How much does screen size really matter?

N

Nitemare3219

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
206
I'm stuck between hoping that the 32" 4K BenQ IPS coming tomorrow is good enough for gaming, and waiting for the ASUS PG27AQ 27" 4K G-Sync monitor to come out. The biggest monitor I'd used before was a 28", which seemed like a decent upgrade from my 27" Catleap.

But now that I've used 32", it's like a whole new world. It's fantastically large and I feel more immersed in games. But I'm afraid the lack of G-Sync on a 4K display is going to bite me in the ass and the monitor may not perform as well as the ASUS one, so I may want to wait it out. But then I get afraid that 27" will look abysmal at this resolution.

I have to wonder though - is there really any downside to just sitting CLOSER to the monitor? I can't do the math, but if I sat closer to a 27" screen, would it not mimic a 32" farther away?
 
After using a 32" display for a while, I was simply unable to go back to 27" when I gave one a try.
 
Use a JVC 32" 1080P TV myself had it for the past several years (7 I think) and its served me very well used to play CS competitively and never had any issues, 32" is awesome and when I go 4k I'm sure would only be better again. Although I am looking at a curved 4K for the PC, think it would be awesome as a Monitor (wouldn't have one as a TV).

I wouldn't recommend sitting closer think of your eyesight, your eyes "relax" when looking at a distance, sitting nearer is only going to cause damage over time.

for me because I'm looking at 4k curved I'm pretty sure i will have to go bigger than 32" as curved seems to have a minimum size of about 40"
 
Having used a ZR30W for years and now my Benq BL3200PT, I cannot imagine going smaller. When I was waiting for my Benq to arrive I sold my HP and gamed for a week on my 27" Asus. It was a okay experience, but since I have been spoiled with 30"+, I absolutely would not want to go that small again for my main monitor. It just does not give the same experience.

Ideally I would like to find a curved freesync capable 40" Ultra Wide 3440x1440 that would have the same height and vertical pixels as my 3200PT, but be much wider. Now that would be a great experience.
 
Flakes said:
I wouldn't recommend sitting closer think of your eyesight, your eyes "relax" when looking at a distance, sitting nearer is only going to cause damage over time.
Click to expand...

You might want to inform everyone who is working on VR of this.
 
depends on what you want to do, if you are a graphics artist, you may need more screenspace, but at the same time you want better colors, so you would probably sacrifice size for colors.

If you are gaming, you sacrifice everything for response time and hertz.

I personally think benq have the most competitive panels for gaming atm, though a few asus ones like last years VG248QE aren't too bad.
 
I'm never buying another BenQ ever again unless it's a pristine IPS screen with Gsync
I can't even use the Blur Reduction cause it's too dark and every pre set of the monitor is faded or washed out except for Photo and Movie modes.
 
I think 27" 1440p is perfect for general use. Even value graphics cards can run games at this res adequately now for that extra crispness, and I like the extra 3" over 24" for work and watching media from further away.
So far 27" 1440p is the largest monitor that let's you choose between a nice IPS panel, high refreshrate or even both if you have the cash. I dream of getting my hands one of the 32" VA monitors occasionally, but for now 27" will do nicely.
 
Mokkat said:
I think 27" 1440p is perfect for general use. Even value graphics cards can run games at this res adequately now for that extra crispness, and I like the extra 3" over 24" for work and watching media from further away.
So far 27" 1440p is the largest monitor that let's you choose between a nice IPS panel, high refreshrate or even both if you have the cash. I dream of getting my hands one of the 32" VA monitors occasionally, but for now 27" will do nicely.
Click to expand...

gaming on anything bigger than 27" would be hard for me, I have trouble sometimes seeing everything on my 27" I can only imagine going to 30-32
 
I've had a 40" 4K Philips for a month or so and now had to go back to a 27" 1080p monitor due to RMA, and I have to say there's no going back once you go real big. 27" 1440p might be the optimal point right now for gaming though since 4K is so demanding. I wouldn't buy 4K for below 32" size either, it's a waste for the most part.
 
I like gaming on my 40" 1080p TV.... The res is not great and the graphics don't look as good as a small monitor (jaggies etc) but games are much more immersive on a big screen, also the contrast is much better than monitors. Competitive / skill based games on a monitor, all other games on a TV.
 
I've seen too many complaints about 27" 16:9 ratio monitors by those preferring 30" 16:10 to totally discount it as a factor for those contrasting 30" and 27" monitors with respect to size. Sometimes it's not the size but rather the ratio that bother people.

Personally I switch between different size / resolution monitors and have no issue with doing so. For 4K, I have a 39", two 28" and a new LG 55UB8500 55" UHD TV. Later this year I hope to get a 32" or 40" for my Wife because I suspect she would think 40" would be too big. In her case for her work she could really use something bigger and with a higher resolution then the 27" 2560x1440 iMac she is used to.

For 4k general use (not just games with exclusivity) I feel like a good minimum size is 32" in order to stay away from scaling. Smaller then 32" and many people may find that they need scaling for desktop use depending on the task.

I'm thinking the upcoming Seiki Pro might be a good option once they start using HDMI 2.0 and upgrade DP too.
 
I went from 3x 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x 27" ROG Swifts. I found the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 painful. I missed the vertical real estate offered by 16:10.
 
Dan_D said:
I went from 3x 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x 27" ROG Swifts. I found the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 painful. I missed the vertical real estate offered by 16:10.
Click to expand...

Yeah I switched from 3x28" 5760x1200 to 3x27" 7680x1440 and noticed the same thing. It felt like I was shifting side to side far more than before. I think my preference would be 3x30" portrait mode at 3600x1920.
 
Dan_D said:
I went from 3x 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC's to 3x 27" ROG Swifts. I found the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 painful. I missed the vertical real estate offered by 16:10.
Click to expand...

This - now way I could go to 1440 after rocking 1600p for the last decade.
Looking forward to 2160p on Friday!
 
I completely agree that both horizontal and vertical estate are hard things to give up!

While I do like the 34" ultra-wides, a 43-46" 4k 120hz+ IPS with GSYNC would be absolutely perfect in this regard.
 
qkslvr221 said:
I completely agree that both horizontal and vertical estate are hard things to give up!

While I do like the 34" ultra-wides, a 43-46" 4k 120hz+ IPS with GSYNC would be absolutely perfect in this regard.
Click to expand...

If there was a 120Hz 48" 4K monitor with G-Sync I would find a way to own it.
 
So I've come to find out the short answer is screen size matters a lot.

I jumped from a 27" 1440p to a 28" 4K. Even that seemed like a decent jump in size, but I adjusted back. Since trying the 32" 4K out, I don't think I can go back. I have it side-by-side with a 28" 4K G-Sync by Acer, and it just dwarfs the thing. Games feel a lot more immersive. I tried sitting closer to the 28", but it just doesn't work that way. You can't trick your brain that easily unless you're in complete darkness, and even then, it's not as comfortable as a 32" screen further away. The biggest thing I'm enjoying out of it is the fact that everything in game just looks so much bigger, and it's easier to appreciate the details at 4K.

I hate the fact that it doesn't have G-Sync, but the brightness is PHENOMENAL. In daylight games in the open world, like GTA 5, it feels and looks like real life! At night, contrast still looks fantastic. Desktop use is also a joy. I have calibrated the 4K Acer in every way, and it just looks hideous. Colors are either too blue or too red no matter how I adjust it. Then to get the contrast to be decent, I have to set it to "gaming" and the desktop looks like crap. Granted it is TN, but it is so much darker as well even at only a 50 nit difference. Some people crank the brightness down, but maybe my eyes are just young because I am leaving it at 100.
 
After going to the 48" JU6700 I can't go back. In fact the 3x ROG Swifts were about the same size in Portrait mode and switching back to Landscape for some games and productivity became painful. Hence the change. I'm just glad some of the TVs now can do 4:4:4: and have low enough input lag to allow for them to be decent monitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top