27" monitor guidance as to 4k or 2560x1440

I do a lot of text work on my monitor, but photography, too. I shoot JPG/RAW for which I do post processing. I do not have the space for two monitors.

I need a bit more screen space for my text work -- from word processing and spreadsheets to a fair amount of time in Blackboard (a learning management system) -- than on the 24" Dell U2415 I presently have been using for the last few years. It is a 1920x1200 display (I appreciate the aspect ratio), but I am looking at 27"-28" monitors, basically for the additional width.

My concern is whether 4K or 2560x1440 is a better compromise. I usually sit 20-24" from the monitor, and the text looks decent at 24" on the Dell. I use both an older Mac mini and a new PC laptop, both with integrated Intel graphics. I assume scaling would work for most applications on either platform. My upper range would be around $550-600.

Thanks for any guidance.

you might want to have a look at this graph below that i made for myself when i tried to decide.

https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/

With a viewing distance of 20"+ (50cm) you will be able to distinguish between pixels unless you go 4K.

I now use 27" 4K and think it was the best choice for me. But 1440 (WQHD) is quite popular as well.


ppi vs min distance to monitor in cm

ElliotV said:

I do a lot of text work on my monitor, but photography, too. I shoot JPG/RAW for which I do post processing. I do not have the space for two monitors.

I need a bit more screen space for my text work -- from word processing and spreadsheets to a fair amount of time in Blackboard (a learning management system) -- than on the 24" Dell U2415 I presently have been using for the last few years. It is a 1920x1200 display (I appreciate the aspect ratio), but I am looking at 27"-28" monitors, basically for the additional width.

My concern is whether 4K or 2560x1440 is a better compromise. I usually sit 20-24" from the monitor, and the text looks decent at 24" on the Dell. I use both an older Mac mini and a new PC laptop, both with integrated Intel graphics. I assume scaling would work for most applications on either platform. My upper range would be around $550-600.

Thanks for any guidance.

Click to expand...

I'd want 4K at the 27" size, especially if much of what I was doing was text-oriented; the higher res gives sharper, better-formed characters IMO. There are plenty of good monitor choices in the 27" size within your budget; the problem would be choosing the best for your needs. I suggest reading the most detailed tech reviews you can find; one place to start is here, but there are others:

I am looking at your post on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor right now and have no complaints whatsoever about legibility, nor do I perceive any jagged edges or something like that. However, this is on a pretty decent photo monitor, Benq's SW2700PT.

Some applications don't scale well, especially in the Windows world, which is why I didn't want to go 4K. I also don't see a benefit in it with my monitor size and viewing distance, which is the same as yours. Age/eyesight may be a factor, though. (I am 61 years old, with average but not perfect vision.)

I have two PC's in my office (main and backup). The main one has two 4K 27 inch monitors. The backup has a 2K 27 inch.

Hmm. The 2K just seems too big for the resolution, but it does make some things easier to read. The 4k is much 'smoother', but there are certainly times that I struggle to view certain things that don't scale well. (Or I haven't yet learned how to scale them). One example is remote control of PC's, which I do a lot of for work. I'm ready to pull out a magnifying glass to read some of the text on these remote-controlled PC's.

It depends on what you are looking at, and if it has a scaling option.

I'm thinking 24 inch is about the biggest I want for 2k (and I have four of these monitors in another office - they look great). 27 inch is the smallest I'd want for 4k, and I've been thinking for a year now that 32 inch is probably the 4k 'sweet spot' like 24 inch seems for 2k.

I would try before I buy.

We prefer a 32 inch for 4k.

johnnyandedgar

Firstly your computers may not have the GPU horsepower to run 4k stably without tearing, slow frames or other artifacts. You really need to check that out. Intel iGPUs are anemic no matter what the specs say but can handle 1440.

I am sitting in front of a 27 inch 4k Dell and to its right your Dell, both calibrated to the same brightness et al running off a desktop AMD GPU so no lack of GPU horsepower.

I think you would be happiest with a 27 inch or larger 1440 monitor. That would improve text sharpness over the 1200 (really 1080) Dell, should work with your GPUs, but don't expect miracles with multiple open apps on a 27 inch screen because the screen acreage is not all that different from 24 inches

You might look into using a dual monitor setup if your GPU can support that. I find it the most efficient way to work when I need to use multiple apps simultaneously and move data between them, like all business uses. As I type this screed on the 4k a football game is streaming on the other--it can be addictive to work that way.

Another option is to learn to use multiple pre-set virtual desktops and switch between them. That would cost you nothing but time to see if it works for you.

lokatz said:

I am looking at your post on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor right now and have no complaints whatsoever about legibility, nor do I perceive any jagged edges or something like that. However, this is on a pretty decent photo monitor, Benq's SW2700PT.

Some applications don't scale well, especially in the Windows world, which is why I didn't want to go 4K. I also don't see a benefit in it with my monitor size and viewing distance, which is the same as yours. Age/eyesight may be a factor, though. (I am 61 years old, with average but not perfect vision.)

Click to expand...

+1 Agree.

My 27" Dell UltraSharp 2560x1440 monitor is working fine for me. Plus Photoshop 7's user interface does not scale up so its UI is just usable for me. Would be too tiny at 4K on my 27" monitor. Verify that all of the software you use will scale their user interface to be readable on a 27" 4K monitor.

Also, verify that your graphics controller is capable of 4K video.

Sky

+1.. I really like my 2K Ultrasharps (I have two). For me 2K and 27 inch is the sweetspot for photo editing and other "regular" duties. I think that for email and such any higher of a resolution on a 27 inch monitor would be too small without enlarging.

ElliotV said:

I do a lot of text work on my monitor, but photography, too. I shoot JPG/RAW for which I do post processing. I do not have the space for two monitors.

I need a bit more screen space for my text work -- from word processing and spreadsheets to a fair amount of time in Blackboard (a learning management system) -- than on the 24" Dell U2415 I presently have been using for the last few years. It is a 1920x1200 display (I appreciate the aspect ratio), but I am looking at 27"-28" monitors, basically for the additional width.

My concern is whether 4K or 2560x1440 is a better compromise. I usually sit 20-24" from the monitor, and the text looks decent at 24" on the Dell. I use both an older Mac mini and a new PC laptop, both with integrated Intel graphics. I assume scaling would work for most applications on either platform. My upper range would be around $550-600.

Thanks for any guidance.

Click to expand...

I have a 28" 4k that is used for a variety of applications, including multi-windowed text, gaming, Web and photo stuff. Viewing distance is quite close, so for a single application such as MS-Word, I often operate in a window that is equivalent to a 24" monitor.

On a more day-to-day computer, the 27" 2k screen at a longer viewing distance is just about right. The 2k resolution is no handicap for photo editing.

Completing the story, my 24" 2k screen is ideal for its primary use, which is email.

If restricted to a single monitor, I'd go for 27" and 2560x1440.

Good news is that the monitors mentioned above only cost (USD) $400, $200 and $120, so the screen decisions are not financially constrained, as they would have been in the days of large CRT screens.

Thanks for the good advice.

I will buy from Amazon or B&H and have return options.

The PC laptop has Thunderbolt 3 and Iris Plus Graphics LPDDR4X. I believe that the Mac mini can drive 4k.

The 24" Dell is not bad, video looks excellent on it from a distance. It really is just the screen real estate horizontally would be improved with the larger monitor. I guess new furniture could accommodate two 24" monitors, so that I could add a 24" 2k monitor.

ElliotV said:

Thanks for the good advice.

I will buy from Amazon or B&H and have return options.

The PC laptop has Thunderbolt 3 and Iris Plus Graphics LPDDR4X. I believe that the Mac mini can drive 4k.

Click to expand...

I've found that even the most basic hardware will usually support 4k monitors.

My old travel laptop (AMD A4 with integrated graphics) drove the previously mentioned 28" 4k quite satisfactorily, albeit at only 30Hz refresh rate.

PHXAZCRAIG said:

I have two PC's in my office (main and backup). The main one has two 4K 27 inch monitors. The backup has a 2K 27 inch.

Hmm. The 2K just seems too big for the resolution, but it does make some things easier to read. The 4k is much 'smoother', but there are certainly times that I struggle to view certain things that don't scale well. (Or I haven't yet learned how to scale them). One example is remote control of PC's, which I do a lot of for work. I'm ready to pull out a magnifying glass to read some of the text on these remote-controlled PC's.

It depends on what you are looking at, and if it has a scaling option.

I'm thinking 24 inch is about the biggest I want for 2k (and I have four of these monitors in another office - they look great). 27 inch is the smallest I'd want for 4k, and I've been thinking for a year now that 32 inch is probably the 4k 'sweet spot' like 24 inch seems for 2k.

Click to expand...

I've been using a 4K 14" laptop for more than a year and I don't have problems with text being too small to read. It sounds like whatever software you are using for remote control isn't handling scaling properly.

I use Windows Remote Desktop for local computers on my LAN (that run Windows Pro). I use RemotePC from iDrive for PCs I need to access over the Internet (or are on my local net but have Windows Home.)

In general software that is programmed poorly and doesn't follow Microsoft's recommendations can have problems with scaling. Software that follows Microsoft's specs can be scaled by Windows, even if it is older and wasn't specifically designed for scaling. Some noteworthy examples of poorly designed software are older versions of Adobe software. That can't be scaled at all and have the very-tiny-fonts problem when used on high PPI monitors.)

Wayne

I still have not decided on which monitor to get. I really do not want to order and have to return one. I like the Dell U2415 pretty well, though it is just 1920x1200, it just is the size that is limiting.

It seems like the 2560x1440 might be the best solution, giving me more screen real estate, higher pixel density, and yet decent scalable type size. I will be using it with a M1 Mac mini most of the time, and occasionally with a PC laptop.

ElliotV said:

I still have not decided on which monitor to get. I really do not want to order and have to return one. I like the Dell U2415 pretty well, though it is just 1920x1200, it just is the size that is limiting.

It seems like the 2560x1440 might be the best solution, giving me more screen real estate, higher pixel density, and yet decent scalable type size. I will be using it with a M1 Mac mini most of the time, and occasionally with a PC laptop.

Click to expand...

ElliotV, you probably don't read all posts in this PC forum, but recently Batdude reported buying an amazingly low priced 27" 4K monitor from Philips for $248.


It's not like cameras, where too many megapixels can result in higher noise. As long as your graphics card can handle it, more screen resolution is always better.

Thanks, that looks good. One question from what someone said in a review, which is, "This DOES offer high res (3840x2160) for very crisp text, BUT you MUST use a display port cable to enable it."

Is that true of all 4k monitors or unique to this monitor or related to what is driving the monitor?

ElliotV said:

Thanks, that looks good. One question from what someone said in a review, which is, "This DOES offer high res (3840x2160) for very crisp text, BUT you MUST use a display port cable to enable it."

Is that true of all 4k monitors or unique to this monitor or related to what is driving the monitor?

Click to expand...

I use HDMI because the same cable can connect with our TV, and my laptop doesn't have DisplayPort. It has to be HDMI 2.0 though. HDMI 1.4 cannot refresh at 60Hz. So check your PC interfaces.

"Hardware Interface: DisplayPort, HDMI" says the Amazon page.

CAcreeks said:

ElliotV said:

Thanks, that looks good. One question from what someone said in a review, which is, "This DOES offer high res (3840x2160) for very crisp text, BUT you MUST use a display port cable to enable it."

Is that true of all 4k monitors or unique to this monitor or related to what is driving the monitor?

Click to expand...

I use HDMI because the same cable can connect with our TV, and my laptop doesn't have DisplayPort. It has to be HDMI 2.0 though. HDMI 1.4 cannot refresh at 60Hz. So check your PC interfaces.

"Hardware Interface: DisplayPort, HDMI" says the Amazon page.

Click to expand...

There may or may not be a problem with HDMI on the M1 Mac Mini, according to a link posted by one of the Mac Talk members in response to a question of mine:


I investigated a bit, but couldn't find a clear answer yesterday; I'll look around some more later today.

My laptop has HDMI 2.0

I went ahead and ordered the monitor and will check out how it works. I do not need a VESA mount or FastSync, and while USB-C seems good, I am going to have my dock attached to the limited ports on the Mac mini anyway since I need things like an SD card reader and Logitech camera.

ElliotV said:

My laptop has HDMI 2.0

Click to expand...

Yay!

ElliotV said:

I went ahead and ordered the monitor and will check out how it works.

Click to expand...

Make sure to check for dead pixels, and if you see any, return it or exchange it ASAP.