4k, fav screen size for pc use?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by rive22, Feb 2, 2018.

4k, fav screen size for pc use?

  1. 27"

    10 vote(s)
    10.6%
  2. 32"

    28 vote(s)
    29.8%
  3. 40"

    25 vote(s)
    26.6%
  4. 43"

    22 vote(s)
    23.4%
  5. 48"

    2 vote(s)
    2.1%
  6. 50+

    10 vote(s)
    10.6%
  7. I like Bacon

    17 vote(s)
    18.1%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    What do you guys think is the sweet spot? I don't mean best image quality, but most enjoyable & productive.

    No worries if you haven't tried them all. If you have one and couldn't imagine it another way, then vote for that one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  2. DarkStar02

    DarkStar02 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,109
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    I'm running a 48" and it's probably just a tad too big for most people. I enjoy having 4x" 24" 1080p screens without a bezel for work purposes but for gaming I think a 40-43" would be more manageable.

    EDIT: Just FYI, I started with a 48" then thought it was too big , returned it for a 40", decided it wasn't quite as immersive as the 48" was and returned it again for the 48".
     
    rive22 and Solhokuten like this.
  3. BearOso

    BearOso [H]Lite

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Either 20-24" or 40-43".

    20-24" is if you elect to use scaling and want to have super-sharp text. This particular range is so you can do exact pixel doubling, which is going to be easier given current operating systems' lack of HiDPI support. I'm running a 27" at 4k now, and I can tell you that the support for non-integer scaling isn't quite ready, and it requires a lot of tweaking to look good.

    40-43" is if you want a lot of real estate. This keeps the DPI high enough that pixel-blockyness isn't too obvious. I feel if you drop below 100 DPI then text becomes too fuzzy.
     
    Oubadah and rive22 like this.
  4. HA5

    HA5 n00b

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    44" would be my fav. 43", which is always more like 42.5", is the next best thing.
    A 44" 4K display would be 100 DPI, 38.3" wide, 21.6" high (without bezel).
     
    rive22 likes this.
  5. grim4593

    grim4593 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    214
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    I have a 24" and it works great.
     
    Oubadah and rive22 like this.
  6. Hakaba

    Hakaba Gawd

    Messages:
    640
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Running a 55”, really enjoy the large screen, will go bigger for the BFGD when/if it releases where I am stationed.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  7. JRUHg

    JRUHg Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    55" 4K 120hz :headphone:
     
    rive22 likes this.
  8. 63jax

    63jax Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    225
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    27'' super high PPI, a adore them and i hate big screens! i only stay 50 cm back from the screen so i don't need them :))))
     
    Sancus likes this.
  9. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Funny I was torn between 40 & 43 and they are practically tied. I'm coming from 3 27". I want good work space environment but not a sore neck. Which is better if I want to put monitors on the sides in PLP?
     
  10. ors

    ors Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    165
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    32 all the way, fonts are beautiful and the real estate is also there (I personally run it at 150% scaling, but native is also doable or 125% for the 27 inch 1440p folks). Also voted for 27 which I think is also a good size for 4k although a little too small of a real estate for my taste when working (programming) but totally fine as a daily driver/gaming screen.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  11. Commander Shepard

    Commander Shepard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,752
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    I've tried the following at 4K and 100% scaling: 40", 48", 49", 43" and 55".

    For me, 40" - 43" seems to be the sweet spot. Anything bigger and I'd get bothersome neck strain from looking up so much, especially while gaming. I can game on my 55" OLED as long as I sit at least 6-7 feet away, but that's not really practical for daily computer use.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  12. DanNeely

    DanNeely 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Running 32" at 125% scaling. I went with the size since it was a reasonable height match to my existing 20" 1200x1600 and 30" 2560x1600 displays.

    I don't really want to go taller (or for a similarly tall ultrawide) because doing so would push the edge/corners into my peripheral vision which both sucks for games which put hud info there, and for general use because the vertical is getting too big.

    Hypothetically speaking if I was going to get a 5k ultrawide (5120x2160, 21:9, proposed by the HDMI people) at the same height as my current screen I'd probably split it 3:2 for desktop use having one section that was about 2560 pixel wide equivalent, and the second around 1640.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  13. DanNeely

    DanNeely 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    If you want to try and match screen heights for PLP, your only options are to either try and find some old 20" 1600x1200 panels and go with a 32" 4k, or go with a low 40's 4k and 1920x1200/1080 panels for the sides. I'd strongly recommend the 1200px models if you do so, even at that width I occasionally run into problems with websites assuming a minimum width of 1280 or 1366 pixels. Those're generally manageable with just the sidebar falling off-screen. Much narrower and I think you'd be losing content too in a number of cases.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  14. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Just grabbed a 40". Fired up GTA V and it's great for games. For PC use though I find it too big and will probably go to a 32".
     
    ors likes this.
  15. MagnaMagicBtu

    MagnaMagicBtu [H]Lite

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    27-32" and no higher. 27" ideally for 4K and 32" for 5K. I went with a 32" glossy 4K as its the only gloss 4K. Returned 2 Matte 27" 4K due to poor colors. At 32" the PPI still isn't as high as I'd like it to be. Really been considering a 27" 5K Glossy UP2715K as the prices have come down. I prefer paper sharp text and lifelike images. Can't really get that with anything lower than 120 PPI in my experience.

    My friend has a 40" and It's great for movies where you sit farther back but up close its way too big and the text looks awfully pixelated. Still loads better than his old 27" 1080p in terms of PPI. I think 200 PPI of the Dell will probably end up becoming my new minimum standard. I used to be like everyone else thinking 100 PPI is good enough but after trying out some 4K monitors I cannot go back to anything less, not even 1440p.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  16. MagnaMagicBtu

    MagnaMagicBtu [H]Lite

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Increase scaling. I run 150% on my 32" and ran 200% on the matte 27" while colors were poor I did miss the sharp text. Glossy was a mandatory so 32" is high enough PPI but I still want higher, Pixels can still be just barely visible. I want no pixels visible. Hence why I'm considering a 27" 5K Glossy and using 300% scaling. Still on Win 7 and no issues. Websites and programs that support scaling still work.

    Don't see why so many people hate scaling even on new OSes like Windows 10? I'd run 500-800% if I had to on some super high res like 8K and be perfectly happy with it. Truly high density displays are beautiful (130 PPI and above). You have to see it in person to understand it. It adds depth, life and interest to the picture.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
    euskalzabe, rive22 and GoldenTiger like this.
  17. Martha Stewart

    Martha Stewart Gawd

    Messages:
    601
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    32" 4k is the sweat spot
     
    rive22 likes this.
  18. thelead

    thelead 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,087
    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    If you don’t mind me asking, which make/model is that glossy 32” 4K monitor? I wasn’t aware that anyone made such a monitor.
     
  19. Domingo

    Domingo [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,135
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    I just like using my TV for everything. Work, gaming, watching videos, you name it.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  20. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,215
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    32" 4K is the sweet spot for sitting at a "normal" monitor sitting distance. 40" 4K is the max I like to go when sitting back a bit.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  21. MagnaMagicBtu

    MagnaMagicBtu [H]Lite

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    HP Spectre 32. It's an IPS 8-bit AUO panel.
     
  22. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004

    Gotcha. I thought you meant unscaled. yeah man agreed there's no way I could go back to 1440p again. The 40" is growing on me for sure, but I agree 32" seems like it would be the sweet spot for workstation use like some of you guys are saying. This will hold me over for now though.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  23. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    987
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    40" 4K TV, %150 scaling. Looks beautiful. I used to have it on the stand, but since I wall mounted it I gained about a foot of distance and so now I'm about 3.5ft away from it, which is perfect. Smooth text, and I'm fine at 60fps. I'll only upgrade when there's OLED or QLED TVs manufactured at 40".

    [​IMG]
     
  24. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    it's all relative imo..

    A 40" for 4k is the best for an increased seating distance and retaining a 'monitor like' PPi. Just as the picture above looks great, you also have to consider your height / seating height.. that is obviously fine for @euskalzabe.
    But if you look again that is a really tall vertical. Most people i have seen using 40" + screens have them practically flat to the desk. Using a 40" will give you the same PPi as a 27" 1440p screen, so at the right seating distance you get the benefit of 3840 x 2160 pixels and the actual space to use the applications realistically (y)

    If you use a 27" 4k screen at 150% scaling like most recommend then you have the same screen real estate as a 1440p 27" screen. So you either have to have the screen much closer reducing the Perceived-PPI back down to a 1440p level or just accept no more productivity space and have clearer overall images and text.

    32"
    you still need 25% scaling, but it's big enough to not have to push back too far but too big to have up close like a 27" screen thus reducing the Perceived-PPI. I have a 32" and like most screen sizes it's best when you can fit the screen the screen in a comfortable viewing angle.

    So yea it's all just relative to A.) your seating distance B.) how much you love your eyes having a natural focus gate rather than squishing them up.

    One thing to remember is that 27" & 32" offer IPS and Freesync for lower response times and input lag. Also there are prosumer models for serious color work. Outside of fast paced FPS and color grading, like video editing, programming, trading where you need the work flow space 40" starts to make sense, of course given the A & B above is satisfied.

    Personally I wouldn't go lower than 32" for 4k.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    rive22 likes this.
  25. Absalom

    Absalom Gawd

    Messages:
    661
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    40" @ 3840x2160 (16:9) gives around 110 PPI. This is the same PPI for 34" @ 3440x1440 (21:9) and 27" @ 2560x1440 (16:9).

    110 PPI is a good go-to pixel density for PC monitors where you're generally sitting close to the screen. More PPI is ok, but there are diminishing returns there. That said, 110 PPI makes sense from past trends.

    The problem with a 40" screen size is that it's a rather large area to fit into your field of view when you sit about an arms length or so from the screen.

    As a side note, sitting close the screen is what I find appealing about PC monitors. It's what they have historically been designed for.

    I personally don't like sitting so close to a screen that I have to move my head around to see certain parts of it. Neck and eye strain come to mind. So despite 40" 4k being ideal at 110 PPI, I'd have to consider sitting back much further than an arms length to compensate. Sitting back further because the screen is that large seems like a major trade-off to me. So I'd rather not sit back more than arms length at all, if I can help it.

    Font scaling is always preferential. I've always found doing it to be very subjective and based on many factors. I personally don't use any global scaling (i.e. desktop scaling), but I do set my web browser scaling to 150% most of the time. I find it far more convenient to leave the desktop scaling alone and just scale everything on an per app basis.

    Anyway...

    So I've come to the conclusion that a 34" Ultrawide is pretty much the ideal monitor size for myself. The standard 110 PPI is good enough today, although more pixels in that same space (i.e. greater PPI, thus increased pixel density) would always be welcome assuming those extra pixels don't go to waste (again, diminishing returns).

    So if 34" Ultrawide is the ideal size, what's the ideal resolution? Let's consider strides towards 4k'ish resolutions in an Ultrawide form:

    A 3840x1600 (21:9) would touch 4k at the inside edges, while 5040x2160 (21:9) would touch at the outside edges. Those resolutions in a 34" Ultrawide space would bump the standard 110 PPI up to 122 PPI and 161 PPI respectively. Whether I'd notice a difference between either is something I can't comment on. Until I see with my own eyes a product offering those greater pixel densities in a 34" Ultrawide, I'm sticking with the diminishing returns statement.

    27" @ 4k is 163 PPI. That seems like a huge jump in pixel density, but those are real products now that you can get and physically see in person and judge for yourself. Given I'd rather not go back to a 27" 16:9, I'd like to see an Ultrawide version of those. That would be the 34" 5040x2160 I mentioned above, which is mythical at this point.

    Right now, I'm just glad that 34" 21:9 PC monitors are a thing. They fit in my field of vision perfectly. Given I'm perfectly happy with that size, I'd definitely welcome increased PPI in the future. Just not sure I'm ready right now for more PPI given the state of the video card market.

    TLDR; The question and options presented don't exactly fit my preference.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    rive22 likes this.
  26. Later

    Later n00b

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Out of the given options, 27" is the only sensible one. At 4k most need to use scaling regardless of screen size, and when you need to use scaling, you ideally want to apply integer setting. 27" is suitable for 200 % scaling, although I believe most would like more real estate. Larger monitors should be 5k or 6k or more.
     
    MagnaMagicBtu likes this.
  27. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Definitely need more real estate. 1080p (4k @200 scaling) is way too cramped even compared to 1440p. I'd say 1440p usable res is about minimum IMHO for good workstation use.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  28. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,312
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Tried 43" it was huge, and nauseating. I kept dragging windows into the middle of the screen where a smaller monitor would be. Didn't even use the rest of the screen.

    32" is probably the max that I could use effectively. Scaling issues mean I'm stuck with 2560x1440 as well. 4K is out of the question while half the apps scale poorly or not at all.

    For productivity 2 screens or 3 side by side is a thousand times better than one that's huge.
     
    MagnaMagicBtu and rive22 like this.
  29. ors

    ors Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    165
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Just shows how divided users are :) http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34WK95U-W-ultrawide-monitor is already a thing, but I can't really stand ultrawides, too much head turning, same as with 2 monitors which I never liked (not even 4:3 era). Integer scaling is not a must BTW and non existent as far as full screen applications are concerned (GPU drivers should fix it, but not available even though petitioned for years ago). 27 inch is too small for work :) My perfect monitor would be a 5k 32 inch OLED or MicroLED monitor, but those will cost a fortune, till they come down 32 inch 4k is my perfect monitor. And scaling is fine, apps that don't support it will die out soon enough (and even those are usable on windows 10 they just look a little blurred). Having all apps look like crap or only unsupported ones is really a no-brainer as far as I am concerned...
     
    Commander Shepard and rive22 like this.
  30. rive22

    rive22 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,609
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    That's pretty much what I've been doing. I took a measure tape diagonal to my screen the other day and noticed I sized my browser windows in the center to exactly 27" which happens to be the size of my old screens. lol. It's cool though being able to see the rainmeter apps all around the edges of my screen all the time which is convenient. When doing work though in apps I do use the full screen and it's very nice. When I got the 40" I was immediately glad I didn't get a 43". My desk sits a bit high though.
     
    Commander Shepard likes this.
  31. SuperSubZero

    SuperSubZero 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,570
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2000
    I originally wanted a 40" 4K as I was very adamant on keeping the scaling at 100% and that seemed the best size for it (it's similar DPI to a 27" 1440p). However, since then Windows 10 got better with scaling and has less stuff that's blurry at the wrong DPI, enough that I settled on a 32" 4K at 125% DPI. I'm very happy with the result. I find 'low resolution' displays to be kind of annoying to use now. I CAN SEE THE PIXELS UGH GET THIS TRASH OUT OF HERE *shoo motion*
     
    rive22 likes this.
  32. Batboy88

    Batboy88 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    I want a 30-32" I think that would be nice.
     
    rive22 likes this.
  33. demondrops

    demondrops Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    355
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    dat giant screen doe haha, and this puny little keyboard :D haha! wtf why no mousemat!?

    btw i like my bacon in 5" inch cardboard thik pieces with little fat, fried well but not burnt to a crisp. preferably under 2 fried eggs with bacon under, then 1 slice of cheese with coarse? bread. whatever is excess i will eat while i wait for my eggs to finish.

    dont currently own a 4k monitor but, i feel at my distance it cover my field of view wich i think is the most important factor, 27" seem to be my sweetspot. and if bigger screens with 4k have same dpi as 1440p i guess it goes for the same rigth?
     
    rive22 likes this.
  34. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    987
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    I like the feel of natural wood! It's treated lightly with linseed oil that I applied myself, so it doesn't stain. If it ever did, it'd be as easy as a quick sanding session, reapplying a layer of linseed oil and boom, like new!
     
    demondrops likes this.
  35. demondrops

    demondrops Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    355
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    guess i can put in my rig when im at it!! almost like a gay pride parade with all this RGB tho haha.
     

    Attached Files:

  36. ShepsCrook

    ShepsCrook [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,076
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    I'm debating on getting a 4k TV to use instead of 4x 1080 monitors for my work setup at home.

    I was thinking of getting the TCL for $299. Any thoughts or suggestions on other ones? Or am I just crazy? I probably sit about 2-3ft from those monitors maybe maybe a max of 4ft. I mostly do WebEx sessions to customer systems + Salesforce + Notepad++ + email / skype (Each one of those on their own monitor except for email and skype.
     
  37. GnatGoSplat

    GnatGoSplat n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    That's what I did. I got a 43" 4K TV because I wanted to use 100% scaling, and a 43" is equivalent to 4x 21" 1080p monitors which I found text a bit small, but usable at 100% scaling. I'd been using 24" 1920x1200 monitors for 12+ years and as far as text size goes at 100% scaling, 46" might have been more ideal, but that size is virtually non-existent. I knew I didn't want to go bigger because I didn't want to sit any further away and text might look too pixellated up close with the lower dpi of 49"+. For me, one of the benefits of going flat panel over the deep CRTs is we could have shallower, space-saving furniture, so I don't really get the buying a big screen and putting it further away when a smaller screen closer up would fill the same amount of visual area.
    I sit about arm's length away, 2ft or so. Sometimes I lean in and end up even closer. I've found I do what one guy earlier does, I size windows to about 27" and move them to the lower-middle. The top corners of the screen do seem really far away. However, I've found I like to put stuff on those far corners of the screen that I don't need to really pay close attention to. On the top right, I put NZXT's CAM system monitor so I can occasionally glance at CPU/GPU temps and load. On the top left, I'll throw up either a Bluestacks Android mobile game that I play on occasion (most of which play themselves these days), or a TV show/documentary that I'm only half-ass watching just to have something going on while I browse the web. Overall, it has a more open, less claustrophobic feeling. With a scenic 4K wallpaper, I almost feel like I'm working in front of a window instead of a wall.
    Unfortunately, my gaming experience suffers a bit, because my video card is capable of 60fps fullscreen gaming on the old 24" 1920x1200 monitor, but not 4K which drops below 30fps. Since I refuse to scale up to fullscreen at 1080p (details too soft at that size), I run my games in a 1920x1200 window which is approximately 21.5". I actually don't mind gaming windowed, but I hope to upgrade my video card to where I can game in 3440x1440@60fps. I think that would be equivalent to a 36" ultrawide.

    Since I use my PC primarly for gaming, I probably would have been wiser to go for a 34" 21:9 ultrawide with 144Hz G-sync, but at the moment I'm quite happy with the 43" 4K.
     
  38. l88bastard

    l88bastard 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,539
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Zisworks X39 4K120hz

    Work productivity on this baby is orgasmic!