Don’t Buy the Wrong Resolution - 1080p vs 1440p vs 4K
Should you get a 1080p, 1440p or a 4k gaming monitor?
1440p monitors I recommend in 2024 (affiliate links):
Dell G2724D:
🛒 geni.us/du8fJ
📽️ • Don’t waste your money...
LG 27GR83Q:
🛒 geni.us/aRJn
📽️ • LG 27GR83Q Review - 24...
1080p monitors I recommend in 2024 (affiliate links):
Mobiuz EX240:
🛒 geni.us/Wyx9L
📽️ • Mobiuz EX240 Review - ...
KTC H24T09P:
🛒 geni.us/1cY4wB
📽️ • I tested the cheapest ...
Monitors in this video (affiliate links):
🛒 4k: geni.us/vgWO1h
🛒 1440p: geni.us/W6AN
🛒1080p: geni.us/BYQu
🛒 24" 1080p: geni.us/L06ANk
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Retina and PPI Calculator:
bit.ly/techless-rescalc
◼ Head to squarespace.com/techless to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code techless (sponsored) ◼
Support me on Patreon:
/ techlessyt
Discord:
/ discord
Instagram:
/ iamtechless
I've used 24 inch 1080p monitors for about a decade and it looks absolutely fine when you're used to it. I got to take a look at a 1440p monitor once and it kinda ruined 1080p for me for a while but luckily the mind forgets 😁 Thanks to technologies like DLSS and FSR getting high fps on 1440p and 4K monitors is quite achievable these days so it might be time to upgrade soon.
I have a 22inch 1080P monitor and wish it was 1440P... I specially like FPS simulators and a lot of fights are at a good range and I'm just glued close to the screen trying to see which crappy pixels move in the screen to start shooting at them, it's far from crystal clear😁 Anyway nothing like high ppi screens like on phones, they look like crystal😮😎 Also I hate Vaseline in my eyes, so DLSS and FSR for me is pointless since even on the highest quality it looks pretty bad for a output of only 1080P making 0 improvement at all for my old crap GPU in terms of performance while they seem to be amazing the higher the resolution output as the rendering resolution will also be higher.
it doesn't matter 1440p and 480p is the same in retina distance. Try to invest more in higher refresh rate monitor. If you're too reluctant to throw your cash out, just buy a oled panel.
@@guily6669 FSR 1.0 is pretty crap most of the time but DLSS is actually really good in most titles. Probably not worth it on 1080p in most games but for example in Warzone even at 1080p DLSS improves visibility and sharpness greatly over native res and the blurry filmic anti-aliasing they force you to use if you don't want to see jagged edges flickering all over your screen.
@@Remu- I actually disable AA on all games that allow cause I don't even stand the blur that comes with it, I really like things super sharp, hell my monitor sharpness is set to 100%, but it's not too over blown cause the LCD settings of it don't allow it. On the games where DLSS give extra sharpness compared to the original Res is nice, but most get softer like AA and all FSR games I tried at my 1080P display I didn't like a single one, they all looked like anything lower than 1080P which defeats the whole purpose...
@@guily6669 Damn that's kinda crazy. I could never play without AA. Especially in games where you need to see far. Without AA you can't see people moving because everything is moving on your screen.
For everything monitors related, out of all the possible informational content out their regarding them, be it youtube reviewers, blogs or reddit posts, i trust this guy the most! Hands down the most inforative channel for monitors atleast.
Really, never heard of Hardware unboxed, RTings, PCmonitors or TFT Central. Give me a break 🤦.
@@theoldpcgamer77 He’s just complimenting the dude 😒
@@henrivm3559 As a former calibrator and someone who has seen every monitor and tv type I see all kinds of bullshite videos saying this and that. The OP saying he is the best makes me comment.
@@theoldpcgamer77 some people just wanna be nice
@@henrivm3559 Yeah but compliment someone who knows what they are talking about at least. It must be a young person thing like saying congrats you came 3rd in a marathon. To me that is a loser but these days give them a medal and pretend they aren't 3rd rate. Wrong is wrong and loser is loser but yeah woke kids these days 🤦.
Great job on the spreadsheet! With the distance calculation and the way you did your formulas, I was able to easily modify it for my question about smaller displays. Thanks!!!
Got a 27" 4k monitor 6 years ago, can't use anything with less resolution now. Insane text clarity for someone who spends the entire day looking at text, also had some impressive health side-effects for me, I almost don't need to take painkillers for migraine/headache after a long day working in front of my PC, before it was a daily thing.
Same here. If you spend your life looking at a screen, "retina level" resolution is a must. I have a 4K DELL U2718Q. Bigger screen and I'd need a 6K / 8K resolution.
I feel that way about my 24" 4K monitor (Asus MG24UQ), I can't stand the lower DPI of other monitors now. As a software dev reading text all day is so much easier on the eyes with that level of clarity.
what were you like 10 inch from the monitor? I mean you're right for text and work 4k is king.. When it comes to gaming however.. it's not much worth it, a very little visual improvement and a big performance drop, often you're forced to compensate with dlss or similar which have their own downsides. Or of course, you can just buy new graphics card every 2 years, thats a way to solve performance issues, if the game is optimized well that is
i thought the same after using a bunch of different 4K monitors (back then the XG27UGR, M32U, 27GP950 and now 27GR93U) i went back to 1440p. it looked awful but a week later i was completely used to it again.
I’m accidentally gonna upgrade to 4K from 1440p later on today. I was looking into getting an Asus pg279q but instead I’m getting the pg27aq which is the 4K version of this monitor. Oh well I guess I hope my graphics card can handle it :,)
I'm waiting for the arrival of 24" 1440p gaming monitors
Kinda surprised they don't already exist. Sacrifice screen size for sharper resolution. It'll definitely fill a niche.
А смысл, если оннеся его на 5-10см от глаз 27 будут смотреться одинаково?
Same here 😥😥
Same!
my dell s2417dg 1440 is 24 inches?
Really nice video! I already knew all these concepts, but you presented them in such a way that kept me captivated and interested, whilst confirming my own understanding.
Excellent explanation and proof of what is useful and how we should decide on the basis of what we really need. Not just "bigger numbers = better". But I see that most only decide on basis of highest refresh rate, not picture quality.
Your demonstration/comparison was very concise and clear. I'm about to buy a new monitor...your video really helped me to prioritize value/price vs. specs. . Thanks!
I currently run a 27" 1080p display and from a normal viewing distance it looks absolutely fine.
have you tried 1440p/4k at 27"? maybe after you use one of them you would think differently
@@DictatorKirbyor not wasting money.
@@DictatorKirbyor maybe if you don't try something better then you'll think what you have is absolutely usable and fine? I'm the same kinda, i haven't tried 4k yet and I'm sure it'll be insane but since I havent 1080p is absolutely fine
Look whatever you do don't look at another resolution I went over my friends house one time saw he had cod up and running and my god tht 1440p was looking crispy and now have 2 1440p monitors...
@@MaxOrDieYT Copium
Sponsor mention without going away from the main point of the whole video was just genious. I typically fast forward those but here it contained desired content, just genious!
Great overview. Thank you. I will be segueing to a 27" 1440p screen from my current 24: 1080p thanks to this video.
Habe deinen Kanal vorhin erst gefunden, bis jetzt schon ein paar Videos zu Monitoren angeschaut und muss sagen dass ich absolut beeindruckt bin 💯 Weiter so :)
Text rendering for SURE benefits from an overkill on resolution beyond just "can i see the pixels". Because text layout engines for display purposes will align the glyphs either on pixel edges or on third-pixel edges horizontally, and on pixel edges vertically, and this can distort the kerning and the overall cadence of the text significantly. By getting more alignment resolution, you can get a more natural, easier to read flow of text, more similar to print. Though i would say text rendering needs to be rethought; we have resolutions high enough and gammas consistent enough to where we can just lay out text pixel grid independently and just take a little resulting blurriness as a penalty, for better text flow. Ultimately all people see things a little differently, we should be given more of a choice. But currently, not even text rendering method is consistent between different software running on the same operating system! Windows software could use DirectWrite, GDI+, or any number of frameworks with different text shaping opinions, and yes i actually find it scandalous that Microsoft isn't about to make their own frameworks of different eras behave the same, they apparently just seal the legacy behaviour in. There's also really several different copies of ClearType tuning value sets which work or don't depending on software, fun! I had used MacType in the past to similar effect, but found it flaky and burdensome back in the day. I might redeploy it again. 4k is definitely well outside the budget for me, as attractive as it is for text rendering. I would say that working with text also benefits a lot from high refresh rate (120Hz, not necessarily higher) and from consistent transitions where neither black-to-white nor white-to-black has more stickiness than the other, particularly when you scroll a lot, working with large amounts of text.
Thank you for this analysis, I am reading it a few times.
This is a truly well produced and informative video. I now have a thorough understanding of the give and take implications to be considered when selecting monitors. Very well done and highly recommended.
Thanks so much for the PPD bit! Much appreciate the template sheet!
This is great information as I was curious about this. I have been using 1440p monitors for years and was very happy with those. I did just buy an Alienware AW3821DW (IPS 38" 3840x1600) as I wanted vertical space along with horizontal space. it was a great deal on sale for $899.99 IMO and won't impact performance of my system as much as 4K would. The Alienware AW3423DWF is supposed to be the greatest thing currently, but there is no additionally vertical height and I cannot handle the screen "pixel refresh prompt every 4hrs" to prevent burn-in (ridiculous and kills usability). I might have waited for the ASUS PG38UQ (IPS 4K 38" but oh well) this probably is the REAL sweet spot for usability IMO (productivity and gaming).
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, and probably not the last. But I just wanted to mention the incredible quality of your videos. You put so much effort into these videos, and the editing and time really pays off. Breaks my heart to see this channel at 30k subs but I've been with you since 10k and I'll be with you all the way to 1mill subs and more!! Keep up the grind, it's really going to pay off man. Have a good day!
Thanks man! Really appreciate it 🙂
@@techlessYT I feel like most creators on youtube focus on less in depth reviews but they make many more of them.
@@adrs8235 yeah, it's so heartwarming to see quality over quantity content when it's generally hard to find these days.
Bought a 32 inch 1080p monitor by accident a few years ago. The 1080p and the 1440p looked identical on the website, with just a 50 euro price difference. Safe to say I could see each individual pixel at 1 meter even without my glasses. The 32 inch 1440p I have now is so much better to look at it's not even funny
I made the same mistake :(
Once you make the switch to 1440p youd never want to go back
At work we had 2 24" 1080p monitors on our tables, but when our office moved to a new location, our boss decided it would be a great idea to buy bigger monitors. So now we have 2 32" monitors with... 1080p resolution. :(
@@americanboy1332 how does it look now, compared to the previous one,good or bad
32 inch 1440p is still terrible. It's the same as 24" 1080p. 27" 1440p is where shits at. Why don't people do basic research before buying stuff
Since this is focused on gaming, I want to point out that even ignoring the FPS drop, games are not actually the most demanding in terms of needing high PPI. Video games graphics consist of a lot of smooth gradients (think a wall with a texture on it) and blurred areas, without too many hard edges, and most objects will occupy more than a few pixels on the screen. Because of that, they are more tolerant to a lower resolution and will still look ok if there are good anti-aliasing applied. What actually will benefit the most from a high PPI display is ironically things like very text-heavy applications, like coding / web browsing / productivity tools, because the dense information conveyed by texts or complicated UI rely on the small fonts' edges being drawn correctly without being blurred or aliased. Speaking on the FPS drop though, I think with the advent on super-sampling techniques like DLSS, it may start to become a more moot point in near future. DLSS and friends cannot magically make an upsampled 4K (e.g. from 1080p) image looks like native 4K, but it will still definitely look much better than just the 1080p image itself. Given that the performance cost of DLSS is relatively low, we may start seeing a lot of bang for the buck in upgrading your monitor's resolution without losing too much frame rate. But it's definitely true that high refresh rate monitors will usually have lower resolution though.
Somebody show me a 32" 8K monitor! or a 40" 10K Super Ultra Wide 99%DCI-P3, 4000:1 contrast, 2000nits, VESA DisplayHDR 1000, 240Hz Thunderbolt4, 3×HDMI2.1, 3×USB4 Type C Somebody show me a graphics card with 32GB GDDR7 VRAM put a combination of piezoelectric solid state fans and water cooling on it.
@@SpaceCaseZ06 why?
@@SpaceCaseZ06Jesus GDDR7 I still can't get 6X vram from AMD😭
The Excel Calculator is super useful. Thanks for taking the time to make that.
I have dual 4k 32" monitors at work (Windows 10). There are issues with certain apps that are designed for 1080p (ie, they don't scale relative to the 4k screen). I've had blackouts playing videos. You would think 4k is fully supported, but it's not. It's still in the early adopter phase.
I’ve noticed same issue when it comes to TV as with monitors. The tech is developing faster than developers and the industries can keep up. Most tv stations broadcast still in 720p and we have 8k and 16k right around the corner.
I got a LG 4k tv
I was still using a 24" monitor I've been using for over 11 years. I bought my first high def monitor last week and I LOVE it. I had no idea what a difference a monitor makes, I didn't have a lot to spend so got the cheaper monitor that people were saying was good. I bought the Gigabyte M32Q 2K
you probably had an CCFL backlight monitor* ,the problem wasn't that it wasn't a bad model...it just aged, same thing happened to one of my monitors after daily use for 11 years. * -> "Like most fluorescent lights, as the fluorescent tubes age, their output usually diminishes slowly"
yes, i upgraded to a philips 4k monitor with a 6700 xt and love it! i don't play many games anymore and stream more video than anything else. so turning down (slightly) settings for game play to keep the fps between 55-60 was an easy choice. the monitor is only 60 hertz so i'm happy with the $700 upgrade.
Yeah I have 1440p 24" inch monitor too and I'm pretty happy with it still even though its like 5 years old and only 60 hertz. I think 1080p just looks like shit without some really good AA, and the amount of power you need to drive 4k just isn't worth it, imo.
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa it'll take a bit to get used to but you'll find that most people can't go back to a smaller screen. now i had a pixio 27" for a few years(1440p) and loved it. then switching to a 28" 4k was nothing. switching res is worse than switching size. if you do both it'll take a while to adjust!
@@BlueCrashFigurineHoldingWumpa i came from 15 inch 320x240, to 17 inch 1024x768, to 24 inch 1920x1080, i have place for 35 inch monitor to see movies at 1.5 meters. Where can i find the calculator : distance / ppd ?
One thing to note is that TAA - which is a common modern anti-aliasing solution these days makes lower resolutions look even worse as it affects the entire image quality not just aliasing and it is very reliant on pixels. At lower resolutions it will smear stuff together just to prevent jaggies from appearing. Make sure in your tests this option is disabled, if their is no anti-aliasing type option or off that means the game forces it and should be discounted from testing. Just a quick tip
I hate TAA so much
Me too. I personally prefer no AA in games and hate it when it’s not an option.
TAA's pretty bad. DLSS2 is the first AA I didn't hate.
unfortunately, its absolutely mandatory for good image quality in almost every DX12 game, because transparency effects depend on it. turning off TAA usually results in modern games, in turning everything into a dithered mass of triangles.
Thats why I prefer 4K and no antialiasing (or mild AA settings). It looks better, more crisp and not blurred, than aggressive AA settings in lower resolution. Difference in resolution especially noticeable on thin lines (like wires) and mesh-like textures.
Good job! Thank you for providing detailed info and easy-to-understand infographics!
I’m looking for a monitor and your channel is like a treasure trove of high quality monitor related videos. I love it!
I'm running a 49 inch ultrawide (Sansung CGH90), but it's essentially 2 1080P monitors glued together. Very few resolution issues at all, only every now and then I noticed a definition issue. I value performance over quality. There is no perceivable sort of perceptible lag using this rather than trying to drive a 4k
I have the Samsung CRG9 and its essentially the same thing.
I've still got a 15 inch Viewsonic CRT monitor that is nearly 20 years old that can do 2456x1414i and it looks amazing! I found it for free on the side of someone's house. Best of all, because it's a CRT, it has its built-in anti-aliasing screen that gives everything a slight blur while still keeping all the detail! I plan on keeping and using it till the very end!
I had many unanswered questions on monitors and you just covered everything.Thank you
Perfect, very explanatory... Only thing missing is including an ultrawide display, well done 💪👍
Amazing comparison. Exactly what I was looking for☺️
Another outstanding review from techless! Thanks for all the valuable info.
My 6 year old Lenovo T440s features 14" 1600x900. And in the video there are 27" (twice the size) so for that only 4k is acceptable for desktop use (600 mm distance). However, if you plan to use it at 1200 mm distance like from a sofa then you may drop resolution by half.
I see the Optimum Tech inspiration in both your editing style, lighting choice, script and content. Love it! We need more youtubers like you guys:)
lol that's what i was thinking as soon as I clicked on the video
I've been dailying a 27" 144hz 1080p monitor for 3 years now. When I got it I thought the sharpness of it was amazing. Now... not so much. A few days ago I bought a 32" curved 1440p 144hz monitor for my sim racing rig, and even that isn't as sharp as I thought it would be. But, I still went for it because if I'd gone for a 4K monitor I'd have had to upgrade my PC as well and that would've completely blown my budget. So, in conclusion, I completely agree with your conclusion.
Never did I think that someone would say "1080p doesn't look that good", maybe I'll say the same thing once I get spoiled with these pieces of tech.
I must have bad eyes because I am looking at my 1080P monitor and I do not see individual pixels when sitting at a normal viewing distance. Good news on that is that I can pay less money than other people and still be happy with what I have.
And at the end of the day, Thats what matters! 🤑
People think that because the item had a big price tag it makes them cooler and better than everything else 1080p is a great display and many many more sizes like 32 inches all for a cheaper price and the same amount of fun.
@@Techforlife280 idk man, ppl seem to be really thrilled about 4k resolutions. I remember years back also doubting the upgrade from 60 to 144hz and now I would rather use my freaking phone than be forced to sit infront of a 60hz panel
@@Bankai90lol don’t be sensitive I know for goddamn sure u Caint tell a dam difference
@@Techforlife280 you mean the resolution right? or do you rly say u can't tell 60 vs 144hz? ye we will see, I ordered yesterday a 2k monitor since I'll prob wait with 4k for the next gen graphic cards. I've a 4070 super but even that seems to barely pull 4k well in the majority of games If the 2k will be a noticable difference then for sure I will invest in the future into 4k
My favourite is 1440p 27" currently. The problem I have with 4k right now is that you will have to use windows scaling to read and use stuff. This feature is still nowhere near a perfect state. Especially as many websites for example and even windows itself can't handle scaling and will either not scale everything or will scale it and make it blurry. Until this is fixed I will stick to native resolutions in windows and for 27", 1440p is perfect.
A very good point here, in a couple of years when almost all programs and windows itself are more scaling ready and graphics card are more powerful to drive 4k graphics, then will indeed 4k monitors be mainstream and recommended.
Very true and important point that is often not considered by many people. For my desk 27 seems large as I am sitting close to the monitor, so I still use FHD 23.8 screen.
Would dual 1440p 27'' Monitors be recommended for gaming or would you suggest: primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
@@Mangomaniac Depends how you want to use the PC. If your second monitor is 1080p and your main is 1440p you will notice that all elements on the screen will be differently scaled when you move stuff from one monitor to the other. But you would only need one 1440p monitor for better quality for gaming. 2 identical monitors are just more consistent but not needed.
My concern is that while vector graphics (like text) can scale freely, and many modern games are made for 4K, lots of legacy content was designed for 72dpi. When viewing those kinds of content, something's got to upscale the image in an elegant way.
That's why it's literally impossible to play any Source game in 8k, though that's not an issue for a long time.
Excellent breakdown, with practical examples. Well done!
Thank you for these tips its very informative👍
Great information, thank you! I‘ll be buying a new one in the next few months because mine is just outdated. If I had to guess, I‘d say it’s at least close to 10 years old. It still runs fine, but my old eyes get tired quickly. I have found that a lightbar is amazing. I recently go a Yeelight Pro, it’s really useful. Don’t know if you‘ve done any reviews on those. Thanks again, I just subscribed to your channel. We could use more quality KZheadrs like you. No bullshit and high quality information!
Just make sure your computer can handle the change, it not only need to be able to do 4 at a higher framerate but it also needs to stay stable while doing so, even my 4070ti has issues with my 4k
Great job with the video! I completely agree, the actual numbers that matter are the PPD (pixels per degree). Pixels per inch (PPI) is not a useful measure, but it is given by manufacturers as they don't care to tell us at what distance we should use the screens. PPI is a device-specific measure, but PPD is what gives you the visual acuity. So, I checked my devices. For my phone, I measured a viewing distance of about 13" . As it has a screen that is 2.7" by 5.75" at 411 PPI, I calculated that I'm using it with 90 PPD. Definitely "retina quality" as I don't see any pixelation. For my 13" laptop, viewing it at at an average distance of 22", I get 107 PPD since the laptop has a stupidly high quality, 3000x2000 screen. I had a Mac before with a 60 PPD and as expected, I didn't find any pixelation on that laptop either. For desktop monitors, I have one 32" 1440p at work and one 32" 1080p at home. For both, I sit at 32" away. This works great for me because I can have two letter sized documents one above the other on my desk w/o hitting the monitor, plus some room to spare so I don't have to sit glued to the desk. The 32" monitors were chosen so that I can have two Word documents side by side on the screen. So... with this geometry, the 1440p gives me 56 PPD (basically a borderline retina display quality) whereas the 1080p only 42 PPD. Yes, I definitely see some pixelation on the 1080p, but when I'm at home I usually recline further back from the 1080p so the PPD increases (at the expense of the reduction of the field of vision). I have 20/20 vision at short distance and I cannot see any pixelation on a 1440p, 32" monitor if I sit at 32" away (as expected). If you're a teen with eagle eyes, you might, if you have better than 20/20 vision. So for me, a 1440p monitor with a 32" diagonal viewed at 32" away is enough as it provides a good enough field of vison of about 46 degrees with 56 PPD. Instead of spending a lot more on a 4K monitor, I would rather get a 1440p with a high refresh rate. Now, if you play racing games and first person shooters and want a more immersive experience by increasing the field of vision to something like 60 degrees, a wider screen monitor that keeps the same PPD is better (not necessarily a 4K, but an ultrawide 3440x1440). You do not need 4K for peripheral vision, as human vision acuity is not good enough past 20 deg to see any difference between 2K and 4K or even 1080p. I play Civilization 6 and rarely some chill city building games and for those, the field of vision is not important at all (I don't have to react quickly to fast changing details in the peripheral vision).
thank you. this was a really informative read. better than what most youtubers put out.
PPI is just as useful. You just need to understand what distances are best for each value.
Everybody uses their monitor at different distances. That's why a device-specific measure is more useful. A few problems I can think of: 1. It is easier to compare with different monitors since people usually use their monitor at a certain preferred distance. Like phones would tell you the screen size, not a degree size at a certain arm length. 2. Screens are not spherical so it is ambiguous to define PPD for every monitor. 3. If they use PPD then naturally they would inflate the "recommended viewing distance" to increase the PPD number to make it seem sharper than it actually is. 4. To combat this, they would have to list the viewing distance so that you could compare with your own. At this point you might as well use DPI since you probably are already familiar with how far you personally are going to view the monitor from.
Not saying I disagree with anything you said but everytime someone says something along the lines of "the human x/y/z can't tell a difference between this or that" it always comes back to bite them in the ass
PPD would depend on each person's viewing distance so you need to calculate it yourself. For example, I think I sit much closer than 32" for my desk monitor. I also have a 32" monitor but in 4K (138 PPI), and maybe because of the closer viewing distance I actually find it a little blurry compared to my laptop (a 14" MacBook Pro with 254 PPI). Part of it also depends on what your eyes are used to. It's not like I can explicitly see individual pixels on a 32" 4K monitor, but if you are used to a higher pixel density, switching back and forth can make the image just feels a tad bit blurry.
Very helpful video. Much thanks ♥
You are the one and only guide anyone needs to buy a monitor bro! On point and detailed. Kudos.=)
You're content is by far the best on KZhead for monitors! I love how raw and honest you are as well as the detail and explanations!
Thanks for this video, it informative. More people need to understand the differences between resolution and display size. Pixel density is the metric you should consider when choosing a display. Your video does a good job explaining this for people who haven't considered the relationship between screen size and viewing distance. I think 1440P is the sweet spot resolution wise on a 27 inch display. I'm sure a 4K 27 inch monitor looks super sharp but, you will be paying the price in performance to drive all those pixels. Display scaling for 4K displays comes into play as well. I don't think Windows or MacOS really do a great job with display scaling. MacOS only really works well at 110'ish PPI or at 220 PPI. If your pixel density is somewhere in between, say 150 PPI, your experience is going to be less than ideal.
Windows display scales well enough. Haven't had a problem with that on my 4k 27inch monitor, but others may disagree
hey man, ive been playing games on a 4k monitor and it doesnt give much performance,it has 60hz. Should i buy a 1080p monitor with much more hz and for better performance?
@@texfusomewhere I read that 2k 144hz > 4k 60hz
only macos scaling is shitty. On windows, scaling is fine as a normal user (normal being not a graphics designer or sth)
Hi I checked your full video and want your suggestion I am looking for the monitor for office work only and main concern is eye strain. Currently eye strain feels because of not so sharp and clear text and less smoothness on scrolling the page/ browser. So, whether higher refresh rate and resolution will help ?
Thank you so much! The Apple retina comparison was super interesting.
For two monitors (for gaming), would you suggest: Primary and Secondary 1440p 27'' @ 144Hz/165Hz or Primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz
I upgraded recently from a MSI 24 inch 1080p 144hz screen to a Dell 27 Inch 1440p 165hz screen, and I cant go back to Full HD anymore, while the difference in number from 1080 lines to 1440 lines is somewhat small, the pixel count is 77% larger, and the image quality is miles better.
Spot on - loved the vid, thank you!
Very very very informative video. Every second is information. Great video my man
Really informative spreadsheet to help me decide whether to get a 4k 27" or a 4k 32" inch. Knowing that the 4K 32" is comparable to Apple Retina resolution pretty much decided for me.
I think their "retina" definition has changed or they're considering a different distance for the PPD calculation for desktop monitors, where they seem to aim for ~220 PPI LG Ultrafine "true" 4K at 21.5" - 219 PPI Apple 27" 5K display - 218 PPI Too bad about the discontinued 21.5" LG, the 24" 4K is 189 PPI and I could tell some difference vs the 218 PPI (I owned both) You could easily notice a BIG difference even with the 24" 189 PPI vs 32"
Actually i'm thinking in that way like small screen size high resolution 🤔 and I see your reply. Tell me 24 inch 1440p 75hz is good enough for 40~45cm viewing distance?
The main drawback I see with a big screen is having to sit further back to see everything, and lying in the hope that your old programs have options to greatly increase text size. For resolutions of 1440p of roughly the same standard 16-9 ratio, A 24 inch monitor translates roughly to 122ppi, A 27 inch monitor to 108ppi, a 32inch to 91ppi. I can see the pixels on this old 16 inch 1366x768p capable laptop, which translates to just 97ppi. The gain in switching to a desktop with a 27 inch monitor at 1440p would surely be fairly minimal sitting at the same distance as before, and a 32 not worth it (although sitting as close to s 32 as you would a laptop isn't going to be ideal anyway). 24 inch monitors with a 1440p resolution seem very hard to come by, but would surely be best for close up media editing (assuming all monitors compared had a similar pixel type,text clarity and colour accuracy). In the end it's not going to matter that much as long as you sit at an appropriate distance
I actually find it better to see the individual pixels to a certain degree, it makes pixel peeping easier
@FutaCatto which one would you recommend?
A very good explanation for us, thank you for making this excellent video!☺
Needed this, great vid
I like high resolutions just like everybody but the problem is that I find 27'' monitors too big for competitive shooters. That's why I'll stay on 24'' monitors forever. A 24'' 1440p 240Hz OLED would be the endgame monitor for me.
the dream monitor
144 or 165hz is more than enough for me
sadly 1440p 24 inch is hard to find, the ones out so far is 75hz
I wish 16:10 aspect ratio monitors were more common.
Lmfaoo just to get bodied by adults on a 50 inch tv
720p moniter users 🪦
*monitor And where would anyone even find a 1280x720 monitor?
@@GrainGrownThe dark side of the Internet is a way to Many abilities some would consider unnatural +people who bought one when they were new
@@tomaszzalewski4541 So what monitor(s) do you have?
@@GrainGrown 480i 💀.
@@tomaszzalewski4541Don't forget to punctuate!
Thank you for this super informative video. Bookmarking it.
Thank you for a good demonstration and explanation
Since the 1080Ti came out 5 years ago I play in 4k with a 40 inch monitor. Great resolution but usually way below 60Hz and about around 30Hz.
This channel never disappoint. Just what i need in comparisons
I really appreciate the knowledge and practicalities of monitors in your videos. Thanks for the PPI calculator, too. I'm looking at buying either a 24" or 27" 1080p monitor (ASUS VA24EHF or VA27EHF), and wonder what you think of this reasoning: Optometrists say they focusing on objects less than 1 meter away causes our eye muscles and lens to contract an unnatural amount that leads to long-term vision impairment. The nearer the focal point, the worse. Focusing further away helps. For a 23.8" monitor, I can push it about 75 cm away from my eyes and still work with text OK. So, instead of buying a new 24" monitor I consider buying a 27" monitor and place it even further from by eyes, preferably about 1m. At 90 cm, the field of view would be the almost the same as a 24" monitor at 75 cm. The benefits would be that the pixel density is close to the optimal in your PPI calculator and less strain on my eyes. What do you think? I'd also appreciate anyone's option of the ASUS VA27EHF or VA24EHF.
Thank you, very informative.
I have used a 23" 1080p TN monitor for over 10 years now. I've been looking for an upgrade for a while, but monitors are quite expensive. While building PCs/setups for others I've had the chance to try different screens and found out how much my eyesight affects things. 27" 1440p is the sweetspot for most people, but it requires me to strain my eyes or sit closer than I would like. I thought about going for a 27" 1080p IPS panel for a while until I saw one in person. Even I could tell how bad it looked. Needless to say, I am glad that 31.5" 1440p monitors seem quite popular. A 55" 4K screen would be nice, but very expensive and probably the end for my RX480.
Thanks. Even though I'll buy my new PC only in 5-6 months it's really useful to have at least some basic knowledge (although I am a bit more torn between wide 1440 and faster refresh 1440, as I don't care about competitive games)
1440 high refresh definitely wide screens atleast for me is a gimmick and 144hz just feels so smooth going back to 60hz hurts my soul
Amazing video, very helpful, thank youuu
nice video, thanks. after i upgraded from a 20" FHD to an 24" FHD i wondered that the pixels were so much more visible. i underestimated that completly and it does not look good or feels right.. I now want to buy an 27" WQHD Monitor.
315 views, not in the market for a monitor, and a channel ive never heard of before. wonder why i clicked, but i dont regret it lol Edit: big surprise, its great
well, the 315 views is because this vid just dropped, hardly surprising.
This guy is the best on monitors
If you plan on playing games where reaction speed is a factor you also need to consider the monitors input delay in addition to the refresh rate. 1080p monitors not only have the fastest refresh rates they also have the least input delay, so i think it's safe to say that 1080p monitors will stick around for awhile yet. 1440p monitors are getting there but if you want a 1440p monitor with low input delay and a high refresh rate it's going to cost you as you will be buying from the higher end. I don't think there's any 4k or any ultra wide monitor on the market that a serious esports professional would consider using since the input delay will be higher and the refresh rates lower. They are obviously great when you want to create an immersive experience but they will disadvantage you on the leaderboards. People are not playing games seriously on 4k TVs for a reason.
It's not just refresh rate of the screen, but also the pixels. For most people, any monitor will be below the perceptible difference in input lag unless you're actually a competitive gamer
Yeah, its not about fps or g2g times or refresh rate. Resolution and note ALSO monitor size has a huge effect on input lag, 1440p and/or 32 inches vs 1080p and/or 24 inches the difference is really big. This is why pros still run 24-27 inch 1080p monitors. I had to go back to 27 inch 1080p monitor after trying various monitors over 28 inches and 1440p resolution.
By that logic then would 720p run even faster?
The thing no one seems to mention is whether or not more of the game world is rendered at higher resolutions, or is that dependent on aspect ratio?
Thanks for the video and the awesome google sheet, helped me a lot to understand what I'm looking for
Thank you for this video. Could you please suggest a decent 24" 1440p at least 144 Hz, IPS gaming monitor? As it would be the best screen size and resolution for me without over spending.
Yes thus or a 27" would ve perfect for competitive gaming foe the ps5 from what I have seen
Super Video, auch die Tabelle zum nachrechnen und überschlagen! Thanks 🙂
Great explanation! In my case exactly 90 cm distance - important factor as you explained.
Personally I prefer refresh rate more than resolution in gaming, and I am very happy with my 1440p display. Also work runs pretty smooth on it, and I never felt the urge to swap to 4k sharper text. At last costs for energy are rising, and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days.
imo 1440p looks just as good as 4k in most situations anyway and the performance gains are huge when you downgrade. I feel like high refresh rate 1440p is just the sweet spot right now
Have u gamed on a 4k monitor tho? It looks so much better not only for gaming but for regular computer tasks, watching KZhead videos, netflix etc. U can just use DLSS performance and u get same performance as 1440p if u really have to and it will still look better than 1440p native
_"...and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days."_ So you just can't afford a modern monitor.
Ive been wanting to go up to a 32" IPS (maybe curved) from my 27" TN but every year goes by and I can never find the will to justify spending 3-600 just for a bit more size and better colors when my dell s2716dg is still going strong. I honestly wish I could move up to 4k but my 3070 doesnt really have the horse power for that and I dont have loads of cash laying around to buy a monitor just for cinematic/single player games.
2716dg gang
@@gatorkea its a classic!
I recently bought the AW3432DW and felt like it was not enough of an upgrade to the dell imo, so I returned it.
Probably the most helpful video in the world. If I’m ever stranded on a desert island with nothing but my phone and Amazon same day delivery I know what I’m getting thanks to you.
Thank you so much... very informative..
I actually prefer the pixel density of 1080p on 27' panels. It has a lot to do with UI scaling. A lot of small text in programs cannot be scaled and even on a 23 inch 1080p display its difficult to comfortably read without pulling your head closer to the display. The 27 inch display at 1080p makes it a lot easier to read, having a 4K 27inch display is absolutely horrendous when you are trying to read 10 point font in programs that have no scaling options for higher resolutions.
Which programs? I guess you could always run 1080p when you use that programs and the switch to 4k otherwise
How though? The text may be larger but it's more fuzzy and less sharp. I have a 24in 1080p va monitor 60hz and just bought a 27in 1080p va monitor 165hz to replace it. I put them side by side and its very obvious that at 1080p 27inches you lose quite a lot of clarity. At least at 24 inches the image is very clear and the finder details are distinguishable. The same can't be said with the 27in.
If you play any pixel heavy games like MOBAS, then the pixel density is much more important and 1080p on a 27 inch would drive u insane. It all depends on your computer needs.
What do you think about 32" in a 1080p monitor 240hz, for gaming??
lol BS. Also a dumb reason, in windows you can select between 100-200% scaling. There are very few applications and games which don't scale, and the one or two I've run into (all older games) would not make it worth the fidelity sacrifice in 99.9999% of the rest of usage.
Actually in my case a 4k display was cheaper than a 1440p one bc it's a display for creativity and not gaming, wheras 1440p's are all "gaming" with low response times and hogh refresh rates
Crystal clear explanation. Thank you.
Great job with the video!
Great video, I learned a lot! I wanted to bring up what "the human eye can actually see", as it seems to change every couple of years. I remember when around the 2010s, the general rule was that the human eye "could no notice" anything above 80-90 fps, while nowadays, 120fps is a minimum to aim at when going "serious" while gaming. This is not a critique to your video, just that it surprised me how this numbers drift up with every new generation of products. Same thing with ms/response, but that would be the same story.
kzhead.info/sun/hJWcncySqmOGaGw/bejne.html
4k is great for productivity tasks though. For gaming, you can just use the scaling option almost all modern games provide or even just use 1080p, as it's exactly 4 pixels of the monitor for every pixel of the image. However, in my experience, upscaling gives a big quality improvement with almost no performance hit.
27" 2500х1600 is much better than any size 4k
@@ollibo Why?
@@ezakustam1440p 27 inch is also perfect for productivity.
Using 1080p resolution on a 4K monitor will look like crap. If you can't afford a 4K monitor and a good gaming setup, just stick with 1080p or 1440p.
Well, I have like 3 24" monitors now and was thinking about buying a 27" 1440p monitor for gaming and it would be the main monitor ofc, but im like when its 27" it would look so big next to the 2 24" monitors so idk. The bigger resolution would be great for games, but at that time it would feel bit weird next to the 24" monitors 😅
I have extended your calculator with UHD-II. That was easy thanks to your formulas. Based on your data in the excel sheet, 150 PPD is the theoretical upper limit of visual acuity. You can reach that with UHD-II with up to 34 inches (85cm distance). Even with 42 inches, the PPD is 123. We need UHD-II monitors! 😄
An extra point to consider: Traditional upscaling (probably dlss and fsr too) look better the higher the monitor resolution is. For an extreme example; 800p looks not just lowres but also blurry on a 1080p monitor but looks much sharper on a 4k monitor (still lowres but not as blurry).
From my experience, you see a difference, but only a slight difference on homogenous, gradient pictures, like in games, photos or movies. You see a significant difference on high contrast, sharp edged stuff. And that is best represented by black text on white background. Yes, hidpi monitors are the most beneficial for simple, plain old text editing, pretty regular office stuff. And it actually matters. Me, I have a significantly higher reading speed and a significantly increased throughput of text with less fatigue with my 4k monitor.
that's good to know. btw what is your monitor's screen size, refresh rate, and your estimated viewing distance from the screen?
@@Kizerlk07 27", 4k, 60Hz on office stuff, 90Hz on gaming, 60-70cm.
I can't say I agree with you 100%, but I do accept your opinion as valid. For years (since 2015)I was using 40 inch TV as a computer monitor, resolution 1080p. The only times the resolution felt too low was when dealing with lots of windows text, not even games' text. At least as long as the game resolution was natively 1080p. At the same time I had and using (less) a 40 inch monitor, resolution 2160p. Unfortunately because my computer lacked the power to deal with playing at 4K, I was only using it with my Mac Mini late 2012 model, for FCPX editing. The specific mini did not support 4K/60 so I was between using it at 4K/30 or 1600p at 60. Using it at 30Hz was just torture so I wasn't using the monitor even at 4K at all. While I still have both the TV and the monitor in the apartment (packaged), for the last 3 years I am using a 27 inch 1440p monitor. I find both the size and the resolution, almost perfect. Again I am using this one as a computer monitor, so it is at a relatively short distance, same as with the previous two. The main reason I switched to this was because I developed a heavy distaste for anything too big in my fov. I literally felt even more depressed with them in front of me (and to the side) to the point I just wanted something smaller. Thus the jump to the 27 inch 1440p monitor. Having said that, I admit that there are times when I miss the 40 inch screens in front of me. Especially for racing and flying games, in cockpit view. So yes, my point is for me at least the 1080p is fine for 27 or even 40 inch screen used as a computer monitor. But, OBVIOUSLY the higher the resolution, the better the image quality will be.
I got 2 24" 1080p monitors. One is 144hz, the orher is 75hz. They both serve my needs and look amazing. Id say theyre probably half a metre away from me when I'm sitting at my desk. The jump to 1440p is quite big in Canada, but if i ever have to update one of my monitors, id obviously get rid of my 75hz monitor and buy a 1440p to use as my gaming monitor 😅
Watched this entire video and can't tell a difference between these monitors. Guess I'll stick with my 27" 1080p. 😉
🧠 power must be at zero the only way to tell the difference is in person you see it at the screen rate you have
So you see the problem s not only are you watching a 1080 p monitor... your also watching this on KZhead it does look noticably better, but a 1080p display is more than good enough
As someone who plays exclusively at 4k 60fps since may 2013 and 4k 144fps since 2017, I cant go back to 1440p and 1080p. The visual difference is very extreme to the trained eye. I would personally go 21,5 1080p, 24 1440p and 27 4k. The PPI is extremely important with AA and shimmering.
People who say 27 is too small for 4k and there is not much difference drank the kool-aid,i would gladly buy an updated version of the dell 28 8k if they released one.
@@Kevin-fl7mj i use a 27" 4K monitor and i can still see the pixels if i get just 10cm closer to my normal position, to me 4K with bigger screen starts to lose it’s magic because i’ll start seeing the pixels again, i have a 55" 4K TV and i can tell it looks nowhere as crisp as 27" 4K, it looks almost like my 1080p 24", to me i feel like 27" 4K really is the sweet spot for that resolution because of the ”looking trough a window rather than a screen” feeling it gives. Even like 2 years after buying it i still often catch myself stopping mid game just to appreciate how good it looks. And i can agree to the first comment above that i absolutely can’t go back to 1440p, even less 1080p, as i will instantly notice the pixels and lose that magical window like effect. Now sure i could probably still notice the difference between a 4K 27" and let’s say 8K 27", but in my opinion the price difference would be way too big for the very small difference i’d notice, so imo for peak quality gaming, 4K 27" is the perfect spot, if you have the money for it and the hardware to support it. Nonetheless i’d wish anyone if not able to afford it could at take a look at it from a gaming store or a friend who has it just for the experience, as it is really worth trying and experiencing, really shows you how crazy far technology has come to and makes you appreciate what quality we are able to reproduce nowadays on an electronic square with moving images.
@@pandora8835 Spot on! You described perfectly what i mean when i tell people what high PPI actually does to immersion,same applies when you listen to HI-FI audio gear and just listen to the music,not the gear.
Hey, what's the background music? Very neat review and I bought a BenQ Mobiuz after visiting your channel. Many thanks!
Stopped your video just to remark in a comment that it was the smoothest and coolest ad placement in a review video I've ever seen 👏👏👏
I am really hoping for the so called "5k2k" monitors to come with better refresh rates, preferably at 40-43 inch size. Those would be great for work, but I also don't want to downgrade. After using 144Hz, moving even mouse or windows on 60Hz looks bad. In the meantime if I can't wait it's nice to see that a 32 inch 4k should be pretty good. My current 32 inch 1440p was a great upgrade when I changed from 24 inch 1080p, but it doesn't look very sharp. Thanks for the calculator, that was useful.
Whats the 32' 1440p monitor you use? In the market for that exact size and resolution
I have a monitor acer 27 inch 1080p 144hz will the games look good?
@@Xilent1 For nearly 5 years I used an AOC AG322QCX, a VA monitor which was pretty good for my use (I only discovered what smearing is after I read several explanations and demo videos). Was happy with the blacks. Not up to todays standards of course. It also started to draw artifacts for a while after a cold start, this got a lot worse in last days of December, so I changed it to an M32U now. Blacks are back to being grays now unfortunatelty, but I try not to think about it, it's not a bad monitor... Monitors are hard to choose, a lot harder than other hardware I think. Also there's no stores around me where I could look at the current offering, no pixel warranty, no calibration services... I wanted to change my monitor but also didn't want to risk it, just had to now that the old monitor passed away. I hope this one lives a long life, was expensive enough, but maybe I will have an even higher resolution monitor in my lifetime :)
@@bencze465 How is your M32U?
1080 on a 24 inch is optimal for a simple table setup, and action games. 1080 on a 27 inch is for some other use case that I have no clue of, but probably involves a longer distance from the screen. If your games use a lot of small text, like strategy games, the higher resolutions can reduce eye fatigue. Just remember that to use the monitor to the fullest you have to also spend on hardware 🤷♂
27 inch+ is easily for casual games or niche games like WoW/Black Desert, etc.
@@eleesium8407 But why?
@@gediminasmorkys3589 Immersion, people prefer bigger monitors for games that are casual based or immersive based. Smaller monitors tend to be better for competitive players or people who focus on FPS. I have a 240hz 1080p/27 inch. But I have a 5kd on Warzone, I play Tarkov with a 20kd+, etc. I play competitively, but I also like a bigger monitor so when I play games I feel more immersed. I hate seeing a tiny image, even if it's competitive advantageed. Shroud uses a 27 inch 240hz, 1440p. He plays competitively, but he also plays a lot of casual games, such as WoW, Lost Ark, Survival Games etc.
@@eleesium8407 But it's just a bigger screen with lower resolution. Not very immersive 🤷♂️
Great efforts, really helpful.
Great video, thanks! I have a question: I understand that a higher resolution in game on a higher resolution screen results results in lower performance (fps) However, is the performance also heavily affected if you for example play 1080p resolution on a 4k monitor opposed to 1080p on a full HD monitor? I am asking, because I would like to use 27inch 1440p for work, but game in a lower resolution on the same screen (my laptop won't be able to manage higher resolutions).
If the actual output resolution hasn't changed, it won't make any difference in terms of frames per second. However, if the GPU is sending a 1920x1080 image and the panel is 2560x1440, the image will have to be resized to fill the screen (assuming the monitor is configured to do so), and on some monitors that can cause a slight amount of "lag" (ex., maybe you'll be seeing the game one frame "behind" what you'd see if the graphics card was sending out a native 2560x1440 picture). If the output resolution is set to 2560x1440 and only the game's rendering resolution is set to 1920x1080, then the resizing will be done by the GPU itself, which can theoretically affect the frame rate, but usually by an unnoticeable amount (depends on the exact GPU, but most can resize the image with no noticeable performance hit). Unless, of course, you want to use a more "intelligent" resizing algorithm like DLSS or FSR, which have much better quality, but at the cost of more GPU cycles. It's generally still worth it to lower the resolution and enable those resampling algorithms, because the frame rate gain from rendering at a lower resolution is bigger than the loss from the resampling, and the visual quality can be almost indistinguishable. This will only work well on recent graphics cards and games, though.
I personally like the Asus VG27AQ, mostly because it is an 1440p resoulution with 165 hz, and IPS panel. It also supports G-Sync and amd freesync with 0.4 ms latency. And it doesnt have an anoying monitor stand that fills half the table, its a simple square that takes about 30x30 centimeters. It is also available with TN panel(VG27BQ) instead of IPS panel(VG27BQ). Sure 4k would look even better but the price difference is just ridiculous. Just for reference I can buy 4 asus VG27AQ for the price of 1 4k 165hz monitor. It is just insane... The only minus I would say about the VG27AQ and VG27BQ is that the power supply is not built-in the monitor and therefore the cable is a bit anoying on that part, mostly because of the power supply being on the cable and not in the screen. Hope this helps anyone, I did a lot of research before choosing my ideal monitor, and for the price this is just the best monitor on the market as of 2021-2022.
Just yesterday I bought that same Asus VG27AQ, to replace my previous LG 27” 1080P 75Hz, the difference has been abysmal, I am still in shock with the level of detail and sharpness that I have gained in both office tasks and games, and the level of exquisite fluidity for 165hz, I will never be able to return to 1080p again. Very happy!