Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not really interested in a big o' 43" monitor, but 2560x1440 definitely does not look bad on a 4k monitor (not a 32" anyway). So the thing is to me is that 4k is nice for text clarity, and gaming can still be done at 2560x1440 at a high frame rate...or it could be if there were reasonably priced 4k 144hz monitors available. But I want 4k 144hz at ~27".
I can't do small monitors anymore. I had 30" monitors for so long that anything below that simply won't cut it. In fact, I had three of them in Eyefinity/NVSurround for years. The 48" Samsungs were the first displays that gave me what I was looking for. 40"+ at 4K resolution. I'm eagerly looking forward to 43" displays that can do 120Hz or better with HDR and some type of variable refresh rate. So I'm keeping a close eye on possibilities coming out in the near future.
Not really interested in a big o' 43" monitor, but 2560x1440 definitely does not look bad on a 4k monitor (not a 32" anyway). So the thing is to me is that 4k is nice for text clarity, and gaming can still be done at 2560x1440 at a high frame rate...or it could be if there were reasonably priced 4k 144hz monitors available. But I want 4k 144hz at ~27".
IHMO 4k is completely useless and a waste under 40".
If you want 27" stick to 1440p. There is nothing to be gained by going up to a crazy high ppi.
IHMO 4k is completely useless and a waste under 40".
If you want 27" stick to 1440p. There is nothing to be gained by going up to a crazy high ppi.
The only reason to move to 4k is so That you can get added screen real estate without having to suffer through pixel densities below 100ppi.
Not really interested in a big o' 43" monitor, but 2560x1440 definitely does not look bad on a 4k monitor (not a 32" anyway).
This is demonstrably untrue though. Compare the text clarity of a smartphone to a 1440p 27" monitor and there's no comparison -- text on the phone is much clearer and sharper. For gaming it's a different story but the line blurs due to a number of factors. For viewport games like first/third person action/shooters, yeah, high refresh rate is more important than high resolution, because your viewport is in motion a lot of the time, and sometimes very fast motion. High resolution doesn't help your motion clarity much if your refresh rate is limited to 60hz sample and hold.
Switch it around and try strategy games or even certain kinds of RPGs where there's a lot of small detail and text in the screen everywhere and I'd take a 27" 4K monitor over a 1440p, let alone 1080p, one any day of the week. Even moreso for spreadsheeting and coding and other work tasks. 4K 27" is brilliant for that niche.
In a perfect world we all have 300ppi monitors with 240hz scanning/strobing backlights, but in the real world there are tradeoffs and sometimes 4K27" is what you want, sometimes it's not.
No, well anti-aliased text is perfectly clear at 100ppi, if you view it at a normal viewing distance of about 2ft.
Maybe you sit really close?
There is literally no reason what so ever to ever exceed 100ppi on the desktop.
I guess it is dependent upon individual vision, but to my eyes it is blurry. And my eyes can't deal with blurry text. My viewing distance is greater than 2 feet. Right now I'm at around 3 feet with a 32" 4K monitor, and when I turn on anti-aliasing text looks a little burrier. With it off, text looks a little jaggy, but jaggy isn't hard on the eyes, where blurry definitely is. I'm using Cleartype Switch, which allows for quickly toggling anti-aliasing for easy comparison. Also, the text rendering in most PDF readers looks unbearably blurry to me. I usually use Firefox for PDF's (with anti-aliasing switched off at the OS level) since it renders PDF text the same as web content, without the blurriness that can't be switched off in dedicated PDF readers. And to be clear here, I'm not talking about only an aesthetic preference here. The blurriness that I see with anti-aliasing on gives me eye fatigue. So it is very much a functional thing. The aesthetic part of it is preferring high PPI so that fonts don't look so ugly with anti-aliasing turned off. 4k on a 32" monitor (~140 PPI) is just a bit too far on the low PPI side for my eyes.
I dont know man. I'm corrected to better than 20/20, so I have no problem on the vision front
Ever since cleartype text at 100dpi and ~2ft distance has been perfect. Not even a hint of blur.
BUT, 27" 4K is a total waste for gaming. A lot of that extra ppi/detail is lost in games
There is the PG27UQ 27" 144hz 4k of course.
I think 4K detail is mostly lost even at 32" for gaming. I mean, I can run games at 1440 on a 32" 4K and barely notice any difference from running native. So then to me, 4K is excellent for text work and still very good for gaming at 1440 since it looks very close to the same as native and allows for much better gpu performance. I don't really notice any immersion loss with smaller monitors. Hell, I gamed on a 15" laptop for a couple of years and very much got into the games that I was playing.
I think that unless you run with anti-aliasing off for a while, you don't know what you don't know. I got my vision checked last year, and I'm 20/20 (no correction). Not bad, but not exceptional either. After a couple of rounds of eye strain, I tried all sorts of things including switching off anti-aliasing. And now I can not go back to that blurry hell.
If you don't mind me asking. How old are you?
I wonder if this is an age thing. Those of us who used computers in the 80's and 90's maybe are used to font quality so much worse than today that it just doesn't stand out to us?
I remember the first time I saw one of Apples super high resolution screens, and I hated it. The fonts looked too smooth and not natural to me.
Since then I have had a series of high ppi phones, so I guess I've gotten used to it, but still, proper cleartype fonts at 100 dpi look perfect to me.
For gaming, my 1440p 32" is good. For text, it actually looks a lot better at 3' than 1.5 - 2' but it's not optimal for desktop stuff. The 43" 4k screen's perceived ppi for desktop/apps at 3' is great though and I get sooo much more desktop real-estate. It's glorious.
For reference, this is the amount of desktop space you get with different monitors all at around 108.8 ppi. The 4k in this schematic would be ~40.8"
Idk why you'd turn cleartype off especially when text is becoming almost small enough to require scaling to be read without straining to see it at the proper viewing distance. There is no way you would see blurred text edges unless you were sitting too close. It's like zooming far in to an edge in photoshop, but when you zoom out it looks perfect.
I have a monitor here that is 25" 1440 which puts it at 108 PPI. To me, the resolution is not fine enough aesthetically. It is sharp enough, but fonts look jaggy and broken up with anti-aliasing turned off. I want sharpness and smooth looking fonts without blur. And 32" size is already too big to me, and bigger would be worse. I feel like I am looking up too much and too far to the sides too much. I feel that 25" is a little too small. I think 27-28" is just right for me, and at 4K it should give just enough smoothness to fonts so that they don't look jaggy and broken up.
You are sitting closer to a 25" than I am with a 43" at 3' or more so your pixels look larger.
I switch from 15" 4k laptop at 1.5' or less to my desk setup at 3' with 4k 43" displays with zero problems. Only the 32" 1440p (93 ppi) is such a low ppi as to be blocky ... and even that isn't horrible to use at 3' with cleartype on and a large enough font to not destroy the font structure and cleartype subpixel rendering. It's just a bit jumbo outside of games on the desktop like an old 1080p 27" (81.59 ppi) would be though not quite that bad especially a foot farther back than the regular 2'.
Idk why you'd turn cleartype off especially when text is becoming almost small enough to require scaling to be read without straining to see it at the proper viewing distance. There is no way you would see blurred text edges unless you were sitting too close. It's like zooming far in to an edge in photoshop, but when you zoom out it looks perfect.
The other common culprit is setting your font size too small compared to the ppi and subpixel rendering capability of your monitor, which again on a ~100 to 110ppi monitor would likely be because you are sitting too close and trying to make the text too small.
View attachment 155908
27" 1440p is already pretty sharp but I feel at 100% scaling text sizing is too small so I either use mine at 125% scaling because Windows doesn't provide anything smaller or use 100% scaling with increased font sizes (in Windows this is in the Ease of Access menus).
I recently compared a 32" and 43" 4K display at a store and played with the scaling settings and felt that I could get very similar results from them. 27" 4K runs into the same issues I have with 1440p where either text is too small or you have to compromise on desktop real estate.
You just refuse to use aliasing. people use it in games too. and my comparison to zooming in to an edge in photoshop to work on it, then zooming out to where it looks great applies to sub pixel cleartype aliasing. The fact that you stubbornly refuse to alias text even when a screen is pretty far from your face where the default text size would be pretty small and the percieved ppi is shrunk a bit makes your needs quite strange and I doubt it applies to most people without binoculars . Personally I find it odd and pretty irrelevant.
My text looks nice and smooth with cleartype 3' away on my 43" 4k at default text size as well as on my 15" 4k laptop at 1.5' or less utilizing scaling 125 - 150% and/or by app.
After 4 years, I can finally begin to retire my 2015 Samsung JU6700.
A 120Hz native, 4K. 40"+ VA panel with HDR and adaptive sync is what I wanted........and it's here.
After 4 years, I can finally begin to retire my 2015 Samsung JU6700.
A 120Hz native, 4K. 40"+ VA panel with HDR and adaptive sync is what I wanted........and it's here.
I find that rather randomly I seem to be on a ~4-5 year monitor replacement schedule for the last Almost 20 years, so this one comes right on time:
2001: 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro CRT
2005: 24" 16:10 Dell 2405fpw (1920x1200)
2010: 30" 16:10 Dell U3011 (2560x1600)
2015: 48" 4K Samsung JS9000
2019: Asus or Acer 43"?
Crazy how fast the last 4 years have gone though. The other screens felt like I had them forever. I feel like I just bought the Sammy.
Also, I kind of miss the 16:10 aspect ratio. It's a shame it has fallen by the wayside. I guess it's all in the same of cost savings though. If you can use the same panel as a 16:9 TV, then there is a lot more volume cost savings
there's been some non-FALD DisplayHDR1000 stuff popping up lately, I'm highly skeptical of the actual experience of edge lit DisplayHDR 1000.
Monitors are something I generally keep a long time.
1999 19" Sony Trinitron
2005 20" Viewsonic IPS
2007 30" Dell 3007WFP
2010 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC x3
2015 3x27" ASUS ROG Swift (Hated these, used them a couple of months at most)
2015 Samsung JU6700
2017 Samsung KS8500 (Present display)
Do we think we're going to see either this one or the Asus this year or are they going to be delayed forever?
Do we think we're going to see either this one or the Asus this year or are they going to be delayed forever?
No idea. I'm hoping the ASUS hits this year, but who knows?
Do we think we're going to see either this one or the Asus this year or are they going to be delayed forever?
From what I read, Acer are claiming a September availability date for $1,200 USD, or 1,499.00 EUR, but who knows if that will actually happen.
No word from Asus yet on either pricing or availability date.
Wow Acer though. That is a 40% European price penalty...
I never knew how much of a price disparity there was.