits say 4k doesn’t matter on 27”.

You can absolutely see a difference in small text clarity.

>>105726877
it matters, but its not worth the money or the gpu compute

I sit about 30" away will 32" be too big

>>105726921
Just enable AI upscaling.
>But it looks slightly worse than native!
But it looks much better than a lower resolution.

>>105726921
Yes it is

Is 1080 in 27" viable? I don't care about 4k. I have a curved, 1440, 27" monitor that I think I'll replace with a flat, same size, lower resolution monitor to lengthen my 3070's lifespan.

>>105727068
shalom

>>105727080
>1440, 27"
this is the answer

i've never seen a thread before were 100% of the posts are sincere and retarded

>>105727142
Guess I should've specified refresh as well, so just assume 144hz. The curved screen has mostly worked though it's developing a flicker. I wanna have a backup plan for when I finally have a seizure and swallow my tongue. Rate:
Flat panel
1440 resolution
144hz
27"

>>105727158
>sincere
:D
>retarded
:C

>>105726842
aren't there vr headsets with decent microled pixel density?

>>105727162
what panel type?

>>105726366
???

>>105727336
I guess IPS, it's what I have now and it gets black enough. Don't think I need OLED

>>105726366
fpbp

>>105726313 (OP)
27" is already too big for desktop use. I constantly find myself running apps in windows instead of full screen because it's easier to keep track for everything.
For movies or something it's nice I guess

>>105726313 (OP)
42 inch 4k

>>105726313 (OP)
>Which to choose
My 55".

>>105726313 (OP)
Depends on your eyesight and viewing distance, there is no objective answer

27 INCH MONITOR IS LIKE LITTLE BABY SMOL BABY

>>105727636
yeah, its fine
post the model though

>>105727809
>gif
>doesnt move
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

>note playing your 240p video games on a 72'' rear projection TV
you fags missed out

>>105726313 (OP)
32 QHD is kino

>>105726313 (OP)
If a reptile posted in this thread, would it be a monitor lizard?

>>105726313 (OP)
Big and far is better than small and close

I've had a 30" 2560x1600 for 20 years, I'm holding out for 8k, 30-40".

>>105726313 (OP)
32" is too big. End thread.

>>105726313 (OP)
I don't understand retards who use 32" for work.
27" already hits the limit and start to feels uncomfortable, but somehow tolerable.
25" is the sweet spot for desktop monitors, assuming you sit at a stretched arm distance away from the screen.

>>105727235
>aren't there vr headsets with decent microled pixel density?
Yes, and LG is doing something similar with OLED, but it's easy to yield impressive specs on a panel the size of a glasses lens. Scaling it up to conventional monitor sizes is where the fly gets in the ointment.

>>105726313 (OP)
32 for anything above 1440.

>>105726566
32" 1440p is the same pixel density as 1080p at 24", its absolutely fine and the scaling and size is perfect, 4k is a pain in the arse at 32"

does anyone here have a 32" monitor

Thanks, but I'll still be sticking to 21".

>>105726313 (OP)
throughout the years we keep saying 22" is perfect, 24" is perfect, 27" is perfect
well now i'm on a 32" panel and my 27" panel next to it looks tiny
we'll probably keep going bigger still

>>105729693
i have a 30" 2560 x 1600 dell IPS monitor from 2011, the resolution always made it feel easy to do things on it, but the black bars bother my ocd

>>105731034
You already saw it when the 42" OLEDs first came out.

>>105731034
im sitting 2 feet away from my 55" tv that i use as a monitor for my computer btw

>>105731034
how far do you sit away from your monitors?

>>105731076
Damn, the pixels must be fuckhuge.

>>105731086
its a 4k tv but thankfully im blind so i cant see them unless i try really hard

>tfw text is a little too small for me at 100% scaling on 1440p 27"
Considering 32" 4k with 120% scaling or so.

>>105726366
This